hermitkermit
hermitkermit
About
- Username
- hermitkermit
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,625
- Last Active
Comments
-
I've started lots of different discussions posts and I do see what you mean. Mostly about things that feel very hypocritical. I'm happy to say most of the time the conversations are very civil, though you will of course always run into some, "skill issue, git gud" comments on either side. But in my experience from posting quite a few discussions, there are more biased opinions leaning more towards one way. I don't think that means that there are necessarily more, as with the shift in the game in making killer the power role and making survival a 40%, more and more survivors have stopped playing so I don't think you see them on the forums as much.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I do think the killer should be in the power role. I wouldn't mind maybe a small percentage more of a possible chance of survival, as right now I feel the game is very punishing for the survivor role, you're expected to play without making mistakes and there's so many different killers to learn with different counters without any kind of tutorial or advice given. But I have to admit it feels good to play killer right now, much more than it used to. Idk I have a super hot take in my head but I don't think it's the time or place to share it, especially cause I don't want to offend anyone.
But yeah, I get what you mean.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3754684#Comment_3754684
It is difficult for me to understand why one has the ability to be defined and the other doesn't.I think I've already covered that I don't think tunneling has as clear an agreed definition as you do, but I'll agree it is clearer, but that's helped by having an easy to define standard. If the killer just looks at one survivor and no others until that survivor is eliminated, tunneling. The problem for gen rush definitions is that while there are lots of other ways a killer can play, if you aren't doing gens as a survivor there's really not much else to do. Even if you brought boons/inner healing, that's going to be a slight diversion from gens.
So you have a very muddy grey area on where survivors are gen rushing.
Like if an officer pulled me over for breaking a law, and when I asked him what the law is and why he had the right to pull me over he explains that his personal definition of the law meant I did something illegal, so he can pull me over for it. I'm breaking the law inhisperspective.This is kind of true though. So we have laws that have clear cut definitions, such as speeding, but also more subjective definitions, such as reckless driving. When does driving go from just being bad to reckless? (in my state defined as the "willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property"). Exact lines are a judgement call. That's the way many laws work where its up to a police officer, prosecutor, judge, and jury all to take steps to try and draw a line on where a law is defined.
I really should just accept that the majority of the community doesn't feel the need to take it seriously then I shouldn't either. It's like it's not even a real term at this point lol.It's worth pointing out that the community isn't really a unified group. Even if we all agreed here to a definition of what is and isn't gen rushing, would the reddit community, steam, twitter, tik tok, non-English speaking groups, etc. have the same definition? Words and phrases naturally drift in terms of what they mean (the fact that DbD keeps changing doesn't help) as each group uses it in slightly different ways.
I really appreciate you taking the time to respond. Honestly out of all replies, I think yours makes me understand the most, even if we don't necessarily agree. I believe gen-rushing, when the term was created, originially did have an easy to define standard, similar to how tunneling is, as you said, is easier to define. When a 4man used to come in with BNP, and their builds quite literally deemed, "gen-rush build", it was and was intended to be a gen-rush match. I think since those circumstances have changed from when that term was originally defined, now the meaning has become "detatched" somewhat. To put it very simply, I think gen-rushing used to have a clear definition, and what is gen-rushing now is not gen-rushing in regards to what the term originally meant. Now it's used as a sort've catch all, which I don't agree with personally.
To clarify, I still think it's possible to gen rush even though certain things have changed, like BNP, extended gen times, prove nerf etc. But I think the qualitifactions for what is conisdered gen-rushing, at least in my opinion, should be at least related or have in common with what the original definition of gen-rushing used to mean. I understand this is just a personal opinion, therefore it doesn't hold any weight, but I do believe it's based off of what the term originally meant as opposed to simply- I'm unsure how to say this without sounding disrespectful even though its' not my intent, but- as opposed to simply giving it a meaning that fits whatever specific circumstance I am in at that current point in time.
When it comes to your comment about the community, yes, you're absolutley right. It's very divided on practically all fronts. I will absolutely acknowledge that my perception is only what I've seen on youtube, reddit, and this forum, but I can say honestly that when it comes to tunneling, despite the differences in platforms and things, I've more often seen a more unified stance on it, and what constitutes as tunneling itself. And so it does still feel so strange that there is, in my opinion based off everythign I've been able to digest, the acceptance of the term tunneling and the requirements that make it so.
In any case, thank you so much for the replies!! It's been a pleasure! :)
-
Male: I find Jonah’s cosmetics to be very underwhelming and he’s sortve forgettable as a character tbh. He looks so out of place in my opinion. He just is kinda goofy lol
Female: Probably Haddie. Based on her lore with sensing suffering and being invested in exposing the cult I thought she would have more to offer but frankly her perks and cosmetics just…are disappointing.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752894#Comment_3752894
I mean I don’t think there’s a term for when a killer gets multiple hooks or downs quickly.Snowball.
I've seen it used in comp commentary and discussing killer strategies. An example would be: 'the killer is keeping the survivors injured and trying to set up a snowball' or 'Legions strength comes from his ability to snowball.'
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753016#Comment_3753016
This is why I feel a strong definition of what gen-rushing is is important, because it carries negative connotations. If a term is going to be used negatively, it's important to know what it truly means.So you're getting into the difference between denotations and connotations. Rarely do words/phrases have a strict denotation that clarifies both something being bad and a clear line about what it is and isn't. Definitions are bland and technical, its how we use the words that give them the connotation and feeling.
Lexicology is kind of a rabbit hole for discussions.
Through some replies to some other comments I definitely see the rabbit hole you're describing. The discussion went from, "This is what I think it means" to "It doesn't need a definition" to "It's in the perception of the victim". And in my head I'm like, but we've already done this before. Tunneling is the killer equivalent of gen rushing, but yet there is a very clear understanding of what tunneling is and what it isn't. It is difficult for me to understand why one has the ability to be defined and the other doesn't.
Someone before said I was thinking like a lawyer instead of a person playing a game haha. But it's just so strange for me to adopt a concept in which a term that is used to essentially accuse other people of doing something unfun/unfair is allowed to be decided based on whoever may feel that way no matter the circumstances.
Like if an officer pulled me over for breaking a law, and when I asked him what the law is and why he had the right to pull me over he explains that his personal definition of the law meant I did something illegal, so he can pull me over for it. I'm breaking the law in his perspective.
I do tend to overthink and my mind can complicate things, but this concept feels incredibly strange to me and frankly, only solidifies my thoughts that people just throw gen-rushing out anytime they're unhappy with the state of the game, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. But it's just a silly game at the end of the day so, I really should just accept that the majority of the community doesn't feel the need to take it seriously then I shouldn't either. It's like it's not even a real term at this point lol.
-
@RhodosGuard said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753497#Comment_3753497
But this can't happen. There cant be firm definitions when there is gameplay freedom.
In other games there is feeding. It is negatively connotated and usually boils down to intentionally dying over and over in order to sandbag your own team.
The problem is, that it can be hard to determine intent. So everyone calls it feeding, whether you are just bad at the game (equivalent to getting repeatedly found due to too much of a skill difference to your peers) or are actually doing it (equivalent to prioritizing instant kills)
The flexibility in the definition is also required, because otherwise you could just make them worthless.
If Tunneling is only the act of getting a single survivor hooked 3 times consecutively, then Hooking the same survivor twice, hooking another survivor and then hooking the first survivor again stops being tunneling.
So what would be a better definition for tunneling? The closest thing would be "attacking a recently unhooked survivor immediately after being hooked" but then Tunneling could simply be triggering the endurance hit? Maybe we reduce Tunneling to "getting hooked twice consecutively" but in that situation you remove the part survivors are actually upset about, which is that they are removed from the game immediately with no rest in between chases.
And with so many options in the game, you just cant boil these things people hate down to 1 definition.
I do think a lot of survivors abuse the word Tunneling.
For them Tunneling is just when they are the first person to die.
In the end, that's why those definitions need to be at least slightly open.
Tunneling is prioritizing fast kills by focusing a single player where possible.
When it comes to Gen-Rushing, I think because it is on a spectrum there is an acceptable range.
Everything that can happen naturally is often Okay, because it will be hard to keep that accidental synergy up for a long time.
4 Survivors that spawn together and get a 40 second Gen done is hard to sustain, so if that's the reason I get an early gen, it is acceptable.
If someone goes into trial with a Flashlight and then finds a yellow toolbox with a yellow addon and with 2 people the gen goes in 50 seconds or something, that's also not sustainable but slightly more so.
IF you visualize the spectrum as a line from accidental to intentional, then I think it starts getting toxic in the last third of that line. The point where your whole strategy is to make chases become counter-intuitive to the Killer because even if you get a hook, you'd have to tunnel to even get a kill, because gens go too fast.I think we may simply have to agree to disagree. I do think there are firm definitions even if you have freedom in game. Tunneling has a very firm definition. Slugging has a firm definition. Face camping has a firm definition. CJ tech is a specific tech. Etc. all this to say I believe gen rushing should also have a definition, especially since it is most often used in a negative way. I think terms are important in any context whether it be gaming, real life, rules, laws, etc.
If we can’t define it, we can’t understand it, and if we can’t understand it, we can’t understand eachother.
Again, I’m not trying to convince you of anything, but based on just how different both of us think, I’m not sure there would ever be a good stopping point. Thank you for the conversation though! I appreciate it.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
It’s a question with many different answers.
I know that I personally feel that I myself am gen rushing when I make it a point to always be on a generator no matter what. Making sure that at least one gen is being repaired at all times no matter what.
Just to clarify to ensure I am not misinterpreting your point, are you saying in your opinion that if 1 person is on a gen at all times it is considered gen-rushing? I can’t help but ask how progress should be made without at least one person being on a gen.
-
Wowzers. Very strange to see this game pop up on here <3 one of these characters is my favorite fictional character of all time- and it's not the one you think lol. To be honest though, I don't think LIS will ever come to DBD because it's not really horror, it does have some intense subject matter but frankly, it's more of a chill chose your own adventure game with very small moments of scary. I adore the 1st LIS, again for reasons that people don't like/agree with, but it's just not the same genre as DBD I think.
But hey, ya never know right? meet you in the mosh pit shaka brah
-
The problem is if a game is going poorly very early on there's often no comeback chance/incentive to stick around. I just had a match today where the killer got a down less than 30 seconds into the match. The person immediately tried to off themselves 1st hook, got to 2nd, and then another teammate took them off hook and the killer came back and just downed them both. It's not as if there's any mercy given when a selfish teammate throws.
It's typically a death sentence for everyone involved so some people just don't want to try and win an already unbeatable game. I did stick around, and I did manage to loop him for a bit but it didn't matter. Everyone died quick, got barely any points and obviously it wasn't a good time.
I don't blame the killer, I gave them a ggs, cause I'm not going to be mad they didn't ease up even if it would've been apprecaited. It sucks that 1 person threw like that, but to expect the rest of the team to stick around and play like they have a fair chance is..well… I'm not sure. The killer isn't obligated to go easy on you. But if the 40% chance of survival dwindles to even less than that because you have someone on dead hook at 5 gens, honestly, what's the point of sticking around if the whole team wants to give up and the killer wants an easy win? Idk it's a complicated issue.
I thought I'd add to this, at the beginning of the match survivors are their strongest. All pallets are up, everyone is healthy. And if within a minute into the game a single gen hasn't popped yet and you've got someone on dead hook already or three or four hooks spread out…when you're at your strongest- the chances of survival are extremely low. Things will not get easier. It's like being in a boss fight, even if you just restarted your run- if they get a good hit and your health is already down like 70%, chances are most will just let themselves die and try and reset because they know the effort to try and win isn't worth it due to the chances of survival.
-
@RhodosGuard said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752979#Comment_3752979
You are not optimizing Gen-Repair Speed if you dont bring items or perks.
The reason I brought up the situation with a pre-first hook gen repair, is that it's not fun.
Of course it can happen by circumstance. All Survivors spawn together, 3 of them work on one gen immediately, they get it done quick.
But with quick pops, it's unlikely, that it just so happened, that the stars aligned for them.
Toolboxes are just the easiest step in the equation.
A single Toolbox allows a single Survivor to repair a gen in a Minute.
With 2 People the default Time (without Boxes) is already only 52 seconds.
The point is, that you have very little opportunity to stop people who really optimize this time, if you commit to any chase.
You might as well not chase a single survivor at all, unless you know where the others are, and what they are doing, because simply committing even just a minute to a chase, even if you get a down/hook, has the potential of up to 3 gens popping. At the beginning of a game. Of course the less optimized the rush is, the less gens pop.
For me the frustration comes from how little I get to chase my main objective. Killers are supposed to hit, down and hook.
But the priority of the gameplay loop that furthers this goal is constantly challenged by the requirement of slowdown.
I have to invest more time into making sure the enemy doesnt fulfil their objective, that fulfilling my own objective plays second fiddle to that.
The best solution was if chasing, hitting and downing was actually a good way to stop generator progress, but it isnt.
That's the reason people started using Regression perks more aggressively, which is why, post-nerf, people run even more regression. These perks allow Killers to connect the dots. Pain Res regresses when you Hook. Pop is burst regression if you Hook. Surge is AoE Regression if you down. Oppression is AoE Regression if you break a gen.
Gen-Rushing is on a spectrum.
That ranges from unintentionally getting a single gen in 40 seconds becaus the killer spawned on the other side of map, and you spawned as a four right next to one, to 3 people with Toolboxes repairing 3 gens in 60 seconds.I understand your perspective, even if I do disagree. I explained it in an earlier reply to someone else, but essentially in my opinion, because gen-rushing has negative connotations, similar to tunneling, I believe a firm and strict definition is important, which does contradict your belief that it is a spectrum. I don’t believe you can accidentally gen-rush, just as I don’t believe you can accidentally tunnel. Mostly because I don’t believe intent changes the outcome.
Because gen-rushing, just like tunneling, is seen by majority of the playerbase as something negative, it feels wrong to allow it to be a catch-all. Calling someone a tunneler or a gen-rusher is usually not said without negative intention. Which is why I don’t believe it should be determined solely on the feelings of the killer if they have been gen-rushed or not. Just like a person may feel they have been tunneled but if they were not hooked consecutively then they were not. If it wasn’t used as a negative term then I don’t think a definition would be necessary.Anyways, I’m not trying to change your mind or convince you or anything so I think I’ll end this here. But again, thanks so much for the respectful discussion. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts in any possible future posts.
-
@RhodosGuard said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753016#Comment_3753016
Tunneling is a strategy to fast track an objective. This was/is just a thing Killers could do. Yes it was unfun, but it was a gameplay decision. "I want to get Kills, I get Kills faster and safer if I remove the Survivors quickly 1-by-1"
Gen-Rushing is a strategy to fast Track an objective. Survivors can do that. It is a gameplay decision.
"It's easier to escape if I give the killer has as little time as possible to catch anyone"
Both of these are born from the desire to "win"
They are both considered "bad" and "toxic"
I think one of them is seen as less serious than the other.
Both strategies have received counterplay. Mostly in the form of perks.
But it seems like now people also deem Regression perks toxic. So I dunno what to think here.
I think both of these can be defined, but some definitions are jank by nature.
Tunneling is the strategy of actively focusing your efforts on killing a single survivor, actively ignoring others.
There can be "accidental tunneling" which happens if a survivor has been matched far outside of his skill level and therefore just ends up repeatedly being found and chased and downed. But I dont think that should count as tunneling because then it is not being done actively (which may be "intent" like people above mentioned) but for a generally accepted definition, this serves pretty well.
As for gen-rushing I also said what I believe it to be.
It's an umbrella term for strategies that optimize gen repair speed, and exists in a spectrum.I appreciate your perspective. It does give a little insight to what feels to be very, a "wild west" of terms. And while I personally don't think gen-rushing should be used as a sort've catch-all due to its negative connotations, I do appreciate you taking the time to voice your thoughts and opinions in a respectful way. Even if we don't agree 100%, thanks for sharing a different kind of perspective. gliyn!
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752994#Comment_3752994
I agree that it is an opinion at this point.
On the second part though I don't really agree 100%, while yes you can tunnel on any killer, there are killers that are much better at tunneling than others. Executioner, Huntress, Trickster, Hillbilly, Cannibal ect. In order to tunnel "as efficiently as possible" as you put it, that's not something every killers can do, there are killers that do it better and you have to pick one of those. Opposed to a killer for example such as Legion who are worse at it.
Likewise a survivor can gen rush basekit as per the definition I subscribe to, but certain builds let you do it much better.
But for the killer role you don't need to be "as efficient as possible" to be deserving of the moniker, but on survivor you do as per the "full build" definition.
But at the end I believe its still just opinions on both ends. But I appreciate your explanation on why you see it the way you do.
Hey, thanks for sharing your opinons as well. We may not agree 100%, but I really appreciate you taking the time to share you thoughts and doing so respectfully. I wish you luck in your future games!
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752975#Comment_3752975
Exactly, you believe it is accusatory, therefore you feel you need a solid definition to defend yourself against such accusation. You're thinking like a lawyer.
But a solid definition only exists if all agree upon it, or if it's irrefutable fact, which this can never be. There is no law to apply here.
Or, you choose to define it as a matter of perspective, without intent being a factor, and it's no longer accusatory. It becomes a truth of the person who experiences it.
If It's not accusatory, then you don't need to define it according to intent. There is no need for a defence.
I have no qualms accepting that I may have tunneled someone, if that's their experience. Denying it as such doesn't help the situation, it just causes everyone to double down on their opposing sides. Instead, you can say "yes I tunneled, it was not my intention". It's a more honest position to take, and the person accusing you can go away knowing they weren't targetted intentionally. If you pull out a defensive retort, they're likely to think you're being disingenuous, "they claim they weren't tunneling but I know they were" which feeds into the cycle of toxicity.
You can choose to interact like lawyers, or you can choose to interact like people playing a game for fun.
Oh! You know, you're 100% right. I believe I understand where you're coming from now. I do think it's accusatory, as in my experience and based on what I've seen in games and forum discussions, gen-rushing is considered "bad" or "toxic."
I view gen-rushing similarly to tunneling. Despite neither being against the rules and both being accepted as valid playstyles, they are both generally acknowledged to be very unfun and can feel unfair. This is why I feel a strong definition of what gen-rushing is is important, because it carries negative connotations. If a term is going to be used negatively, it's important to know what it truly means.
I can see how if you or others don't view it as negative, just like tunneling, then you wouldn't feel the need for a strict definition. However, the term gen-rushing, like tunneling, was created because these behaviors were prevalent and disliked. Both terms explain the choices of another player in a way that is typically intended to be negative, even if it's stated as a fact.
This is kind of a dumb example but it may clear up what I mean: Someone may be "fat," but calling them "fat," while accurate, is usually not said without negative intention. Similarly, calling someone a tunneler or a gen-rusher is typically negative, even if factually accurate.
Therefore, I believe it is important to be able to define these terms clearly. I understand now though, that you don't personally believe it needs to be defined.
-
@MrPenguin said:
Depends on who you ask.
Imo and to many it's when the survivors are being super efficient on gens. Splitting on gens at the start, getting 3 done in the first chase, getting on a gen the moment the killer even looks away from the area ect.
To others you need an entire dedicated build to be gen rushing. Which to me feels strange because it's not like you need a "tunnel build" or killer (like Executioner) to be considered doing the killer objective "too efficiently".
I do see the, "depends on who you ask", as so many people have different versions of what they believe it is, but I believe at that point it is no longer a fact or definition, it is an opinion. Tunneling does not depend on opinion, and I don't believe gen-rushing should either. I do believe that in order for it to be gen-rushing you do go in with an entire build and team specifically dedicated for gens, and the playstyle will reflect that (letting people die on 1st hook instead of leaving gens, refusing to heal etc.) it's when you tunnel gens, essentially.
When it comes to your point about feeling strange about how some (like myself) believe gen-rushing is only gen-rushing if they bring a build/items to do it, and that killers can still tunnel without bringing a build/add-ons, here is the difference in my opinion.
In order to be as effective as possible in tunneling, you do not need any perks or add ons to do so as every killer can do it base-kit. In order to be as effective as possible in gen-rushing you need to bring certain perks and items because you cannot do it base-kit.
-
@RhodosGuard said:
Basically, if you start the game.
And you get into chase.
And you get a down.
Within let's say a Minute, and 1 or more gens pop.
You have been gen-rushed.
It's any strategy in which the time to repair has been optimized in a way that allows for very little counterplay.
How this is achieved can vary.
I'd say it's more likely to be encountered in SWF games, where you can have a dedicated runner, that intentionally seperates, so that during the first chase that happens you can have setups with either 3 people on one gen, or 2 people on one gen, and one solo on a gen.
The overarching point is the optimization of gen repair speed though.If those are the only requirments for "gen-rushing", this essentially implies that if any gen progress is made before "X" amount of hooks, it is gen-rushing, regardless. Regardless of perks, items, map pressure etc. I'm sorry, I just am struggling to find the logic in that, as that could imply that repairing gens- at all is gen-rushing. Even if those survivors are playing with no items or perks of any kind, it would be considered gen-rushing.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752909#Comment_3752909
I agree that the strictest definition, from the most objective, external/impartial perspective, would have to be one that includes intent.
But what difference does intent make to the one on the receiving end of it?
This survivor has still spent all their time in this match either in chase or on a hook, they've still been eliminated early and left with a poor score, they still haven't had the opportunity to do anything else and their experience has been dictated by the actions of others (the killer, and the other survivors for letting it happen).
But the killer didn't intend it so it's all ok? The survivor is still going to feel the way they feel.
Likewise, the killer may feel that they've done everything in their power to find, track, chase and pressure survivors. But if 5 gens still pop in under five minutes, they're bound to feel they've been cheated.
I'm not saying survivors need to slow down, or that killers need to avoid logical targets and let survivors go. There's another issue here whereby people are infering blame when the terms 'genrush' and 'tunnel' are being used. People get defensive when they're accused of these things.
These strict definitions that rely on intent are only there because we don't want to feel like we are culpable for the circumstances we're given, because we don't want to be acused of something we didn't intend.
But if the definition doesn't rely on intent, then the accusation isn't inherent anyway. You can say "oh sorry I didn't mean to tunnel" instead of getting defensive and saying "akshully it's not tunneling".
And I think that's a much healthier attitude to hold.
I suppose where we disagree is that I believe you need a strict definition in order to define what happened. If what happened is not the definition, then it didn't happen, regardless of personal feelings. I don't believe tunneling/gen-rushing is subjective.
In your example of someone feeling as if they were tunneled even though they were not above, you explain you feel it's defensive by saying "akshully it's not tunneling". I agree it is defensive, because someone is accusing you of something, however I believe that if someone accuses you of something you did not do, there should be no guilt in denying it, and it should not be discouraged.
I think it's a healthy attitude to own up to choices and mistakes regardless of your intent behind them, and I feel as if accusing someone of something that did not happen, even if it felt like it did, is wrong. It's wrong to accuse someone of tunneling if they didn't tunnel. It's wrong to accuse someone of gen-rushing if they didn't gen-rush.
The point of this post was to try and understand what people believe "gen-rushing" to mean. From the replies it's apparent that everyone has their own "definiton" of what it means, but then it's no longer a definition, it's an opinion.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752894#Comment_3752894
It's just as disingenuous as the similar situation in regards to tunneling.
You get unhooked, 20 seconds later youre being chased by the killer, then you get hooked again.
Meanwhile the killer perspective is: they hooked you, they ran across the map, they found and chased another survivor, they hooked them, they made their way back to the gens, found no one, then you got unhooked, so they make their way back to the hook, but the survivor who unhooked you is hiding and you're the only one the killer can find.
The killer isn't technically tunneling, but all you've managed to do all game is run and die. From your perspective, you're being tunneled out.
There are two perspectives in play. It's not a case that only one of those perspectives has the right to define what is happening.
I would say that this is circumstantial tunneling, which is far less egregious than intentionally tunneling, but the survivor isn't wrong for feeling they were tunneled.
Exactly the same applies to genrushing.
People may have opinions on what tunneling is, but I believe there is a clear cut definition of it. If a killer hooks nobody else but that person 3 times, it’s tunneling, even if they do it simply because they’re unable to find someone else or the others are too difficult to catch. In my opinion, intention doesn’t dictate what tunneling is, or what anything is even in life. You may not have intended to hurt someone by something you said or did but that doesn’t change the fact that you did. Just because you may not have meant to or wanted to doesn’t mean you didn’t do it. I myself have done this when I play killer, realizing I’ve only found 1 person and so because I personally do not support tunneling, I will literally just leave them. It’s a choice to tunnel. The only time I can agree it not being something helped is if all survivors are wearing the same outfit and they’re all anonymous. Then yeah, you probably can’t tunnel because you can’t make the choice to haha.
I don’t think you can accidentally tunnel, just like I don’t think you can accidentally gen-rush. But not everything is tunneling, and not everything is gen-rushing. I believe both have specific circumstances that must be met in order for those terms to be accurate.Perspective and intent, in my opinion, does not change fact that it’s a choice you made. Claiming you don’t have a choice feels like a refusal to own up to your own actions.
Btw if this is coming across as hostile or disrespectful in any way please know it isn’t. I respect your opinions and appreciate having this conversation.
-
@Seraphor said:
Similarly to how 'tunneling' is subjective to the perspective of the 'victim' (you can be walking away, hooking someone else, then reencounter the last survivor who feels they're being tunneled), genrushing is often one of those things that comes down to how fast the killer feels gens have been repaired.
Survivors can be doing nothing wrong, just using the opportunity they have to repair gens, but if you see 3 pop before you've scored a down and then all 5 are repaired within 5 minutes, I can't see how you can disagree that that is a 'rush' scenario.
The other scenario is when an individual prioritises gens above all other considerations to the detriment of the team. Someone is on a hook, someone else is slugged, and the last is being chased, and you still sit on a gen while the hooked goes to 2nd stage or dies. That's a genrush.
Hm, perhaps it’s just the word “rush” that feels out of place? Rush implies urgency, like it’s done hastily. If you have nothing else to do but the gen because the killer is occupied, I don’t feel like it’s “rushing” unless again you have a build/team dedicated to doing nothing but gens. But if someone is in chase and doing well and 3 people are on 3 separate gens and it pops, it feels very disingenuous to say they’re all “rushing” when they’re just doing the objective. Is the solution to just do totems or chests? I mean I don’t think there’s a term for when a killer gets multiple hooks or downs quickly. They’re not “rushing” in my opinion, it’s the only objective they have and they’re doing well. I’ve never been in a game in which the killer was expected or has gone out of their way to just stop hooking because only 1 gen got done and everyone’s on dead hook. That’s not expected of killer players.
It feels like people are saying that if gens get done at which a pace the killer doesn’t like, it is considered gen-rushing, regardless if they have a certain build, items, perks. With this mentality it would mean if gens get completed before x amount of hooks, they’re gen-rushing, even with no items and perkless. I’m sure that isn’t the case, which is why I was hoping people would be able to give a definitive answer.But honestly the replies seem to be “the killer decides if it’s gen rushing or not” lol
Thanks for taking the time to reply though! -
@crogers271 said:
Through some replies, it's seems as though there is no "definition" of gen-rushing as everyone has their own "defition" of it, which seems like it shouldn't even be a real term since there isn't a definition for it.Ask ten people what the definition for words like 'conservative' or 'liberal' are and you might get ten different answers. It's a normal thing about language not really connected to DbD, the more a word applies to a concept the less firm of a definition it is going to have.
It's why in discussions, especially text based internet ones, people need to be clear in what they are referencing or else conversation can derailed as people actually discuss different things.
I understand what you mean, but it doesn't quite feel the same when the counterpart, tunneling, has a very clear cut definition. I think replies to the post somewhat prove my point, that nobody really knows what "gen-rushing" is, because in today's game it simply doesn't exist like it did at the time in which the term was originally coined. The comments confirmed my concern that everyone just says "gen-rushing " even when it isn't.
-
I agree with this! I also think that prestige should be hidden as well. It offers nothing beneficial and is often used to target someone, which is weird cause most who play the game a lot know prestige doesn’t mean anything, but yet so many p100 get tunneled out as quickly as possible.
But yeah, I don’t see why offerings have to be displayed before the match.
-
I think the saddest thing is that this mindset came from the community itself. Everyone pushed for the right to be able to play the game however you want regardless of how it may affect the other side. And then it got surprised at how the community lacks empathy, plays selfishly, and insults, demonizes, and belittles one another… over a video game.
Kind of a monster of our own making really. -
Looping is the only skill required element of survivor gameplay. When you take away looping the entire gameplay becomes skill checks, so in a way you take away the most meaningful gameplay. Things like tunneling, camping, and slugging have nothing to do with skill and are not a necessary nor an intended way to win the game.
If you want to compare all of those tactics to looping, then simply put, Killers don’t need to do those things to win, and survivors need to loop to win.
-
I feel this perk combo is strong, but for two perk slots it definitely should be, but maybe some kind of aura revealing where the items is after "x" amount of time could be added. I recently faced this combo on the swamp and the grass made it like finding a needle in a haystack.
I don't think the idea of giving it a soft nerf of some kind is unfair even though it's half the killers build, as survivors are expected to do the same if they don't want to get tunneled, not to mention lightborn could negate a few perks as well. So it's not as if there isn't an equivalent.
-
Many killers are deemed weak by the community despite evidence to the contrary, like kill rates and win streaks. Imo, it's important to remember that the community created these tier lists, and it's mostly based on opinion/personal preferences. I don't believe the devs release a killer character that they genuinely believe/designed/intended to be "weak". Each killer has different strengths and weaknesses and can benefit greatly from certain perks and playstyles and even maps; some base-kits are stronger than others (nurse, blight, etc.) but none of them are designed to be "trash." Just as Skull Merchant's high kill rates are more than likely due to players going on first hook, I believe Ghostface's kill rates might also be higher than reported because he is often played as a meme killer. I'm one such meme Ghostface killer, hehe. I wouldn't worry about what the community thinks too much, as there's alot of bias (we're humans it can't be helped lol).
Glad you're having fun :)
-
@ChaosWam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746249#Comment_3746249
It's odd to me because the only times I get into those situations as killer is when survivors rush to a corner they know only has one or two accessible hooks so the last two can stall indefinitely by rushing to it once those hooks are gone.
Yeah, it’s a tactic for sure. Similarly , when I play killer and I know pallets have been used in a certain area, I’ll zone them towards there in chase for a down. If you know your opponent has used up resources, you can take advantage of that.
-
I think people are upset because it was the equivalent of survivors accidentally 3-genning themselves. As in if a killer sticks to one side of the map and just patrols those gens and hooks on that side, it gets to a point where they are forced to slug because they used up the hooks on one side of the map. They created a hook dead zone.
People were mad when anti 3-gen came out too, as 3-genning was seen as a result of survivors own misplays or lack of map sense. Hooks used to be like that too. Now depending on the generator placement, a killer might not have to leave part of the map at all, and still be able to hook everyone on the same side they’re patrolling gens at. You don’t have to think about your hooks anymore now really, you can kinda just go to whatever one you see first.
I think it’s a healthy overall change but I can understand some concerns. -
@Junylar said:
If survivors have one single perk that turns off half of killer perks, can we have the same for killers? Like a perk that keeps all survivors permanently exhausted or something? Without it being a hex, of course, since Distortion is not a boon either.
Lightborn is a good example of a perk that doesn't require anything (not even tokens) and completely counters several perks and items. The game is designed to be able to find survivors without perks at all, with scratchmarks, blood pools, crows and grunts of pain. You don't need aura perks to find survivors, but they definitely help, similarly to WOO, you don't need it to loop but it can help. I understand your frustration about the possibility of an entire build being negated because of a perk, as on the survivor end, it's common to get tunneled out of the game quickly unless you have a build dedicated to counter something that killers can do perkless.
I think it's easy to become too perk dependent in DBD, with survivors relying on exhaustion and second chance perks, and killers relying on aura and slowdown. Might not be a bad idea to play perkless for a few matches, just to get a gauge on pure skill alone, and seeing where your game sense is at. I do this often, and it's helped me not to be so relient on certain perks or metas.
I wish you luck in your future games!
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3744416#Comment_3744416
No game requires you to communicate with other people, well maybe among us or mafia, but even then you can decide not to.. The point is that other games give you the option to communicate, if you want to then go for it, if not don't. It is rather simple. You are not required to do anything. Also being unique is not necessarily something good, dbd has one of the least user friendlier options menus, because you can barely change graphics options or customize hot keys and prevent double functions there, that is very unique for a modern game, but it is also not something good as it is a step in the wrong direction... Games from 20 years ago had better options for the user to customize, which is actually quite embarrassing for bhvr...
If you like the challenge great, nobody forces you to communicate, you can just mute everyone and continue playing as you want to.
I don't think adding voice chat leads to the assumption of players making no mistakes anymore? They don't suddenly become professional loppers or anything like that?
I understand that most games offer options to mute chat, but I actually appreciate that DBD doesn't include this feature. In my opinion, it creates a more unique and challenging game experience. When it comes to being unique, I guess I just disagree with you because I think DBD has done very well over the past eight years. I agree tutorials are pretty garbage, and information needs to be made more attainable without needing to look up outside sources, but I think the dedicated playerbase and having newer players still coming in happesn because the game is unique and fun. While there's always room for improvement, that's part of the deal with any live-service game.
I understand why they don't allow graphic settings to be adjusted, as the dark ambiance is a crucial aspect of the game, and gameplay could suffer if things were made too bright. I agree customizable hotkeys would be nice, but I don't think the game is suffering without them, as it's not a game that requires many buttons to begin with.
My comment about players not making mistakes isn't about adding voice chat making them perfect. It's about considering the lack of communication when balancing the game. You can't expect four strangers who aren't in communication to play perfectly, and players shouldn't have to be flawless to have a decent chance at winning. Survival rates are right where BHVR wants them though, at a 40%, so I think the balancing already takes wiggle room into account, which I think is good.
-
I feel DBD Survivor is unique in that it's a mutliplayer game that doesn't require you to have to talk to other people. It offers a different kind of challenge that I enjoy. That being said I think the game should be flexible, allowing room for mistakes rather than expecting perfection from four seperate people without communication in order to win. I don't think that comms would be too strong for survivor, as we have evidence that disproves that, but I don't think it's necessary. I feel like the hud was a perfect way to add information without comms.
-
I have a theory that it's not specific killers people dislike, but the types of players those killers attract. For example, bubba is notorious for a certain playstyle regarding basements. SM is linked with the 3 gen strategy, which made her popular. PH is associated with tunneling because his cages make it easy. The same goes for certain survivors or cosmetics, like pink-haired neas or base-skin dwight.
I think Vecna is still too new to have a stereotypical playstyle associated with him. Of course, I'm not saying that not every player using a particular character will play in a specific way, but it happens often enough for stereotypes to form, leading to assumptions and negativity.
-
@Rauy556 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3743369#Comment_3743369
I by no means meant that blight is not strong, he is arguably the 2nd best killer in the game (maybe 3rd cos of Billy), my main point (and rereading my post it was definitely not well developed by me) was that balancing and complaining about a killer's strenght solely based on how counterable they are at 'low' skill levels is just not logical or reasonable imo. Since if he is easy to counter but requires a lot of input from the player then it is just not rewarding to play him and dedicate time.
The main issue I fear is not due to the killer design itself but due to DBD matchmaking and how poorly it judges a player's individual skill, this leads to (as you mentioned) blights being able to easily deal with lower skill survivors who find themselves in higher MMR brackets than they should. If this mathcmaking system was improved, then that aspect of both blight and nurse would be severely minimized (noob stomping), this would also mean that 'better' survivors would match up against these 'skilled' blights and then it would be a more even playing field for both sides.
One can only hope BHVR improves their matchmaking system tho :(
I think I understand what you're saying, but we may still disagree. I find it disingenuous to label the majority of players as "low skill." Prioritizing the top 5% of players over the majority seems unfair. The majority of the player base shouldn't have to adapt to the standards of the top 5%, and nothing—be it a killer, perk, or item or whatever—should only be counterable by the highest-skilled players. Imo, blight and nurse have such strong base kits that they already exceed the average skill level of most players. When combined with certain perks, playstyles, maps,they can easily dominate, as evidenced by their kill streaks.
I've made a similar point before, but I'll use this example again: if one or two students struggle with an assignment while the rest of the class does fine, it's probably just a personal skill issue between the two. However, if 75% of the class struggles, the assignment is probably too difficult. In my opinion, the majority of the survivor player base is average in skill—not low, not high. Blight dominates both low-skill and average-skill players, which is why many people may dislike facing him.
If you believe that nearly 2,000 consecutive 4ks with blight only happened because of consistently failed matchmaking, it feels a little tin-foil-hat, respectfully.
In any case, thank you for taking the time to give your perspective. gliyn gamer :)
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3742899#Comment_3742899
But Nurse is pretty much the same, beatable if the players know what to do...
But then once again, if the survivor players don't match the killer players skill, should he not win? The issue is ofc that basically one weak link is enough to fairly easily get the advantage in a match, but that once again is a major issue with matchmaking, the players should be on the same level so that there is no weak link that is much easier to get rid of. I don't think Blight has no wiggle room, his chase interaction had a lot of variety and different things you could do, it is just that unlike other killers he can punish misplays, most killers just cannot in such a way and you can mess up way more without man consequences, the question is just how much are the players be able to mess up before the killer should be able to capitalize on that...
I don't think that is an argument about the number of people, this fully depends of what is expected of them... The question should be is this too hard to achieve and not is it something people inherently do right... Sometimes counterplay is rather unintuitive and might need a few changes, but the question we need to ask in the first place is whether it is something the players are physically able to do, if so they can learn it, the question now is just about the appropriate amount of time it should take. So let's make this more practical... Let's say the killer has 4 types of skill layers and 4 types of counterplay to match those layers... Layer 1 for counterplay 1, layer 2 for counterplay 2 and so on. My point is that if the killer is capable to do skill level 1, then to match his skill you need to able to do counterplay 1. Of course people exaggerate when they say things like I only get matched with comp level blights but I don't really think there is an issue in the basic design when there is counterplay available that you just need to learn... The killer took the time to learn the killer, the survivors need to learn how to play against the killer, seems fair to me... The issue arises when one side has it way easier to learn it's part... But until now nobody brought up the point that mastering Blight is too easy but mastering his counterplay is too hard, or something similar...
My argument was if one side has the more skilled player why should this side not win? The killer character is just the tool, and it should only translate the players skill into the game, the character should neither buff nor nerf the skill of the player... And all people said above is that they get trashed by Blight players with way more hours or that were quite experienced on Blight... If you get matched with a player more experienced than yourself you should expect a loss to be more reasonable than a win... The outcome should be around 50 50 with equal skill but in such cases this just cannot be expected. If I play chess against a chess grandmaster I cannot expect the same odds to win like when I play against someone on a more equal level of skill compared to mine.
In a perfect world, matchmaking would create more balanced matches, but that doesn't mean certain killers/perks aren't strong or overpowered. You mention Nurse, saying she's "beatable if players know what to do." This is surprising because many/most pepole in the game reagardless of killer main or survivor main agree that Nurse is fundamentally unfair and overpowered, because her power is basically a cheat. Just because people have won against her doesn't make her any less oppressive, as is the case with Blight. These killers have winstreaks in the thousands, and I feel it is unreasonable to say it is only because of facing unskilled survivors due to poor matchmaking. Assuming they only win because of bad matchmaking and not because they are just inherently strong shows a strong bias.
The issue with survivor skill not matching killer skill is significant. To have a chance at winning, all four survivors need to be equally skilled to match one killer, which is inherently imbalanced. The game is designed for killers to be stronger to make the 1v4 dynamic work, so the killers "skill" is already higher by default. Expecting the entire opposing team to lose (excluding hatch) if even one of them is a "weak link" which again, just means a player who makes a mistake, is not indicative of a "balanced" or "fun" opponent.
If your argument is that a more skilled player should win, it depends on what you mean by skill. In a 1v1, the killer always wins. In a 1v4 with no perks, items, or add-ons, the better skilled player(s) should win. However, this isn't always the case due to other factors in the game that can change outcomes drastically: maps, perks, add-ons, items, "playstyles" like slugging or tunneling, and perk synergy all impact game results. Combining these factors with a killer who is already strong without any of those things creates an oppressive opponent that can feel unfairly matched.
Personally, I think Blight is in a decent spot, but that doesn't mean he isn't strong. He often tears apart teams rather than struggling against them, as shown by stats and winstreaks, and many players' experiences support this. This is why people may not enjoy facing a killer who feels very punishing. I usually like the challenge, but I'm not surprised other people may not.
Basically to end this, your question was why people "hate going against blight" and your position seems to be that blight isn't that strong and it's just bad matchmaking. I disagree, I feel there is plently of evidence to support that he is strong regardless of matchmaking, and I was just explaining why I believe people don't enjoy going against him. You can disagree, that's completely fine. I'm not trying to sway minds here I'm just trying to give a little insight as to why people really struggle with this speedy boy.
I wish you fun in your future matches! gliyn gamer
-
@Mortecaii said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3742929#Comment_3742929
From my experience, I can see people sticking around til the end, probably to see what perks I use, then leave. If your gonna do that, why not say GG then? Oh right, It's probably because the lost the game, so It's only a GG when they win.
Well when bringing in personal exprerience and opinions obviously there is no way to prove/disprove that. But my point still stands. GG has nothing to do with DBD and has everything to do with gaming as a whole. Again, you can be offended, but that is your choice to be offended, not because someone actually is trying to offend you..
-
@HexHuntressThighs said:
Imagine having a permanent 24 meter killer instinct placed on you at all times. SWFs are incredibly strong for that reason, me and my friends aren’t that great considering 3 of them are almost brand new and I only have a few hundred hours on survivor but we constantly win whenever we choose to. Unless of course it’s Nurse, Blight, Plague or Wesker.
The killer has essentially no element of surprise at all because me and the others constantly call out their almost exact locations and what direction they are heading. Easily letting a teammate across the map know the killer is going for them so they can hide behind a wall and not be found.Not to mention coordinating all our perks and calling out when and where we are going down and so on. I guarantee if Nurse and Blight didn’t exist, survivors could easily get a 1,000 plus escape streak. I can have my friends bring the best tool box in the game with double charges all running BTL, SW, SB and Scav or Resil and we can win pretty much anytime we want. S Tier killers permitting and item counts permitting. But it’s just not very fun.
Tl; Dr: SWFs are OP because of the insane info and coordination capabilities, and could win more often if they played super sweaty
Regardless of personal opinions or experiences (that cannot be proven and have a bias), the statistics show that SWF is not as overpowered as you claim, at least in the current state of the game. Even among the top 5% of players, a four-man SWF team has less than a 50% chance of survival. Balancing the game based on the top 5% of survivors but not considering the top 5% of killers is a clear double standard. Yes it's true, statistics aren't everything, but those numbers do not come out of thin air.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3742783#Comment_3742783
If you're finding practically every killer of the game unfun, you don't enjoy the game.
My guess is that it's not necessarily the killers themselves but the kinds of tactics that are used or the attraction of certain playstyles that certain killers bring about. Stereotypes. Like camping bubbas, 3 gen SM, blendettes, neas with pink hair. It's not so much who you use it's how you use them, and sometimes people use them in the same way so often that people stop seperating the tactic/playstyle from the character.
-
The issue is that your perception is subjective, and you're assuming the other person's intentions. This situation reminds me of when I said God bless you to someone who sneezed and they got very upset because they were not religious. Obviously nobody says gg or bless you with ill intentions- these are common courtesies. You can be offended but expecting everyone to share your way of thinking based on your personal interpretation, regardless of the intention behind the words is not fair.
Also I would like to add; the idea that people only say gg when they win can tend to happen because if they die they're not going to stick around just spectating a strangers match just to say gg at the end. It doesn't mean they don't wish you a gg but typically unless they have a friend, or the match is clsoe and they want to see who wins, they won't stick around.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3742798#Comment_3742798
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions... If a really good player is winning against really bad players that does not make the character he is playing overturned, that just puts even more focus on matchmaking being bad…
Killers should enable players to get really good results if they are good enough, that would be the best case scenario, the issue is just that matchmaking puts the comp level Blight with a bunch of bad players together in one match. Blight is not overtuned.
I understand your point about matchmaking, but I believe the issue is more complex than just player skill level. It's important to consider that not all characters are designed equally, nor are the roles survivor and killer. While skill is obviously important certain killers/perks may inherently have advantages that make them overpowering regardless of matchmaking. Blaming it all on matchmaking assumes that because a good player can beat other players with a killer/perk, the killer/perk is not overpowered or strong and that is not always the case. Nurse is a great example of this.
Blight can feel extra oppresive because if the team isn't uniformly skilled,he can dominate the match easily. And when it comes to the survivor role where teamwork is crucial, blights ability doesn't allow for minor mistakes without severe consequences. "bad" usually means "mistakes" and to expect a group of strangers with no communicaiton to play perfectly without making mistakes is unrealistic and unfair and should never be the case for either side. There should always be some wiggle room.
If majority of people struggle against a certain thing, I don't think it's unfair or unreasonable to believe that the thing itself is strong/difficult and may be in need of changes of some kind instead of blaming the majority for not being able to adapt/manage it. (personally i think blight is in a good spot right now aside from the bug but i mean this in more of a general way)
I don't agree with the mentality of "it's not good you're all just bad." You can use this mentality to justify anything no matter how unfair it is simply by insisiting that whatver side is struggling just sucks, even if statistics, experiences, or majoirty opinions say otherwise. That's goes for both sides. Old MFT, twins ptb, Old sabo where the hooks never came back, infinites etc. All of those were unbalanced and matchmaking didn't change that.
-
I think people have become way too dependent on perks, and because of this skill has suffered. Survivors rely way too heavily on exhaustion perks or second chance perks and killers rely way too heavily on slow down and aura reading. If you asked people to play without any of those I think the games would be very telling.
They should be used as tools for sure, but people don’t use them as tools they use them as crutches. -
My issue with the complaints about distortion is that they feel very one-sided. Some argue that it's unfair for the perk to counter other perks so easily, but lightborn does the same. Others say it's wrong for distortion to counter aura reading at all but aside from hopping in a locker—which is situational and map-dependent what other reliable counters are there?
There's also the argument that distortion is bad because it can lead to tunneling, which in this specific context is considered unhealthy for the game. However, tunneling itself is often defended or accepted as a valid playstyle, and the players are expected to bring certain perks to avoid it, and if they don't then it was their fault and also their teammates fault.
It's fine not to like a perk, but if the criticisms of that perk only hold up when they're a detriment to one side, the complaints don't seem very fair.
-
I agree that it can be unfair that other teammates can suffer do to the use of this perk, when a killer can't find other survivors it can lead to them focusing on one. For this reason I also would like some sort've changed to the perk, but more of a qol rather than a straight out nerf. But it is a little strange how when it comes to distorion, people use this point as a reason to state it is unhealthy for the game and should be nerfed/changed but tunneling in itself is accepted and not considered toxic or unhealthy.
I agree distortion should be tweaked to avoid tunneling situations because I disagree with tunneling as a whole.
-
@AggressiveFTW said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3739044#Comment_3739044
It's still a waste no matter how you look at it, in what world against good teams would this combo be worth running instead of slowdown? I don't know how this combo would be considered slowdown. The slowdown in that case would be F tier. Oblivious and the Killer knowing where you are does not automatically mean slowdown. Yes, they could just lose their toolboxes, gens go quickly anyway. It would just be finding a new chase. Also I never said anything about gens.
I assumed when you meant slowdown you were directly talking about gen regress perks, as you've stated you don't believe that aura could be a slowdown so I'm not sure what you mean then, my apologies for assuming. When it comes to aura not being able to be used as slow down, I disagree, knowing where a survivor is can help jump start chases much quicker, keep survivors out of certain areas that the item is in which can help with gen defense, buy time when trying to find the item to pick it up to take away the effect, knock out any item they had so you needn't worry about flashlight saves, or toolboxes etc.
If it was so useless I don't believe people would be struggling against it right now, nor do I think people would be running it as often as they are. The combo works, and for some individual players it works well, so I feel it's unfair to completely disregard the value you can get out of it simply because you personally don't agree. It works enough to be used and it works enough to have people express that they struggle against it.
-
@AggressiveFTW said:
Omg, stop with these "pls nerf this generic combo" threads. The Killer wastes 2 perk slots for items instead of slowdown. It ain't that serious.
If it's giving value it's not a waste. There are plenty of individual players and individual killers that beneift greatly from aura. Slowdown does not just have to come from gen regression perks.
-
Lots of heated opinions here. Mine is that yes, survivor feels really bad right now but not because killers are more "toxic' or because killer players are specifically playing any differently, it's more because BHVR is starting to balance out the killrates to a 60% (I'm not sure if their goal is for all individual killers to have a 60% killrate and not just killers as a whole).
They're making killers stronger, and so it will take time to adjust to the fact that if you're playing survivor you will lose more often. You are designed to have a 40% chance to make it out (I'm not sure if it's 40% among the four survivors or each individual survivor has a 40% to survive). I know people disagree with that, because they don't believe in statistics, but frankly I find it difficult to engage in a conversation like that because if we can't rely on any actual evidence then it's source: trust me bro and I don't see that as an acceptable way to defend/present a point lol
I don't think they are more "toxic" but by design they are winning more often which can take time to adjust to.
-
@MauriceMaverick said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3738950#Comment_3738950
but i have to say it was better when it was "bugged". the fix was bullshit.
Yeah, I agree with that… idk sometimes it's interesting to see what some people find "too strong" lol.
-
People have teased me before for using lightfooted! It’s so nice to see other people seeing its value. I find so many killers rely on sounds to pin point where you are. I’ve escaped many a tile because they couldn’t see or hear which direction I was in. Pair that with quick and quiet for vaulting, maybe even lithe, and just to be silly deception or toss a pebble lol.
-
I uploaded the same bug! that window cost me two hooks </3 lol
-
I do believe that the devs had to have had a reason to buff sabo, and the reasonable assumption would be because it wasn't popular and not very often successfull. I've seen it probably in 4 or 5 games since the buff, and I play around 20 games typically when I can, but I am in no way claiming that your experience is the same, just stating my own.
I'm sorry that you're experiencing it at a different level, hopefully it will die down in your future games.
-
Having two objectives I believe has statistically proven to be very effective in slowing down progress in a game, which can help. The kill rates on killers with a side objective tend to perform very well in comparasion to some others that don't, regardless if they are deemed weak by the community or not (m1s). I think it's healthy, and would like to see more of it, because it can provide good slowdown without having to be perk relient, so you can make room for other perks and try more unique builds.
As far as why I personally don't like slow down, I don't mind it as long as it doesn't stack, as then it becomes too oppressive in my opinion just as I believe if multiple exhaustion perks could be used at once, would be too oppressive.
I think overall both can be unhealthy though, as I believe the community as a whole has become much too perk dependent, with both sides relying way too much on perks rather than skill alone. Sometimes it's good to try to run with no perks at all even, just to see how dependent you really may be on perks like slowdown/exhaustion (I think those are flip sides of a near similar coin, both of them are used to waste/buy time).
-
I believe it was designed for horror/slasher fans, and was meant to be a fun party game, and that the competitiveness came from the playerbase alone but was never what the devs intended. Just because the community pushed for it to be a certain type of game does not make it that type of game, imo. It's a monster of our own creation really.
-
@Marioneo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3736823#Comment_3736823
Counter counterargument we agree giving up does skew the killrates but if you say its the teaching method than the students themselves Why is it only effecting freddy? Freddy main btw freddys kit isnt good compared to other m1 killers his op addons were nerfed long ago i can only assume he flourishes against bad player for the reason his killrate is so high
In my opinion, this issue isn't limited to Freddy. Many killers that are considered "weak/trash" by some players have high kill rates similar to Freddy. For instance, Onryo has a 67% kill rate Pinhead 73% Pig 61% and Mike 61%. I don't think these killers are overpowered AT ALL or in need of any kind of nerfs, in fact, they could benefit/deserve some QOL changes. However, I don't believe they are "trash/weak" because the stats simply don't support that and I don't think it's a coinicidence that most of them have a secondary objective at play, which I think buys more time than most admit and why their kill rates are where they are.
I also don't think that survivors kill themselves on the first hook often enough against these killers to make the stats completely unreliable. It seems more likely that these killers perform well against the majority of the survivor playerbase. And again imo, the argument that "ur just bad" doesn't hold up as a way to disregard the stats. It seems like a convenient way to dismiss information regardless of any actual proof.
-
@Marioneo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3736104#Comment_3736104
We call this the Freddy conundrum despite freddy being an m1 killer with a super safe TP and a slow that can only be used when asleep boasts a 63% Killrate how does he have such a high killrate? My opinion? I think its a combination of Solo Q nightmare + meta perks carrying. Solo Q survs definitely inflate stats by either just being bad/uncoordinated/messing around or giving up on hook it sucks how frequent it is btw meanwhile the killer freddy is using a meta loadout trying to win every game
I definitely believe that giving up on the first hook screws up the stats. However, I struggle with the counterargument that "they're just bad" messes up stats. If the majority of the player base struggles with certain killers, add-ons, or aspects of the game, it seems dismissive to attribute that struggle to poor skill alone.
To try and explain what I mean- Imagine a class where only two students have low scores while everyone else is fine. It would be reasonable to assume those two students are just having personal difficulties. But if 75% of the class has low scores, it's more likely an issue with the teaching method, not the students.
Now the 40% survival rate and 60% kill rate is alright with me, It's good for killers to be in the power role, but stats show that even so-called "trash M1" killers perform well against most players. I don't think they're as weak as some claim (at least when it comes to majority of survivors that aren't in top 5%) regardless of personal opinions about survivor skill, because the stats support that.
It's not unreasonable to expect to make a few mistakes in a game without facing death every time, especially in a game that poorly explains strategies and counters. So, while I agree that stats involving first hooks do screw things up, I don't feel as if "skill issue, ur just bad" is a good enough reason to dismiss statistics.
Btw this isn't directed at you specifically/personally, it's just a counterargument I see often that I genuinely struggle to find compelling. Thank you for taking the time to offer your perspective! :)