hermitkermit
hermitkermit
About
- Username
- hermitkermit
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,625
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Coffee2Go said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3967175#Comment_3967175
Very true, to high extent it is the map variety that matters a lot, the maps should be way more linked to a killer and their playstyle but then you will probably get handful of players saying that makes the matches way too obvious its a mobility teleport killer if you get large maps, and for m1 killers that get indoor or smaller maps.
There is way too many variables where you kinda come to a point and realize you need to either match m2 killers to m1 capabilities or match m1 killers to m2 killers to reach optimal balance.
As much as it would be fun to have ghoul on largest possible maps and spread out gens, it will get repetitive and you can always guess if its dredge, ghoul, springtrap or other killers.
Again its up to discussion thats why we are here, my take on it is that we should fight for awareness to try and match m1 killers to m2 capabilities not with giving them dash or teleport rather something to give them a hybrid edge like give them something to fear againts not go like "oh here comes michael lets run it back to a loop"
Freddy used to be one of most feared killers he literally gave you adrenalin out of fear
I do understand the immediate way you can rule out what killer you're up against depending on which map, but to be honest this can happen in so many different ways and is often "spoiled" almost immediately with a first injury. The box if its pinhead, clocks if its Freddy, Traps if its pig, Traps on the ground if its Trapper, Kagune mark for Ghoul, Infection for Plauge, Mend for Legion etc.
And while true, it would give you an immediate indication of wether or not this killer is a mobility one or not, that's still a massive ammount of killers it could be, before they're revealed by the first injury, terror radius, secondary objectives etc. There's 40 different killers in the game, and 49 maps, 20 realms so, I feel we have enough killer variety and enough map variety that it wouldn't be too much of an issue. The game at its core is extremely repeditive anyway, to be honest. I believe that variety is relient on perks, as the game will always feel the same if you always play with the same things.
Just my personal opinion, but I don't think there's any good reasons why killers or survivors should be automatically put at an advantage or disadvantage by maps. Maps should be an even playing ground that keeps in minds that killers limitations, counters, and strengths. Especially when we have this many, and the number is only getting bigger.In any case, thanks for opening up your discussion and sharing your thoughts :)
-
I'm sure that if killrates begin to suffer for any killer, M1 or not, adjustments and buffs will be made as they have been for quite a few killers for awhile now. But everyone's idea of a "rework/buff" is also very different. Some people only consider mobility a worthwhile buff, others lethality, or full stealth etc. There's also the case of the killers identity being massively changed for the sake of a rework too. I mean, Freddy just got a rework not too long ago, but many are still not too happy with it, so reworks are quite a tricky thing to pull off especially when eveyrone has their own idea of what a rework *should* be.
I personally think we have enough maps in the game now that instead of limiting or trying to rework killers, that the maps are tied to certain killers depending on their mobility and strengths/counters. I don't believe that most of the roster of m1 killers would struggle if the maps were an appropriate size for their distance (and I believe the stats reflect this as well). Maps have a huge impact even with certain killer powers that are restricted/counter relient. Like if Blight gets put on Lerry's, that puts him at a significant disadvantage. Or if Trickster is put on Coldwind, where counterplay against him is heavily relient on RNG with having tall structures. I think maps could be the key to good balance, both for killer quality of life and survivors. Put the hunter in the right biome you know? A cheetah isn't gonna be as lethal in the mountains as it is in the savannah, but that doesn't mean the cheetah isn't strong.
-
As the others have stated above, I do think that this is a better alternative as it leaves a Bot and they get a penalty. However, I also feel it should be mentioned that while the ability to give up on hook has been disabled, it didn’t change why people got to that point. The system was to stop the symptom rather than the cause, so it’s not surprising that people are still quitting the game. It’s good they’re getting penalties, but I don’t think it’s good that quitting is still so common. Hopefully phase 2 will help address some of that too.
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965759#Comment_3965759
I want a perk called 'Wait for iiiiiiiiiitt!'
Yessss! Also gonna need “I’ve heard it both ways”
-
I would buy literally all of them. And if anyone was Lassie I would absolutely follow them around like Shawn. This would be so fun :D
-
Killers should absolutely be allowed to abandon like this if they are replaced by a killer bot. If it just ejects 4 other players into an end-game screen, then I disagree. It would be wildly unfair if when a survivor abandoned, it stopped the game for everyone else. Killer bots took the place for DC in 2v8 so I don’t see why it couldn’t be added to the main game one exit gates are powered
-
@cogsturning said:
If this happens to me, I often just give myself over to the killer so I can leave and the other person can maybe try for hatch. Playing for hatch isn't fun to me. Unfortunately, my reward for this free kill is usually to get slugged. So then I get to be stuck in the match AND not be able to do anything.
I have the same experience. I go out of my way to have the killer find me first, hoping they will just kill me and move on, hoping they’re glad I didn’t make them play hide and seek as so many really dislike it, only to end up slugged while they go find the other survivor.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963028#Comment_3963028
Thanks, I do feel better hearing that. I'm glad most people agree this wouldn't be considered a toxic tunnel, either, at least not in the sense of a purposeful one.
Like, if I HAVE to I'll do it. But it's not like I go outta my way to. I'm so casual I just don't care unless I have to lock in.This team on review of my footage even made several mistakes, such as:
- Poor Looping,
- Poor body blocking,
- Wasted resources,
- A player completely throwing to stand under the hook and give up (they had DS, but did not use it),
- Using fast heal perks and items too early, including healing under hooks against Ghostface (who typically stalks there),
- WASTED SHACK PALLET,
- Didn't understand what to do with a Killer that knows not to chase the good looper at strong tiles (because Ghostface is weak at those),
- 3Genned themselves,
- Were too altruistic at Shack basement, which I could watch from the Main of Ormond Mine, which I had to do because I had one gen left and needed to pressure unhooks (because again, I'm Ghostface and I can stalk for quick downs even if they get to the shack),
- Wasted time healing when I had Franklin's which negated their medkits, instead of popping that last gen,
- Wasted time trying to finish a gen in my face and then loop me before going for a save on their friend when they could have just gone for the save,
I just… don't understand the need for some players to blame their mistakes on the other side. My fear is that the new systems could artificially boost these players or otherwise be weaponized, definitely, which is another reason I think BHVR didn't go through with basekit UB+Tenacity. I'm not against real tools for real tunnels, but when you stand under a hook…Yes, that is a very valid concern. Personally I feel tunneling has done just that as well, as it artificially boosts up your win rate by relying on a specific tactic rather than the individual killers skill sets, thus eventually sky rocketing a killer player against survivors that have a lot more time/skill in the game, leading to a long series of devastating matches for that killer player. Of course, this doesn’t mean that in high MMR they will never be successful, as the stats show show that it’s not the case, but it still pushes that killer player into dozens of very high intensity and stressful matches that result in very unfun experiences regardless if they ended up winning or not. Unfortunate as it stands, I think MMR only tracks wins or losses, not how those wins were achieved or everything you did and then still lost. Something myself and I feel many others desperately want changed, as kills/escapes should not be the only metric of success /failure. The end result shouldn’t be the end all be all.
My hope is that whatever this new system is, highlights killers that need help and can receive buffs that they need so that they are not “limited” to playing one particular playstyle. And that will in turn result in more balanced matches that aren’t a stomp for either role.When it comes to players just blaming others for mistakes that they made, I’m afraid this is not a killer or survivor exclusive issue, it’s not even a DBD issue, it’s just a people issue. We’re playing with other people, not bots, and people are stubborn, prideful, sensitive. It’s part of the human experience. I’m sure you’ve met someoene at some point that did something wrong, but refused to take accountability for what they did and instead just blamed it on you or some excuse. Humans kinda suck sometimes lol.
In any case, I won’t further clog up your post any more, but it was nice to speak with you! I wish you luck in the fog and I’m sorry people were being nasty, if you ever want to vent or need to talk anytime feel free to dm me! Gliyn!
-
First off I want to apologize that you had to deal with bigoted comments. That is never okay and I’m sorry you had to deal with such childishness.
Secondly, I personally feel it’s important for terms to have clear definitions. Those definitions don’t change even if x, y, or z happened, but the justification I feel does. For example, my definition of tunneling is if a killer hooks the same player consecutively until death. It doesn’t matter if that player body blocked, if they ran away and were just innocently found, if they stood there under the hook; it doesn’t change the fact that tunneling occurred but it’s not always negative depending upon the reason why it happened.
Like if I got a speeding ticket because my wife is going into labor- it still doesn’t change the fact that I am speeding, regardless if it’s a good reason to speed or not. Someone standing under the hook refusing to leave until hooked to death was still tunneled, but it was also self inflicted.
I understand why it can be very daunting with the upcoming anti-tunnel changes coming because of the fear of weaponizing the anti-tunnel, especially because the AFK Crow system resulted in completely innocent people getting flagged for trying to “go next” despite it not being the case. So I get that some kind of base-line system built in trying to detect tunneling can be alarming in special circumstances like you listed above, when the survivor clearly wanted to go next and therefore wanted to be tunneled.
That’s why I do think that instead of a flat out penalty or punishment for tunneling, better incentives for not tunneling should also be apart of the system. The goal should be that it is no longer in the killers best interest to tunnel, and that can only happen when the unhooked survivor comes with more risk/less value than a different one.
In any case, everyone also has their own definition of tunneling or gen rushing. I asked a question a long time ago if people could define gen rushing and the consensus was basically “it is if I I say it is” which is also used by survivors who claim tunneling as well. Thats why I feel it’s important for a simple definition that doesn’t change regardless of what lead to it, otherwise you get all these complex answers that are really just personal opinions masquerading as fact.
I’m sure that whatever system they put in place for anti-tunnel and anti-slug will be heavily monitored and changes will be swiftly made accordingly if the system is flagging false positives (just like the AFK incident) so try not to stress too much. But I’d encourage you to keep being vocal about your concerns, and questions about this kind of system so that the devs could get that feedback.
I wish you luck in your future games! And I’m sorry you had to deal with such awful humans.
-
@MarbleThrone said:
I always wonder why people feel the need to announce their departure to the whole wide world.
Like, what are we supposed to do. Argue with you? Hold the door for you?
This isn't an airport. You're free to depart without letting everyone know.It's just someone…starting a discussion…on a discussion forum…
-
I think survivors have killers they like and dislike and Killers have survivors they like and dislike. I've noticed at times that depending on which survivor I'm playing, my chances of escape will be significantly more/less, or just the chances of BM will decrease/increase too. I've had the worst luck with Claudettes, Sables, Dwights, Megs, Neas. (Which is a shame because most of the free characters are like…abysmally hated lol)
-
I understand the frustration with facing SWFs, but giving killers the ability to see and dodge them in the lobby sets a rough precedent. Lobby dodging already messes with MMR, backfill and queue times. encouraging more of it would only make things worse for everyone.
If we opened that door, survivors could just as easily argue they should see which killer they’re facing ahead of time, which would likely lead to even more dodging. The logic doesn’t scale well across both roles. At the end of the day, matchmaking needs work (which i believe is on the road map for adjustments) , but creating more ways to dodge games isn't the solution.
-
I’m so sorry for your loss. The words may not do much but truly, my heart hurts for you all. May she rest in peace.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3955454#Comment_3955454
You have to look at it from a practical sense. The Dev's can't make an AI for every killer and balance it around new players. The Trapper AI in the tutorial is laughingly bad, will swing a you at a distance. To be frank, the tutorial match doesn't teach anything of use. Throwing you into a bot match teaches you about holding M1. But many are here cooking up ideas about advanced systems where you point, hey killer did this, now do that, now do that but not that.
Yes, the game was simpler when I started. But I wasn't trying to get my Phd in DBD. I ran around and held M1 on gens praying the killer would find someone else. I would run to a pallet and die. I would sometimes escape. I didn't need to know the killer's power. I just needed to play and find out.
-Side note-
Even worse, I started playing Dec 2016 when the game crashed during loading a lot. This placed me in many 1v2s and the killers just wanted to move to the next match.
I do understand your perspective and your points, I think we just respectfully disagree on what is reasonable or not.
I’m not suggesting ultra-advanced AI that mimics perfect PvP behavior, just the same basic learning opportunity that killers already have with AI survivors. You may be of the opinion that because the AI will never play as good as a real player, that there is no value to be taken from playing against AI. I simply respectfully disagree. Using AI to teach you the basics before going into live games is not a new concept in the gaming space and is still used to this day. I believe it is because it does offer value. You may disagree, and that’s fine.
You did previously bring up 2v8 killer bots from before, and how you disagree that they would be useful as custom practice, but I do disagree. Not perfect, sure but better than nothing, and I’m not asking for perfect AI. I don’t expect real players to be perfect either. And if the 2v8 killer AI is good enough to be in a full game mode, I feel it’s good enough for a practice mode.
At the end of the day, I’m not trying to reinvent DBD. I just believe both sides should have equal access to learning tools. If one role already benefits from it, I don’t see the harm in giving that same support to the other. Survivor bots aren’t great AI either, but I disagree with the idea that because they aren’t that great you can’t learn from them or that there is no benefit from having the option. Real players aren’t always great either, but I've still been able to learn from them.
I respect your stance even though I don’t agree with it.
I believe AI killer bots would be valuable for survivors just like AI survivor bots are for killers, and you don’t, and that may just be where we differ, and that’s alright. We may just have to respectfully agree to disagree here.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3955086#Comment_3955086
Correct but, have you played it? The AI is not that good and I don't believe BHVR has the time or resources to make a viable AI for every killer. Old, new, and every chapter after. You may point at 2v8 killer AI but that killer goes pretty hard and against new players? They be better off learning in actual matches.
But then we get into heart of the matter. Why is it not ok to learn in actual matches? Why is it not ok to play a match completely ignorant of the game and how it works? Does playing with bot bring anything to the table besided learning the quirks of the AI's pathing? You can practice in a simulation for hours learning bad habits that will bite them in a real match. The purpose of the game is to be PvP not PvE and there is a big difference how each on is played.
You’re right, AI bots aren’t perfect and can’t fully replace real matches. But the point of practice tools isn’t to simulate high-level play. It’s to give players a way to safely learn the basics before jumping into live games.
It’s not about replacing real games, it’s about giving both sides the same starting tools. Killers already have this kind of mode. Saying survivors don’t need it feels like a double standard. Right now, survivors have no real way to learn how killers work beyond random matches and vague tips. A practice mode would give them a low-pressure way to learn the game’s basics and I disagree that it would be a bad thing. I feel it’s unreasonable to say one role can have access to a resource and the other shouldn’t.
Look, you can have the opinion that no tutorials or tools are necessary. But what’s not opinion is that the game’s complexity is growing, and the tools to support that growth are not growing at the same pace. I feel that gap affects both roles, because a lack of understanding leads to frustration, misinformation, and division. Equal tools won’t solve everything but I believe it’s a good place to start, in my personal opinion.
-
This has been my most requested addition to the game for a very long time now. I’m quite vocal about it on here, and I try and put it in the feedback sections for the surveys too.
Hopefully soon!
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3954977#Comment_3954977
You had me questioning my memory so I had to go check. There is a Survive with Bots where you face a Trapper AI.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/VDO5LS031UZL/20250630184820-1.jpg
Yes, I shouldn’t have said no killers. It has 1, but there are 39 without tutorials.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3954833#Comment_3954833
The question is how much information is sufficient? Some have said how to loop, but looping wasn't part of the game until pallets were reduced. What happens if looping became obsolete? They learn how to loop but ha ha nobody does that anymore.
The game already has practice matches with bots. How many should a new player have before going from a curated experience to a chaotic one?
This day in age most information players get about games come from online resources like youtube and wikis. While the wiki may be too much for a new player, which is an information overload issue, youtube videos from other players can really help get the feel of the game.
I appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts, especially the point about outside resources like YouTube. They’re definitely valuable and I agree that for many players, that’s where a lot of the learning happens. But I think that outside resources I feel are a substitute and should not be considered the same as in-game support.
You mentioned that the game already has practice matches with bots, but currently that feature is only available for killers. Survivors don’t have access to bot killers to learn from or practice against, which creates an imbalance in available resources. A major part of what makes learning in DBD so tough is that one role has built-in support, and the other doesn’t. Before we even get into the idea of how many practice matches are enough, both roles need to have equal access to practice in the first place.
I also think there are some really easy possible implementations here. There is a learning to play section already , which great. I think including killer guides on how to play as/against for each specific killer and then getting the option to practice as/against them in custom lobbies could be implemented quite seamlessly right there.
Now, I agree that some players won’t take advantage of these tools even if they’re there. But that’s a very different issue than expecting them to figure things out when those tools don’t exist at all. If a player ignores the resources, that’s on them. But if the game never offers the help in the first place, the burden falls on the design.
And lastly, I do think it’s important to recognize that “trial by fire” doesn’t mean what it used to. Years ago, learning this game with 200 hours looked very different than now. There were fewer killers, fewer perks, fewer mechanics, all the map changes the constant updates with perks etc. The game has gotten significantly more complicated over time, so the entry gap has grown. -
@Mr_K said:
DBD is very hands on training. There are so many things you can learn about the game that it would overwhelm a new player that just wants to press play.
Also, there's no amount of information you can give to someone that hasn't played that will make them good. Trial and error has always been the building blocks to getting better at this game.
No tutorial will ever be a substitute for experience, but it can give new players a fighting chance before they get discouraged and quit. A little guidance doesn’t hurt the skill curve, it just flattens the frustration spike. Having the ability to practice before facing live matches would be a fantastic first step in trying to close that skill gap, as it gets bigger and bigger with every new character added. Hopefully we eventually get some better resources for this with quality of life changes.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3954803#Comment_3954803
I get ya. People like to pretend slugging only happens to BM or to prevent hatch. This game however seems to have just been a perfect snowball opportunity. We also have no clue what the other survivors were bringing. We know OP had a medkit, but the other 2 could've been going for a flashlight save and got caught.
Being slugged for 40 seconds though isn't a problematic amount of time in general. Obviously the killer isn't bleeding people out and started the game by getting 5 hooks before this moment.
Yes, slugging is complex. I personally do think slugging does need some changes when used excessively. We all have our opinions on how that should be done or if it should be done. I don’t like full team slugging, and I do feel it should be looked at, but there is a difference between a full team slug and survivors that were in a group getting full swept down by like a billy or something. This particular case seems to be the latter, so I do agree it isn’t problematic. But I do believe that slugging can be problematic.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3954780#Comment_3954780
This wasn't even a matter of BMing though. The killer was able to chain 3 downs in around 40 seconds. I doubt they were thinking about hatch at all during this.
I do agree this case doesn’t look like BM, as the survivors seemed to be in close proximity to eachother in order for their bleed out timers to be where they are in the pictures. I brought up BM because someone replied to me about BM, about survivors in exit gates. My original post was in reply to someone claiming this slugging was necessary to avoid hatch and I was explaining that it wasn’t necessary to slug like this to avoid hatch, not that this slugging was BM.
-
@CruelLimits1982 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3954387#Comment_3954387
Its also not necessary for survivors to stand at the exit gate till EGC finishes im not trying to turn this into Us Vs Them but I hope if they find a solution to the slugging for 4k situation they do the same for what I just mentioned
I do agree that survivors lingering at the exit gate can be a form of BM and should be addressed. But I don’t agree that it’s the same as being slugged. Being fully mobile is fundamentally different from being immobilized. That is not an opinion, it’s an objective difference in agency and gameplay experience. And to try and disregard that very important fundamental difference is not reasonable.
Now, I understand that the broader point might be: “Shouldn’t all forms of BM be dealt with, regardless of the role?” And to that, I absolutely agree. I’ve even shared suggestions before like speeding up the EGC timer when someone lingers, or giving exposed/aura read effects to survivors who stay in the gate too long to discourage stalling behavior. (I will mention though that with those suggestions people then said it wouldn’t be good enough because then survivors would wait outside the gate. To which then it gets very confusing because I thought the entire point was to stop them being in the gate.)
So if the question is about just general BM then yes, of course it should be stopped by any player regardless of role. But the solution to BM is different case-by-case because all BM is not the same thing. Gate BM and slugging are not the same. One allows for full player control and even a choice to engage with the BM or not. The other removes control entirely. Both deserve attention, yes! But we shouldn’t treat them like they’re the same thing just because they both fall under the BM umbrella. A solution for slugging can’t work as the solution for the gate because they’re two entirely separate issues. -
@Nomade said:
I am, at this point, allmost totally convinced that anyone who complains about being slugged for the 4k is not an experienced player thinking rationally. Any expierienced player knows that overwhelmingly the biggest reason killers slug for the 4k is hatch. Its. Not. Personal. Its the way the game was designed.
I think the point is that it isn’t necessary. With 2 survivors on the ground and 1 up, it is not necessary to be slugging for hatch. The hook is still viable even after a sacrifice since they now respawn, and people also can’t 3% anymore which is even more reason not to need to slug.
I think it happens often because it’s just easier. In the very first 2v8 there was no reason to slug. The hook was instant, guaranteed 100% everytime because no flashlight, sabo, or pallet saves were possible. Killers still slugged, so much so that changes were made to the second 2v8. I think it happens because it’s easier.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3951314#Comment_3951314
As someone that neither actively plays nor follow s the updates closely I have some questions:
- How long were you working on the gen before switching sides?
- Did you ONLY move around the gen?
Because if you only progressed the gen for a second or less and only crouched around the gen, I would say crows are warranted.
I guess this new crow system is to combat the endless hiding strategy where survivor would drop+pickup items, tap gens or move a few feet to laughable easily avoid crows.
Ah, okay. Well, since you stated that you haven't played in a bit or stayed super current on the updates, I'm unsure if you've heard of some of the issue with the new system? If you're unsure or haven't heard I can go into more detail with it, and I believe at one point it had to be kill swtiched because it was giving undeserved punishments out by flagging alot of false positives. There's lots of layers to the problems with the system as a whole, but just to explain what happened with me specifically in this instance:
I was working on the gen and then the zombie came to the side I was working on, so then I ran around the small haybale (? I think it was, idk it was something small that blocked one end of the gen) so that I could work on the other side. The zombie would of course, follow me. I couldn't stay on one side for too long because then I would get an injury. I didn't want to abandon the gen because it was 95% finished, it was the last gen, and the killer was occupied in a chase. It didn't make sense to abandon the gen, I don't think leaving the gen would have been the right call. I would constantly move from one side of the gen to the other and work on both sides, only moving when I had to, to avoid getting hit by the zombie. I never crouched and did nothing, or just sat there. I was consistently working on the gen but for small bursts because, well, I was forced to because of the Zombie.
Obviously, I don't believe I did anything wrong in this situation. I don't agree that I should have been punished with crows for being "afk" when I was not, in fact, AFK. I was actively progressing the gen as best as I could until completion. I don't think I should have been penalized for not playing the game when I was playing the game.
(edit some spelling stuff) -
@smurf said:
The incidence of survivors contracting crows during seemingly innocuous activities is alarming. Crows are spreading at an unprecedented rate. It is clear that we, the people of the Entity's realm, must come together to find a way to stop the spread of the public health crisis these crows represent.
It will take the effort of survivors and killers alike. We'll need The Blight's deep knowledge of alchemy, Orela's medical expertise, Mikaela's magic, and David's ability to just punch the birds as they accumulate. Ace is not permitted within 10 miles of the mitigation effort, lest he gamble our efforts away.
But for real though, it's messed up to get crows when you're on a gen or doing the exit gate...
I like the way you wrote this 🤭 very poetic Smurf, makes me want to paint my face and start speaking in sonnets <3
-
I just got swarmed by crows during a match with nemi. We were at 1 gen left, it was about 95% done, and while he was in chase with another survivor the zombie was hanging around. I would go from one side of the gen to the other over and over again, anytime the zombie got close I would move to the other side. Slowly making progress. I got 2 crows for it… felt pretty bad ngl.
-
@Deadman7600 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3951106#Comment_3951106
Oh don't get me wrong, if they're being made they may as well go into customs too. As a killer main I always use bots to practice before an adept, test out things like the momentum trick and lunging off ledges. I was just saying that (while I think it's worth the effort) its a lot of effort. Besides there's apparently improvements for custom matches coming in phase 2 of the health initiative so its possible we'll see them in some form of limited functionality.
Ah, I get you. Yeah, I totally understand your points and they are valid. And that's true, I forgot about those custom match improvements! Maybe we will see a few killer bots implemented :D Thanks for your sharing your thoughts. Gliyn, cheers!
-
@Deadman7600 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950403#Comment_3950403
I think custom lobbies with killer bots will come eventually, but I imagine the problem is programming the bot. Like imagine a poorly made deathslinger bot for instance, either it can't miss, or it can't hit. Killer bots take more time to make, that's why if a killer DC's they aren't replaced. The only time we see killer bots are in the tutorial sections and 2v8, in fact I imagine the long wait between 2v8's is because of the killer bots.
I really hope that they do come eventually, and will continue to voice the importance of it when I can. I understand the programming could be difficult, but I disgaree that it wouldn't be worth the effort. The game is only going to get bigger and bigger which means the knowledge for survivor will get steeper and steeper. Providing access to a resource that part of the playerbase already has doesn't feel that unreasonable of an ask, in my opinon. Survivor bots are flawed, 100%, but that doesn't mean there is no value you can take away from facing them. Even something as simple as looping against a survivor bot, base-kit, on a specific tile could have value. Just learning how a specific tile could be played gives you an insight in to how better to manage it later, especially with specfic killer limitations, and that's not including the various perks and perk combinations you can slap on a survivor bot to practice against how they work. I'd rather have the option to practice against a terrible deathslinger bot, rather that not being able to practice against one at all.
We may just agree to disagree when it comes to the bots in 2v8, as I think them existing in 2v8 shows that implementing them into custom lobbies isn't that far-fetched. I don't see their existence as a limitation in this regard, only as another reassurance that this is possible.
In any case, thank you for taking the time to share your perspective!
-
@XDgamer018 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950403#Comment_3950403
If you could go against killer bots then you eony learn anything outside of its base since a bot has to be repetitive to work (look at survivor bots having perma wallhacks) do while players might not like playing killer they can play that killer against bots at their own pace to see how it works on the killer side of things so they can prepare for whats to come. (I sadly dont think this is an issue you can easily fix)
I definitely agree that bots can’t replicate the unpredictability of real players, their limitations are obvious. But I still think there’s value in being able to learn the basics: recognizing a killer’s power, understanding cooldown timings, and seeing how their abilities interact with the environment. Right now, unless you’re lucky enough to face that killer in a live match, or you're willing to buy them, you don’t get that opportunity. That’s a big gap in accessibility.
In custom bot lobbies, killers don’t need to own survivor perks to test and learn how they work. But they do need to own the killer in order to play as them. But purchasing a killer when you have no interest is an unreasonable request to make for killer players, and is an unreasonable request to make for survivor players too.
And while I agree that playing killer gives valuable insight into how to counter them, not everyone wants to play killer, and especially not if they have to pay for it. Expecting players to buy and play killers just to understand how to survive against them does not make sense. I can't agree with expecting one role to pay physcial money to attempt to get something similar to the same kind of resource that the other role already has, and it's only similar because it's playing As and not Against. So essentially they're having to pay for a substitute.
It's like you and someone else go to a resturant and their burger comes with a side of fries they get for free, while your meal, the same exact burger, does not come with fries, but you can get mashed potatoes, but there is an upcharge.
I understand your view that this may not be easily fixable, but respectfully, this isn’t a request for something that doesn’t already exist. Custom bot lobbies do exist. Killer bots do exist. They even appear in 2v8 when a killer disconnects. So this isn’t about inventing a new system, it’s about providing access to a system that already exists, but allowing both roles access to it.
-
@KeefCheif said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950403#Comment_3950403
Dang, I completely forgot about the fact that one can practice in BOT lobbies as a killer. The ability to practice specific builds in tailored environments is such a huge practice resource that survivors don't have. If I want to get better playing against Demo, for example, I either have to play x matches hoping I run into him (which is basically never at this point) or convince a friend to be Demo in custom lobby with me so I can improve (kind of a waste of time for them).
Yes, I completely agree. The fact that you have no control over which killers you face, or how often you face them, means your skill level can vary wildly depending on the specific killer, regardless of how many hours in the game you have. And as far as I know, MMR doesn’t account for that nuance.
I believe that the way it's set up, is that you could have like 100 hours in and never once go up against, say, Clown. But because of your overall playtime and boosted MMR (because lets say you've been doing decent at the first 100 hours), you won’t be matched with a Clown player on their first game, even though it's your first game against them. So now you’re a complete beginner against that specific killer, but the matchmaking isn’t treating you like one. Meanwhile, the survivor next to you might be amazing against Clown, but has no experience with Dredge - who you do know how to counter. Everyone’s experience is scattered like that, and I think it helps explain why you see survivors making rookie mistakes, like cleansing immediately against Plague or staring at a Myers, despite your personal experience level or the experience level of the killer you're facing being higher than theirs.
I understand why MMR is not (as far as I know) this specific, it would probably be a nightmare for queue times, and is probably impossible to code? but that’s exactly why I think the game should offer better resources for practice. If players had the ability to train against each killer in some kind of custom or offline mode, survivors wouldn’t have to wait to randomly face them live just to learn their mechanics.
Sorry if this comes off like a bit of a tangent lol I’m just weirdly passionate about this topic. But seriously, thank you for sharing your perspective. I really appreciated hearing it. Gliyn!
-
@thrive2survive said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950363#Comment_3950363
People playing could just be playing. It isn't always that deep. Most video games can never be 100% fair either. Expecting them to be is setting yourself up for disappointment.
It’s interesting, because earlier you said that players who care about fairness are “too invested,” and now it sounds like you’re saying it’s pointless to expect fairness at all. That’s a pretty big shift from “you care too much” to “caring doesn’t matter.”
But what I'm trying to say is that people care because they’re invested, through time, money, and effort. They wouldn’t be playing the game if they didn’t care about the game. Suggesting they shouldn’t care just because no game is perfectly balanced kind of misses the point. Nobody’s asking for perfection, only improvements. Especially in a live-service game that’s constantly evolving.
If this were a five-year-old, single-player game that hadn’t been touched in years, I could see the desire for improvement as something kind of strange and pointless. But DBD is not that game. It's is a game where even base-kit features and long-requested changes continue to shift. Licenses people once thought were impossible, like Chucky,are now part of the game. Clearly, change is possible.
Honestly, I’m not entirely sure how we got here in this discussion. I’ve been trying to understand your points, but it’s coming across as saying people are wrong for caring about things you personally don’t think should matter. And while you’re absolutely entitled to your opinion, dismissing others for wanint improvements, therefore having a different opinion, comes off as a bit one-sided as if your stance is fact while theirs is just emotion. Or that asking for improvements is unreasonable in itself.
I’m not saying that’s your intention, and I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but that’s how the tone of your replies has came across. Just trying to see if we can possibly find some common ground here or a resolution of some kind.
-
Absolutely agree. I’ve been pretty vocal on these forums about this exact issue. It’s not always a skill issue, more often, it’s a skill gap. I've voiced this exact issue in every feedback survey I can lol.
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, the fact that killers have access to custom bot lobbies is a huge resource. Killers can test builds with or against perks they don’t even own, experiment with different items, choose specific maps, and tailor exact scenarios to improve. That is an incredible learning tool. Meanwhile, survivors are expected to adapt on the fly - every single time. And while learning to play as a specific killer can give you great insight into how to counter them, it is unreasonable to strong arm someone into playing a killer they have no interest in, that they will have to pay money for, just to get an idea on how to face them because it's the closest thing to practice they have access to- when again- this is not an expectation pushed on the other role.
And look, growth is good. More killers, perks, and mechanics keep the game exciting. But as the game evolves, the learning curve for survivors keeps getting steeper, and it’s honestly becoming a barrier for newer or even returning players. The fact that the killer role has had access to this training resource since 2022, while survivor still doesn’t, feels like a real oversight.
All players deserve equal access to tools for improvement. Survivors shouldn’t have to “trial by fire” their way through 40 different killers just to get better. Practice shouldn’t be exclusive or a privilege, it should be standard and equal.
-
@thrive2survive said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950260#Comment_3950260
Being overly invested in anything is an 'at your own risk' issue. Expecting others to know what you're feeling can't always happen as chances are, they're not as invested as you in something that doesn't effect anything at all in their day to day lives. Real world problems.
Everyone playing is “invested” to some degree. Pretending that only other people are “too invested” is just a way to dismiss concerns without actually addressing them. Caring about something you’ve spent real time and money on isn’t the problem. Acting like people shouldn’t care- while still engaging in the same space kind of is.
Not everyone cares about sports either, (myself being one of them) or maybe they only play casually. But that doesn’t mean athletes or fans are wrong to care about fairness or quality. Someone could look at the Super Bowl and say, “Wow, people are way too invested in this game.” And it's fine to have an opinion because everyone is entitled to one. But that doesn’t mean nobody should care just because you don’t.
-
@thrive2survive said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949642#Comment_3949642
It really isn't that deep for anyone with other hobbies besides this one video game…
Wanting a better experience with an ever-changing product you’ve invested your time, money, and effort into shouldn’t be shamed. People are allowed to care and it's the only reason this game has lasted this long.
-
@IamtheMilkman said:
some times a killer needs to tunnel to win, especially if it a m1. Survivors already have a thousand second chance perks and enough pallets to build a new map with. How much more babying do they need?
I understand where you’re coming from, some killers definitely have a harder time than others, and there are matches where tunneling can feel like the only viable option. But not all matches require it, and not all killers are equally dependent on it. There’s a big difference between strategic tunneling in endgame and tunneling someone off hook at 5 gens. It’s not about eliminating tunneling altogether, just addressing its most extreme and unfun forms. Just like anti-camp mechanics didn’t remove camping entirely, they targted facecamping.
If a killer has to tunnel every single match just to get a kill, I’d argue that points more to a design flaw with the killer than a justification for making tunneling the norm. That’s exactly why any killers struggling after anti-tunnel changes should be looked at individually and given buffs where needed. We should all want killers to feel strong without having to rely on specific strategies. And for what it’s worth, current stats show that all killers are performing well, regardless of where they land on personal tier lists.
As for survivor second-chance perks, yes, they exist. (The entire survival role is built upon “second chances” that’s why they have multiple hook states) But those perks are conditional, often single-use, and require setup and pre-planning, and behind a pay-wall. Tunneling doesn’t require a perk, has no restrictions, no cooldown, is free, and is always available. That’s a major difference. This isn’t about “babying” survivors, it’s about making sure the game loop is actually engaging for both sides.The entire game has shifted drastically over the years, and I’m sure you and I would agree that it didn’t change because they were “babying killers”. It changed because killer players became very unhappy within their role and the quality of life suffered. Concerns and frustrations were thankfully taken seriously and the game changed.
Survivor burnout is happening now and it deserves the same attention and care that the killer role received years ago. It’s not fair to say that one role is deserving of QOL and not the other.There’s got to be a middle ground where weaker killers are given support through better base kits, while survivors still have a fair chance to play the game.
-
@Marzipan210 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948655#Comment_3948655
Well guess what, survivors also have perks to give them free distance in chase so by your own logic there is no reason to be complaining about killers being able to get into chase quick
I suppose I should clarify— nowhere did I intentionally imply that because a perk exists that can help with a frustrating issue means that you are not allowed to be frustrated with the issue. Especially when you consider that perk/counters don’t always work. Your hex could get cleansed in the first minute of the game. Your entire build can become useless because you got matched with plague. Perks are not the end all be all. I wasn’t trying to imply that because certain perks that can stop progress quickly exist that it means you can’t be frustrated or can’t “complain”. Just that there are perks designed to help with that specific issue in mind.
-
I’ve only been in the doors twice as survivor and both times I got grabbed. It kinda just solidified to me that it is never worth it, so I gave up on ever interacting with the doors again. The risk is just not worth the reward in my opinion.
I’m sorry you haven’t been able to jumps as much, hopefully you get some more good ones.
-
If it’s possible then it will be done. Nothing to do with it being necessary or not. The first 2v8 had no reason to slug. Hook were instant with a teleport, no flashlight saves, no pallet saves, no sabo saves. But it still happened , so much so that they had to change the game in the next 2v8 to try and counter the slugging. Players will (usually) always take the path of least resistance. The only way to stop tunneling is to make it not possible, or to make it harder to do than hooks.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948800#Comment_3948800
The only way the killer could be in complete control of slugging, is if killers were given a guaranteed way to hook survivors, that had zero counterplay from survivors.
But survivors don't want killers to have a guaranteed way to avoid slugging. They want to be able to force a killer to slug, and then punish the killer for slugging.
You and I have discussed this topic in depth before, and while we’ve never quite reached common ground, I’m absolutely open to continuing the conversation.
First, I want to be clear: a slugged survivor is always better for the killer than a standing one. It doesn’t matter how or why they were slugged, even if they threw themselves at the killer or “forced” the situation. they’re now off their feet, unable to repair, rescue, cleanse, heal, or do anything else that advances the objective. Whether it was tactical on the survivor’s end or not, they are effectively removed from progress.
From past conversations, your position seemed to be that because survivors can “force” slugging (bodyblocking, hook trades, sabo, etc.) that automatically makes any adjustment to slugging mechanics invalid. But I disagree with that logic because we don’t apply it consistently.
What I’m proposing doesn’t punish the killer for slugging, and it doesn’t remove control. It just encourages smarter, more strategic use of slugging particularly when using it as a win condition versus a defensive counter.
Tactical slugging to counter flashlight saves, sabo plays, or force a trade is essential and should absolutely remain viable. That’s why I suggested a system where nothing changes if the killer remains near the slug. There’s no punishment there, no loss of power. But if the killer walks away and leaves multiple survivors bleeding out all over the map, that should carry some kind of risk.
This isn’t about removing slugging. It’s about drawing a line between tactical, reactive slugging and exploitative, drawn-out slugging that stalls the match for everyone involved. It’s similar to how anti-camp mechanics don’t remove camping, they just limit excessive camping like face-camping. The same principle applies here. That’s all I’m advocating for here too, nuance not removal.In the first 2v8 there was absolutely no reason to slug. Killers had complete control in just the way you’re describing. No flashlight, no sabo, no pallet. Complete control over the hook 100%, no chance of failure. And slugging still happened. It happened often enough that in the second version they had to make changes. I simply can’t agree to this idea that if killers didn’t risk “losing” a hook for a slugged survivor that they wouldn’t slug, and I can’t agree to it because I have quite literally experienced the opposite. The past has proved that to be incorrect.
-
I think a base-kit unbreakable would be too abusable, but I also disagree with the idea that slugging is not in need of some kind of tweaking in its current state. ( i could go on about why I think this but for time sake I'll leave it out ) That being said, I think slugging is important because it is a counter. A counter to flashlights, sabo's etc. But slugging as an alternate win condition is different than slugging as a counter.
I think that the speed in which survivors recover should be increased based upon the proximinity in which the killer is to them. The farther the killer is from the slugged survivor, the faster they recover. They will still need someone to pick them up at the end, but the point is that if the killer is trying to slug the whole team, and eveyrone is spread out (which is the counter to slugging) then it comes with much more risk. But if you're slugging because a flashlight is nearby, therefore you are hovering by the slug, then nothing changes. And if a group of survivors all get slugged because they were all grouped up, the killer can still take advantage of that kind of mistake.
Essentially it would work like the anti-camp, but reverse. The killer is in complete control if the mechanic even comes into play. If they stay near the slug then literally nothing changes. But if they leave the slug out of a set of perimeters, then the mechanic will kick in. Again, it just increases recovery time, it does not grant UB base.
-
@Marzipan210 said:
Why can survivors instantly get on gens?
Luckily there’s perks that can help with that. Corrupt intervention and random map RNG/Spawns can be a counter to instant gen work. Lethal will also show you right where everyone is too. Though to be honest if the survivors instantly start working on the first gen they find that’s usually not good for them in the long run anyway.
-
Playing as I love wraith and ghostie.
Playing against I love bubba and wesker. -
I think it’s a very balanced map. Plus all the details are fun 🤩
-
I think truly the most disheartening thing about this isn’t even that the system is clearly not working right, but how some still defend it and blame the survivors in this case. I’ve never seen such unreasonable bias I guess? Probably shouldn’t be shocked, I suppose. This just reeks of “well what were you wearing?”
-
@jedimaster505 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946452#Comment_3946452
In 2016-2020 when I was a new player, terrible at looping and lacked game knowledge, I found the game quite difficult as survivor. I was not abusing infinites or other exploits because I was simply unaware they existed. Nowadays, survivor must be completely unplayable for new players. Solo Q is barely playable for veteran survivors at this point. It's pretty comical that 4 man SWF teams with thousands of hours experience per member, sweating as hard as they can with 3rd party comms and Reshade filters, routinely get 4K steamrolled by a Nurse, Spirit, or Blight with under 500 hours.
I feel the best balance period was between 2020-2022, before the huge meta shift with 6.1 update. Ever since 6.1, survivor role has just been steadily going downhill with solo Q being less and less worth playing, unless you're a masochist. And I must be because I exclusively play solo Q, because the idea of sweating on comms with a SWF like its CS GO completely ruins the atmosphere of DBD for me. The pendulum has swung from survivor-sided to heavily killer-sided instead of just resting in the middle. Now killer queues are super long while survivors are bribed with blood points to endure misery from killers that all too often use the "power role" to be toxic and BM a survivor who outplayed them but inevitably got caught once the weak links were removed with tunneling/proxy camping/slugging.
I've uninstalled this game so many times post 6.1 due to its unplayability as survivor. I never used to do this. I never used to go-next either but it reached a point where it was completely pointless to stay in certain matches due to how hilariously broken some killer's abilities are. Which is a shame, because the game itself is super fun when the match is actually balanced. But because matchmaking doesn't work and really poor balancing decisions have been made post 6.1 update, these close matches are the exception, not the norm.
I’m really sorry to hear those frustrations and I totally relate. I also pretty much only play SoloQ. My friends quit playing years ago, aside from one who became a killer main but still ended up losing interest. I’ve dabbled in killer and it’s just not as fun for me personally, and even when I go into it planning on being serious I always end up just memeing or farming because I have more fun. I’m the killer that can be tamed with a cheeky little nod or gift and I’m the survivor that stays behind at end game to give you a kill if you don’t have one because I don’t like snowballing.
But yeah, I get what you mean. I think it’s no secret that SoloQ has been in a rough spot for awhile. Most players will at least acknowledge it, but the difference comes from those that do acknowledge it and still expect players to be content. Wanting improvements has become seen as unreasonable and entitled, even though the game is literally always improving, always changing, and is not in the same state it was previously because other players wanted improvements too, only it was killers. I don’t think that improvements should be limited to a certain role and I think anyone that argues that it should be limited isn’t interested in a fair game.
In any case, I sympathize and I wish you luck in your future games! Keep hanging on! Things will get better, I feel it in my bones. :)
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946680#Comment_3946680
They already implemented the solution. Stop people from being able to unhook, though I will say they need to remove that whole caveat of "if you bring a luck thing you can give up still!" and just remove it. It completely dodges the point of the system. I have people bringing luck offerings for the first time in DBD history, JUST so they have the option to give up. Rework the perks based around luck.
But yes I do agree with your point, you can alleviate frustration for what they can control. Honestly what they need to do to alleviate the frustration is what they should've done years ago. Make multihooking the main way to win.
That is my problem with the whole anti-tunneling stuff. I don't disagree that they should add these anti-whatever systems. My problem is that while they do that, they aren't making multihooking any better. They want multihooking to be the main playstyle (both devs and the players tbh) but multihooking still sucks. They haven't made it stronger. Multihooking is still a detriment to do because they haven't fixed the main thing which is:
The game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1, but then dramatically killer sided in the 3v1, so killers will do the playstyle that secures a kill the fastest / easiest to get them into the numbers game that is killer favored. They need to close that gap. Just adding anti-tunnel, anti-camping, and anti-slugging features won't fix the main problem. It's a bandaid fix that only helps one side, when they could be making both sides feel better to play.
I’ll won’t delves into too much detail since it’s a bit of a side branch from the original topic, but I do appreciate your perspective and the thought you’ve clearly put into this. I know you’re passionate about improving the game’s core systems, and I share that desire.
That said, where I think we may disagree is the idea that multi-hooking is inherently weak. I don’t personally believe it’s always a bad strategy, but I do agree that it could offer more value than it currently does, especially if the devs want it to be the ideal playstyle moving forward.
Another area where we may differ is in our views on statistics. While I agree that stats can’t tell the full story due to context and nuance, I still see them as a useful baseline. Dismissing them entirely leaves us with only personal perception or anecdotal opinions which is unreliable and always skewed. If these new anti-changes lead to significant kill rate drops for specific killers, I’d prefer to see targeted buffs to help those outliers compete rather than a blanket power shift across the board. That’s how we can pinpoint which killers are underperforming due to relying too heavily on these tactics.
And while it’s not a popular opinion, I do think there’s room to explore something like a dynamic slowdown similar to the 2v8, where excessive snowballing adjusts gen times based on hook states. The goal wouldn’t be to punish success but to reduce lopsided matches where one role barely gets to play. I get that this idea is controversial, but I think it reflects a broader desire for more matches to feel competitive, rather than one-sided blowouts, regardless of who’s winning.
Ultimately, I think we both want the same thing: healthier gameplay for both sides. We just might differ a bit on how best to get there.
In any case, I don’t want to stray too much farther or clog up Generals post. I do hope that you feel as though you’ve been heard. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain all of your opinions and to clarify your stance. I feel like I better understand your position and I do think we are on the same page for the most part. Gliyn!
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946663#Comment_3946663
Oh no, I'm not talking from a balance perspective lol
Nurse doesn't need buffs, I just need to step up my hatch game 💀
And thanks so much for the kind words!!
Well I wish you luck! When (not if cause we're being positive and empowering here) when you do hit that personal goal we should celebrate. I'll bake a cake 🎉 or maybe a pie if you prefer 🤗 gonna need a treat after that grind
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946655#Comment_3946655
I'm not saying that changes aren't worth making. I'm saying that a MAJORITY of the reasons why people quit are unfixable. The reasons I listed why people quit happen 10x more. I've seen it playing both killer and playing survivor. Hell, I'm typing this after I JUST had my teammates give up with 3 of us alive and on one gen left (and not even in a 3 gen either). You can't solve that and it's the majority.
You can make sweeping changes to fix the minority of reasons why someone would quit but the majority will still be there and it won't go away.
There are more unreasonable go next's, compared to reasonable go next's. You can fix the reasonable ones but the "go next" epidemic isn't about the reasonable ones. It's about the unreasonable ones. The unsolvable ones.
Thanks for clarifying! I think I understand your stance better now. I agree that there will always be unreasonable players who throw matches or give up for frustrating or petty reasons, and you're right: that part isn’t really fixable. But I don’t think that means we should give up on addressing the reasonable frustrations just because they might be the minority.
Even then, I’d say the line between “reasonable” and “unreasonable” isn’t always so clear-cut. But assuming for argument’s sake that most go-nexts are unreasonable, the next question becomes: what’s the solution?
Personally, I think BHVR has already started answering that. Removing the ability to unhook yourself and prolonging the second stage, those are mechanical changes specifically designed to reduce how easily someone can “go next.” It doesn’t eliminate it entirely (nothing could), but it makes it harder to throw. (though the current AFK system needs some work but they will continue to make tweaks as time goes on) The next logical step is to look at the reasonable frustrations that are driving people to give up in the first place. And from what we’ve seen, BHVR is already doing that too, with upcoming anti-camp, anti-slug, and anti-tunnel changes.
So in a way, isn't this the best possible scenario? The devs are discouraging giving up through mechanical changes while also planning updates to address deeper, more valid frustrations. And if that’s the case, then I think we’re on the same page here: yes, some players are unreasonable, but that doesn’t mean all feedback should be ignored. We can’t solve everything, but we can improve what’s fixable.
Am i understanding your stance correctly? Does this feel like we've reached a common ground?
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946620#Comment_3946620
I'm shooting for 85%.
I know it sounds unreasonable, but I'm at the level of hours where the lack of matchmaking basically makes it impossible to lose. My killrate should reflect that but my lack of hatch gaming kinda undermines it.
Ah, I see. Totally fair to have personal goals, but I think it’s also important to separate personal grind from balance expectations. At really high MMR with enough hours, you're naturally going to outperform most matchmaking brackets. But that’s kind of the issue if you’re playing so well that the system can’t keep up. Aiming for 85% might not be unreasonable from a personal goals perspective, but I feel it would be from a design or balance perspective.
In any case, you're killing it! Gliyn and hopefully I never face you in the fog because I'm really terrible at facing cracked out nurses haha j/k
Congrats on your success :)
-
@Deadman7600 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946620#Comment_3946620
percentages are always a bit weird with things like this tbh. I expected mine to be lower for a few killers but percentages are deceiving.
I know there's nuance to be had when it comes to the numbers but it's also evidence and proof that isn't reliant upon subjectivity. Everyone is different but I'm the kind of person that can't just disregard actual data in favor of anecdotal opinions. A 72% is objectively, very good. I don't agree with dismissing the numbers just because they don't feel right.