hermitkermit
hermitkermit
About
- Username
- hermitkermit
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,625
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946556#Comment_3946556
My point is the things people list as changes necessary or changes that have happened that negatively impact survivor are things that don't even OCCUR at the time people DC.
Someone having a bad first chase, is unfixable. Someone not liking a certain killer, is unfixable. Someone's teammate having a bad chase, so THEY go up to the killer and suicide, is unfixable.
You can't do anything about those scenarios and those are the ones that tend to happen the most. I play killer and those happen CONSTANTLY. They will give up over the most non-existent problems achievable. You can make a bunch of improvements but at the end of the day, these people aren't even making it far enough into the game for those improvements you suggest to change anything. They just don't like the game not starting out perfect or meeting their conditions (a killer and map they enjoy).
There is no question that certain players will rage quit for absolutely no good reason. This is not limited to either role, nor is it limited to this particular game. It's nota a DBD issue, it's a human being issue. I understand your point, that some players quit for unreasonable or petty reasons. I agree that those specific situations aren’t things the devs can realistically fix, and that kind of behavior is frustrating.
But those examples shouldn’t erase the more valid cases where frustration builds up over time. The fact that some people quit over “nothing” doesn’t mean everyone is doing it for no actual frustrating reason, and it doesn’t mean the game is above improvement. That logic feels a bit like saying, “Because some people are unreasonable, no changes are worth making” which doesn’t hold up. That wouldn't have been the right solution back then, and it isn't the right solution now. We can acknowledge that some players will always act irrationally and still recognize that certain specific issues contribute to people giving up.
It’s not about this illusion that we can somehow fix every rage quit. It's about reducing the most contributing factor(s) into why it happens. And the way you do that is by addressing the core frustrations that push reasonable players to their limit. Not every DC is petty, but that doesn't mean it's right. You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons. And you can do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons as well. Ignoring all criticism just because some of it is unreasonable is not a good reason to ignore chances for improvement.
I don't agree that it's right to point to the existence of some unreasonable behavior and use it to dismiss the validity of any effort to improve things. With that kind of logic the game would simply never change because there will always be unreasonable humans.
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
I don't tunnel, camp, or really run much slowdown, but I do main Nurse
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/OI7LW58XVGQB/1000032493.png
I mean, it's not horrible but I expected my killrate to be a lot higher. It's prob because I lose the hatch game all the time, and sometimes don't bother to play it, but still…
Edit: Y'all are really downvoting a good faith post because of Nurse. That's just sad, people.
Can I ask how much higher you want your killrate to be for nurse? As 72% is really, really good, statistically speaking. I feel like if it was higher it would be a bit unreasonable.
-
@Rapid99 said:
I full on think that people who try to defend the go next stuff or try to provide some valid reasons as to why it happen, is a bit ignorant sorry to say. Not because you can't do it or not that those reasons aren't valid for the overall experience of survivor. The problem is, those reasons aren't why people leave.
Someone isn't leaving early due to "deteriorating survivor role" because those things aren't even in effect when people leave.
People will see a killer they don't like… and leave. People will have a bad chase… and leave. People's TEAMMATES will have a bad chase… and leave. People will not like the map they're on… and leave.
none of those have to do with a "deteriorating survivor role", they have to do with players being entitled. And it isn't just a survivor thing, it happens with killer too. If the game isn't perfect. A map they want, a killer they like, and a good first chase? They'll leave.
But dbd is genuinely the ONLY multiplayer game I've ever seen where people will try to defend leavers and people who give up, it's hilarious. This mindset of defending leavers gets bullied in any other community because why are we defending people who ruin the experience for everyone else. If you don't like the game and survivor has been "too deteriorated" for you… STOP PLAYING. Stop playing the game, play something else, instead of ruining the experience of everyone who actually enjoys / wants to play the game.
It's like people who leave feel OBLIGATED to play the game, even though they are immensely unhappy with it. So then all that ends up happening is ruining it for everyone else, whilst they stay unhappy.
Respectfully, I think there’s a big difference between defending the “go next” mindset and trying to understand why it’s happening in the first place. You can recognize a harmful behavior without excusing it, and trying to unpack the reasons behind it isn’t ignorance, it’s how progress is made. If you don’t understand what’s driving people to disengage, you have no real way of preventing it from continuing
This isn’t about making excuses or encouraging people to throw games. It’s about facing the uncomfortable truth that dissatisfaction isn’t exclusive to survivors and that many “go next” behaviors are symptoms of deeper frustration. Saying “just stop playing” ignores that frustration entirely. Worse, it dismisses feedback that could actually lead to improvement.
The same could have been said to killer players years ago, back when the game was heavily tilted in the survivors’ favor and killers had to deal with extremely frustrating mechanics. But thankfully, those concerns weren’t dismissed as entitlement. The devs listened, changes were made, and now the killer role is in a much healthier place because of it. That same understanding shouldn’t disappear now just because it's survivors who are now frustrated.
DBD is a game built on change. New perks, new killers, new mechanics, the game is constantly evolving. That means the conversation around balance and frustration should evolve too. Understanding why something is happening isn’t justification,it’s the first step toward solving it.
And to be blunt: DBD doesn’t tend to change until something forces it to. Exploits, broken perk combos, and dramatic shifts in behavior are what usually prompt action. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’re now getting anti-tunnel, anti-camp, and anti-slugging updates (whatever they end up being) right after the go-next wave. These tactics have existed since the game’s launch, but it’s only now—after mass pushback and visibility that meaningful changes are being made.
It’s unfortunate that it takes things reaching a breaking point to spark change. But that’s always been how DBD works. And whether you agree with the go-next mindset or not, pretending the frustration behind it isn’t real or based on anything substantial doesn't help anything progress forward.
-
Thanks for opening this discussion General. I think a lot of conversations around the “go next” epidemic tend to oversimplify the issue by framing it as a survivor problem, when in reality, it reflects a broader dissatisfaction with the game’s state, just like we’ve seen in the past with killer players.
Historically, the game has gone through clear imbalances. Early DBD heavily favored survivors, with things like infinite loops and permanent hook sabotage, keys with hatch etc . Killer players became burned out, and unhappy, many started leaving, prompting Behavior to make sweeping balance changes. Eventually leading to all kinds of good balance changes/mechanics like Bloodlust, reworking maps, and even adjusting the post-game screen from “The Entity is Displeased” to “The Entity Hungers” to reduce demoralization. That frustration was recognized as valid, and the devs responded. The game we have today is proof that changes were made, because killer frustrations were taken seriously (thankfully!).
Now that survivors are expressing frustration, it’s often dismissed as entitlement or a refusal to adapt. But that double standard is part of the problem. Players quitting or mentally checking out of matches isn’t exclusive to one role, it’s a symptom of feeling powerless, burnt out, or unheard. Whether it’s killers or survivors, both have had their turn feeling neglected by balance or design decisions.
In my opinion, the “go next” behavior is a response/symptom to perceived hopelessness, whether due to mechanics, matchmaking, map RNG, or killer powers that feel overwhelming, with no way to practice against them. The survivor role has become much more knowledge dense, and I think many times it’s less of a skill issue and more of a skill gap. There is just so much knowledge you need to have in order to be competent, and you currently have no way to practice that knowledge, unlike killers who can practice against bots in a custom mode. (A resource I celebrate that killers have access to, and am very vocal about the same resource becoming available to survivors as well)
Ultimately, I feel it shouldn’t be a battle over which side suffers more. The goal should be to make both roles feel satisfying and fair. Dismissing survivor concerns today is no different than ignoring killer concerns from years past. If players want the game to thrive, then players should care about other players, regardless of their preferred role. -
To be honest in my matches with him I never take the axe out. Whenever I tried to I always ended up going down because it would slow me. I treat it kinda like the Ghouls 1st hit. Many times it may come out of no where but I just accept that I’m now injured and try to focus on wasting as much time as possible. When I’m in chase and I keep the axe in, I usually last much longer cause I just ignore it and focus on distance. Instead of the grabs, what gets me messed up more is when he recalls it and then instantly throws it at me when I have made distance on the other side of a pallet or something lol
-
I hope not. He’s fun to face ☹️ I don’t think he can stall the game in any way like skull merchant could before the gen-kick cap so I don’t see why he’d be nerfed the same way.
-
@subdl said:
The core issue isn’t “slugging vs teabagging.”
It’s the fundamental unfairness in the endgame experience:When survivors lose, they get to go-next instantly—leaving behind empty husks controlled by AI.
But when killers win, they’re forced either to clean up the mess survivors left behind… or to abandon their victory entirely.In contrast, when survivors win, they’re granted by devs the full right to enjoy their victory with endless teabagging dances and flashlight clicks, all from the safety of the exit gate, until they’re ceremoniously escorted out by the killer they just defeated.
Personally, I find this whole ritual hard to stomach. But apparently, some players manage to find joy in such pathetic loser routines—wandering around aimlessly, breaking leftover pallets, or politely seeing survivors off—all in the name of so-called “player agency.”
That very term—“agency”—has been weaponized by some survivor-aligned players to justify what is clearly a broken and deeply unsatisfying gameplay imbalance.I’d genuinely like to hear the developers’ current thoughts on this dull and demoralizing endgame experience for killers.
Unless, of course, they rarely play killer themselves and have simply never had to feel it firsthand—in which case, their continued tolerance of this design would at least be somewhat understandable.I am in full support of an abandon mechanic being implemented into killer as long as the same thing happens when a survivor abandons as well— they are replaced by a bot.
You mention the joy or satisfying feeling of victory for you personally gets taken away when survivors are replaced by bots. And while I don’t personally feel that way, I do empathize. But I hope then you could potentially see how being ejected into the end game screen for all players involved because 1 abandoned would also feel unsatisfying.
The ability to abandon the match as a survivor and abandoning the match as a killer are two completely different outcomes. In one scenario, the person who abandoned is replaced with a bot, but it doesn’t change the status of the other 4 players game. They are free to remain in it, to play the rest of the match out. In the other scenario, the game just ends entirely. I understand wanting equality in terms of balancing features, but those do not give equal results.
-
Probably legion or trickster. I just really hate mending, so much so that I used to main legion and then realized how much I hated going against them and then stopped playing as him altogether lol. And then trickster I just really dislike because I feel his counter is entirely map dependent. So I tend not to enjoy facing him because it feels more reliant on rng luck rather than actual skill from both killer and survivor.
-
I understand why he’s considered S tier and I agree. Plenty of people above have already explained why, everything from ease of use, to mobility, to the anti-loop and nearly guaranteed 1st free hit. I don’t think he is OP but yeah, I believe he’s definitely strong.
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938155#Comment_3938155
Forgive me, when I said "you can't really say that removing it would weaken him signifcantly while also claiming it doesn't matter" I meant it generally, not you specifically, but that was poor phrasing on my part. Apologies.
I see, that makes more sense
I do understand he isn't the only killer with a free first hit, but none of them have the same kind of mobility that he does, which changes the value of the hit.
Which is made up for in other areas. He can't get multiple at once like Legion. His hits don't spread free map pressure like Plague. And remember, stealthy killers on indoor maps don't just injure. If you're already injured you're going down.
Kaneki's mobility is still a tradeoff here. His individual hits are more powerful in some ways and less in others.
I think there are far too many factors that go into a match to say that you should never heal unless dead on hook or a deadzone.
I was simplifying it. There are more situations, they're just rare.
The thing is, everything useful you could do with that extra health state matters significantly less than more gen progress 90% of the time. Dbd is a game about efficiency, after all. It's more efficient to slam gens and not worry about heals until someone really needs them.
I do appreciate you having an actual discussion, by the way. It's a nice breath of fresh air from the people screaming for nerfs to a killer that's never come close to Nurse or Blight tier.
Absolutely, I always appreciate thoughtful discussion especially when it’s respectful. I don’t need full agreement to find value in a conversation, only an understanding of perspective regardless if it’s the same one. I think challenging and being challenged is how we grow. So I genuinely appreciate your openness and honesty, even if we don’t see everything the same way.
That said, I’m not entirely sure we even do disagree much. From what you’ve shared, I find myself agreeing with most of it. The only area where we may diverge is just the value of the injury state on the Ghoul. Personally, I don’t think he’s OP, but I do believe his ability to secure an almost guaranteed injury adds significantly to his overall strength. I don’t think that because he can’t down you as instantly as he can injure you means it should be dismissed in terms of impact/value. While it doesn’t make him OP in my view, I do think it contributes to his strength.It’s possible we’re circling the same point with slightly different words, which isn’t my intention. If you feel that the inability to down with his power outweighs the injury pressure he brings, that’s completely valid for your opinion. I just personally see the free injury and mobility together as a meaningful form of strength, even if it’s not quite on the level of killers like Blight or Nurse, who I wouldn’t consider ideal models for balance, personally.
In any case, I’ve really enjoyed the exchange. Thanks again for engaging in this discussion, it’s been genuinely refreshing. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. :) -
If the killer was replaced with a bot the same way survivors are when they abandon, I would be in full support of this. But as it currently stands the game is over for all 5 players of the killer gives up. I don’t think the solution should be an ejection to the end game screen, just like 1 survivor giving up shouldn’t result in an ejection the end game screen. The other 4 people should be allowed to finish off the game no matter which role they are playing.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938151#Comment_3938151
The devs have said that the reason that killers can’t abandon when all the gens are done or when the exit gates are opened is “the killer can force the survivors to leave”, which is honestly a really terrible argument. I am willing to concede that killers shouldn’t be able to abandon when the gens are done but endgame collapse hasn’t started because the match is not over at that point. However, once exit gates are open, I think killers should be able to abandon if they choose. In my experience as killer, I have found that a large percentage of the time I don’t try to chase any more survivors after gates are open, one or more survivors are waiting at the gates to t-bag and if I don’t go to the gate, they wait as long as possible to leave just to waste my time.
The rationale the devs gave us for survivors being able to abandon when everyone is slugged is “the game is over and it allows everyone to get to the next match quicker.” It’s the exact same situation when gates are powered, yet we’re getting lame excuses for how these situations are somehow different.I would be in full support of killers being able to abandon if they were replaced by a bot in the same way that survivors are, so that the match can still continue. Killer bots should be added for a few reasons, and this is certainly one of them. The devs did say they know the abandon mechanic still needs some work, so maybe there is hope for this addition in the future.
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938091#Comment_3938091
Yeah, but the thing is...he isn't the only killer with a free first hit. Legion, all stealthy killers on indoor maps, and Plague (although it is slow) do too. Kaneki isn't even the best killer at spreading pressure that way because it isn't passive and it's only one survivor at a time.
There's a reason most good survivors don't really heal. It's not actually necessary. The only reason you'd need to is if you're dead on hook or in a deadzone.
You can't really say that removing it would weaken him significantly while also claiming it doesn't matter
I never said the hit itself didn't matter. That is his power, after all. I just said that a single free hit isn't problematic.
Forgive me, when I said "you can't really say that removing it would weaken him signifcantly while also claiming it doesn't matter" I meant it generally, not you specifically, but that was poor phrasing on my part. Apologies.
I do understand he isn't the only killer with a free first hit, but none of them have the same kind of mobility that he does, which changes the value of the hit. Just because a stealth killer like Mike may manage to sneak a first "free" hit (though I do feel this is debateable, as with Mike, the survivor is punished for being caught of guard at close range, and when it comes to the ghoul, the survivor is punished for being in a general line of sight even at a significant distance) but Mikes lack of mobility changes the value of that 1st "free" hit. It all depends on the killer (and the players personal skill of course) Some maps are terrible for some killers, while others are perfect. Certain perks are difficult to get value from with one killer, while that same perk is great on someone else. Same thing with a free first hit. An injury will always valuable, but combined with a killer that has the kind of mobility/anti-loop the Ghoul has (like when enraged), and that first hit becomes even more valuable.And I agree, choosing to stay injured can sometimes be the right call, but even if it is the right call it still does put you at a much more vulnerable state. You have to play much safer, you can't greed pallets as much, can't take protection hits or go for risky saves/gens, and you run the risk of a snowball if the entire team is injured. I think there are far too many factors that go into a match to say that you should never heal unless dead on hook or a deadzone.
Again, this may just be a polite agree to disagree, but in my opinion, being injured versus full health is a significant difference. And a power that nearly guarantees that injured state shouldn’t be dismissed when evaluating the killer’s overall strength. It may not be overpowered, but it is a meaningful advantage. I think that free 1st hit ability was taken away, he would be much weaker. If he would be weaker without it, then that means he is stronger with it, which means it does matter.
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
All of those killers can down with their powers.
One free hit is not a problem when he can't use his power to down.
I respectfully disagree with the idea that “getting a free injury state” isn’t a big deal just because the killer can’t immediately down from their power. That first health state does matter and dismissing it overlooks why things like tunneling are so effective. Survivors coming off hook at full health would be make tunneling significantly more difficult because it's the loss of a health state that quickens the down. Once you’ve lost a health state, you're significantly more vulnerable. That logic directly applies here.
The Ghoul’s free hit creates immediate pressure and opens the door for snowballing. Pair that with his excellent mobility, and getting to injured survivors becomes even easier. So while he can’t use his power to down, the free hit still gives him a strong advantage. Especially because that first hit is not just an injury but also a mend, creating a form of passive slowdown for the survivors to mend before they bleed out.
For the record, I don’t think Ghoul is OP. I do think some of the hit validation, like the ones through walls or second stories needs work, but overall he feels alright. That said, I do think the free hit is a meaningful strength. If he didn’t have that free health state, I don’t believe he’d be nearly as strong. You can’t really say that removing it would weaken him significantly while also claiming that it doesn’t matter. It does. It’s not broken, but it’s strong.
-
Idk but I would buy all the Jurassic Park stuff.
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3937694#Comment_3937694
if you aren't willing to play against a certain killer for any reason you shouldn't be playing at all since that's called getting good at the game
if you aren't willing to play the game to have fun learn and get better why play dbd?
To be fair, I don’t think it’s very realistic to expect a player that has something like emetophobia (A condition that makes them vomit if they hear/see vomit) to not be allowed to play the game when Plague is 1 out of 39 killers. Not even taking into account her pickrate, at a 1.45%. You’re more likely to encounter a Nurse, with a pickrate at 3.24%.
This is just one example but some killers can trigger actual conditions that a player cannot control. Just like some players are actually colorblind. Just because it may have been a small percentage does not mean they should be excluded from QOL. Nor should we blame them for being born that way.
-
It’s really difficult to determine simply because there are so many factors that go into why gens may or may not be getting done. Everything from slowdown, to hexes, to challenges, even to location. Finding gens on a map like Hawkins can be more difficult than finding gens on Coldwind. Map traversal size is another factor, and if it’s solo (which the majority of survivor players are) there’s no way to communicate where the gen that has the most progress is located at. The hud can show the Leon’s gen is about to pop, but he gets chased off it. Ideally it would be smart to try and find that gen, stop it from regressing further and pop it yourself, but then you do have to try and find it. That takes time. A lot of survivor is about time management and resource management, and there are so many factors that can artificially boost/hinder that management.
There’s lots of reasons for teams to be wiped out before many gens get done. Personally I wouldn’t mind the mechanics of 2v8 to come into the main game when it comes to gens. Slowing them down if there aren’t enough hooks, speeding them up if there are lots of hooks. Of course this would have to be tweaked with slugging and things, but I recognize this is not a popular opinion. Instead of it being seen as a “balancing” for the match as a whole for both roles, it’s interpreted as a “punishment for doing well.”
-
@Halloulle said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3936268#Comment_3936268
Yeah, the insane number of killers and powers and all to keep track of is something that I find as well and that I get the impression not all that many people have on their radar as a cause for matches not being enjoyable as surv. There are certain popular killers that you see often enough to actually get a hang of. - But most others? Nah, how am I supposed to develop a feeling for a killer when I seem them once every other month? (might actually be a reason why I liked the first two or three iterations of 2v8 so much as well; got rolled? All good, try to do sth else when you're in that situation next game; because chances are you'll see the same killer again)
That is absolutely my biggest “gripe” about survivor gameplay. Many times the quality of survivors is discussed, about how they’ve gone down over the years. (This is a debatable opinion, but still) But the survivor role has more and more expected from them with every single new killer, and 3 new perks.
I think people dismiss the knowledge required to be competent at survivor role way too easily. There are 39 different killers, with different counters with no way to practice. You have no control over how often you face a killer. It is trial by fire every time. To acknowledge that knowledge demand but also expect high quality survivor skills feels unrealistic.I’ve advocated for custom killer bots for a long time now, so that survivors have an equivalent way to practice in the same way killers can currently practice against survivor bots.
-
I’m sure they’re going to further explain the mechanic soon. They have already admitted that the abandon feature needs work (they did this in the live stream) and that they definitely haven’t given up on it. They “want to get it right” and the only way to do that is trial and error, and through feedback.
So while I absolutely share your concern, also try to remain cautiously optimistic. Your feedback is part of that loop that the devs are looking for. And no matter what changes are made to the system, it’s not as if we will just be “stuck” with it if it’s awful. It’s good to remember that it is not the end all be all while also voicing any valid concerns, questions, or suggestions you have about this or any upcoming change.
-
@Inosennatoki said:
Hopefully we will have monster in DBD.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/SKPEG8KYQYOO/1000001798.gif
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/K2HJYO2QYG4Q/1000001801.gif
omg a Jurassic park collab would be insane. I would buy everything lol. Blue the raptor would be my new main 100%
-
Boons are great in theory but as others have stated, they’re really tricky to balance, and the time/effort it takes to find a totem and set the boon often don’t end up worth it. I feel like the only way to get a chance at decent value is to dedicate the entire build to Boons. And as someone that’s tried many times to play around with them, they’re often found really quickly. Exponential is great but in order for it to work you have to be in the radius— and if you’re in the radius that means you can hear it which means the killer hears it too. The recovery time just wasn’t enough to pick up before the was snuffed.
But yeah, I would love for boons to be better but they’re tricky.
-
Ooohh 👀 thanks for the link! Could we finally be getting a spider-esque killer in the form of multiple arms? Exciting stuff!
-
Personally, The very first FNAF did something that not many horror games at the time did. It sort've made an entirely new genre of horror. Typically horror games involved movement, hiding, stealth, or survival. FNAF was different because you were stuck in one spot. This was not common at all in horror games at the time. It was a new experience, one that relied on resource management, and made you feel very vulnerable. Tie that in with a Chucky E Cheese kind of nostaliga, those uncomfortable mascots that always seemed a little creepy, and along with digital horror, seeing movement and things through secuirty cameras, and it was super unique. There was nothing really like it at the time. And after it blew up, the games got bigger, the time-line and lore got wackier, and then it just kind of exploded.
But at the end of the day it's simply different strokes for different folks. I get why people don't like fnaf, as it can be repetitive with the same tropes and the reason why Afton is evil is just kind of…because he's evil lol. But I don't think this is new in horror. Michael Myers chases the same person for like 8 movies, both laurie and him "die" several times, and at the end of the day he is evil because evil.
In any case, horror is subjective. Some people are terrified of spiders and others keep them as pets. Don't worry if you simply don't vibe with fnaf, there is no "true" horror. -
I’ve went down many times because of this. I always assumed I just get the timing wrong but I do have some recordings of my matches when you physically hear me spamming the space bar to drop the pallet and it just never dropped lol
idk I chalk it up to weird ping. The same way they are stunned on one side of the pallet and I still got hit on the other, or a hatchet that hits around a corner. Ping hits make the game look funny and frustrating some times.
-
Happy Birthday!! Good luck in the fog today!
-
The easier something is, the more popular it will be. Thats why you have someone like Nurse, who, despite being the most powerful thing in the entire game and has been consistently since the beginning of it, does not have a super high pick rate. She’s too complicated for many players to learn to use despite how powerful she is. Compare her to Blight, who is also extremely powerful but slightly easier to use and learn, who’s pick rate is higher.
No matter where a killer or a perk (for either role) sits on someone personal tier list, if someone is devoted enough they can still (usually) be successful with it. But it requires more effort. Most players don’t really want to do that. Which is fair enough cause this is a game, and for many it’s a casual game. It shouldn’t have to be studied like a language in order to be understood.
A teleport takes away that need to try and manage your macro. Anti-loop takes away that need to try and be successful in mind-gaming loops. Both Teleport, and Anti-loop make the game much easier, so players like and some all but demand that it is required. This goes for some survivor perks too, of course. Something like Adrenaline, or lithe for example, where it adds a layer of security so you can play a bit more recklessly. (There are more of course. Same with killer perks)Personally I like a good mix of both. If everything is always the same every game then it’s gonna get stale really quick Because DBD relies on that variety to maintain interest. So hopefully in the future we will get another trap or stealth or a brand new mechanic for a killer that helps with variety that players still find fun.
-
He is sitting at a 66% kill rate so I doubt these changes will make him suffer in success. I do understand that it’s a personal QOL change you don’t prefer though, so I’m sorry about that. It’s always tough trying to adjust to changes of a character or perk that we really loved as is.
Maybe many mains will voice their dissatisfaction and things will be adjusted in the future.
-
Scott himself did approve everything. I think they are actually lore accurate to the books as well. If the creator is happy, there’s not much more to ask for imo.
-
@Akumakaji said:
My fix to slow M1 killers was a proposed buff to Insidious, which would help them a lot, just as STFL did in the past:
Insidious: after hooking a survivor, the killer can press the secondary activation button to step inside the shadow of the hook and emerge from a shadow or unobserved corner at least 16m away from the survivor with the least amount of hooks. The killers terror radius is suppressed for 7s after teleporting and the survivors aura is revealed to the killer for 3s. In order to qualify as a teleporter target the survivor needs to be at least 24m away from the hooked survivor.
👈 aye that’s really cool.
-
They do have something similar in 2v8. Depending on how “well” one role is doing, the gens will either speed or slow. I personally like this mechanic, but it is somewhat controversial.
I personally wouldn’t mind something like that. Because I don’t enjoy stomps regardless of which role is doing it. But I do believe you and I would be in the minority here.
-
@frozzenk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3928924#Comment_3928924
When the killer would abandon in this scenario, the match would then end for everyone WITH THEIR VICTORY. Which you oh so very conveniently forgot to point out. They won. What are you complaining about? In all truth, they had already all but won anyway, the victory just came faster in what was already a near victory scenario. And if the killer wants to try to revert that near loss scenario, they are free to simply not pick the abandon option. It is an OPTION, after all.
Like I said before, that is even *better* than forcing the winner to have to stomach a bot interaction to secure their already earned win. Pretty much no one is playing a multiplayer game for bots, so it is only natural to feel like being forced to interact with them is almost like you're being punished for winning.
I'm sure that in your eyes, you're not the villain. While you argue so very hard to deny others a benefit you're getting. It's okay for you to have it. It's not okay for others. But in your eyes, you must be just, huh? Try to understand this. I sure as hell can't.
The villain? Okay, let me try to be very clear here. I thought my message at the end clarifying that I am not trying to be disrespectful when I am asking questions would help but perhaps not.
Nobody is a villain here. Everyone just has opinions. I do not think you, or any other person here regardless of their stance on this issue, is a villain. Just someone with an opposing viewpoint.
I am not arguing to deny others a benefit I am getting. Because the “benefit” is not “what I am getting”. You are talking about 2 entirely different “benefits”.
You’re saying it would be the same while actively ignoring how it isn’t, and then comparing something that would be the same (like a killer bot replacing a DC) as a “punishment for winning.”
The fact that the survivors still win the game doesn’t change the fact that ending the game entirely wouldn’t matter. If the survivors abandon at the end resulted in kicking the killer to an end game screen, taking away their ability play out the rest of the match, and skipping their Mori entirely - I doubt that would feel very fair to you either. Even if the killer still wins, I’m sure it would still matter that they were ejected from the game. Because you don’t have to be a killer or survivor to care about being ejected from the game.I am unsure what exactly I said to upset you. This is a discussion forum, meant for discussion. Someone asking clarifying questions about your opinion does not mean they’re evil and trying to silence you. I quite literally stated I am trying to understand. I have been civil and would appreciate the same courtesy.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3928924#Comment_3928924
I'm assuming they are referring to the presence of checkmate scenarios, and their comparison. In my post a few pages back I gave a scenario where the match is over, but the killer is stalemated (much like a 4 man slug is a survivor stalemate) until they actively submit, or wait out the EGC. The argument that gets pushed against it is that you have the ability to "end your suffering" so to speak as killer, therefore that is agency that is not afforded to slugged survivors. The counter argument is about stalemates like the one previously mentioned: When there is zero physical possibility of survivors from being able to be punished for not leaving, how is that agency?
I'm sure most people would be against any kind of "the moment things look bleak, eject" option. Even though that is essentially what survivors currently have with how it is currently implemented, there is no such respect for the killer's scenario. That is the reason it is a double standard. Not because the two scenarios are a 1 to 1 match, but rather because one side is both actively shielded from endgame toxicity, but also has their time respected as a player as well (you know, as a treat.) The arguing always focuses on the duration of the time, but it always misses the forest for the trees.
I havent played it in ages, but in Team Fortress 2 I remember when a match would end, respawns get disabled and gthe losing team is unarmed. They retain full control, and try to find places to hide or evade attacks, but they lose their means of fighting back. It is pruposely designed to be a humiliation ritual, a sanctioned means of the winning team to assert dominance over their defeated opponents with zero risk, and no way to make a mistake grave enough that their opponent can capitalize on their hubris. The match has ended, and the mechanic was simply there to be amusing at best, BM at worst. That is the closest example I can think of to swatting at the exit gates: There is no threat (with a few exceptions) and even the ability to capitalize on your opponents mistakes to make a comeback is either limited or non-existent. For all intents and purposes, the match has ended.
Going back to the TF2 comparison, in that game your "agency" is to get yourself killed to speed up the process. People would always handle it differently, some would go out memeing, some would actually try to hide and hope they last until the map closes and try to take a phyrric moral victory from it, but they can never make progress toward their objective, so it is not agency. Choosing the time and place of your death is not agency.
Back to the swatting out conundrum, this is one of the big disconnects I feel a lot of people are having on the subject: Defining "agency", and whether it is considered necessary for the game to commence. While the argument that the game ends when the killer leaves is true, it doesn't apply to a match that is already over. And I'm not talking about "there are 2 in the exit gate, one on hook in basement, and another unaccounted for" scenarios where the game still has life left in it, those shoyldn't be prevented by either side getting to leave early…. But survivors currently can. 4%, wiggling, unbreakable, exponential, deliverance, there are still plenty of things that could turn the tide the same way a survivor overextending from the exit gate could get caught and punished. The issue is that for some reason not only is one side given that freedom beyond the other, but that the perspective seems to purposely focus on the wrong aspects of each argument to have both side speaking past each other instead of with each other.
TL:DR if survivors are to be able to leave the moment they are in a checkmate, the killer should be able to as well. Not a check, a checkmate. It needs to be consistent for both sides considerations on the topic to be equally addressed. Whether that means requiring more considerations for the survivor abandon or less strictness to how it is handled for killer, maybe a combination of both, but as it is there is a lot of (un)intentional discordance based on what people identify as the root of the issue (duration vs sportsmanship)
I think this conversation would be a lot easier to navigate and maybe even agree on if the idea of a “checkmate” was clearly defined. Right now, everyone seems to have a different interpretation. Some people still argue that even when all four survivors are slugged, it’s still not truly over. That kind of subjectivity makes it hard to design any mechanic around the concept.
The original post didn’t list specific conditions for when the killer could abandon, just that it should be available if the gates are powered. But there are too many variables at play for that to work fairly.
If the condition can’t be clearly defined, it can’t be fairly enforced.
So the question becomes: who decides what qualifies as a checkmate? That’s not a small detail, it’s the entire foundation of whether this mechanic is fair or broken.
This is also where I take issue with the claim that survivors and killers would have the “same option.” Survivors abandoning a match doesn’t end the game. The other survivors and the killer can still remain in the match if they want. Killer still gets to see their mori. But if the killer abandons, everyone is kicked out. It doesn’t matter if you were trying to complete an EGC challenge, to some definitions of a check-mate it doesn’t matter if you’re even near the gate at all, the match will just end. That’s not an equal option. It’s an objectively different result. Equal buttons, not equal consequences.
When people brush past that distinction I find it very concerning, especially considering that the whole reason people are discussing a killer abandon mechanic is to avoid BM, to respect time, that choosing “when to explode” button is not agency. But what’s being proposed is a “choose when everyone explodes” button. It’s a kill switch to the whole match, not just one persons game. That’s not agency either.
The comparisons between a BM slug and survivors BM at the gate are also… a bit apples and oranges. They’re both frustrating, both BM, but not the same. Slugging is helplessness. Gate BM is obnoxiousness. One is being insulted by someone speeding away. The other is being insulted by someone standing over you until you die. Both suck, and both should be discouraged, but insisting they’re the same kind of problem just oversimplifies a very complex issue in my opinion. But again, both are not fun, and both should be addressed. But the issues are so different that the solutions should be different too.I do want to reduce BM. I’m all for making the exit gates riskier and giving killers more comeback potential. But where we, and perhaps many others in this discussion thread potentially differ, is that I want to improve the gameplay, not delete it. Try to discourage BM directly. This is why I was not a fan of the abandon mechanic as a solution to slugging, as it doesn’t actually discourage slugging itself at all. It just allows you to leave if it’s happening to you. It’s a solution for the symptom, not the cause. (I’m also not a fan of any kind of abandonment being a draw in any way. A DC should be a loss, across the board. Only exception should be when hackers are present )
If the killer were replaced with a bot in those moments, I’d have no problem. That wouldn’t disrupt the match, and it would allow the killer player to step away if they want. It would still respect their time, without erasing everyone else’s. -
@frozzenk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3928852#Comment_3928852
We are talking about the option for abandoning matches on defeat. It does not matter if bots are left or not. The match is over. There are two sides in this match. One of the sides has thrown the towel. Therefore, it is over.
If anything adding bots only makes it worse. What's the point of artificially extending a match in which one of the teams has thrown the towel? Let me repeat this: If there are only two teams in a match, and one of the teams has given up, the match is over. The other team has won. Any extension of this is almost as if you're punishing the winner by forcing them to deal with bots in the dead, rotting husk of a match that is already over.
So no. There is no disconnect. This is simply a matter of people wanting more quality of life for themselves while trying their hardest to deny it to others. It just hurts to admit it, so they'll pretend to be fair.
A truly fair person would argue for the option for BOTH sides. And you know it.
Maybe I’m just not understanding correctly, let me try to work on it. It seems that you are insisting this is about equality, and I am saying that the results are not equal. Giving killers the same option to abandon the match does not do the same thing as when a survivor abandons a match.
When a survivor quits, the match continues. When the killer quits, the match ends for everyone.
That’s not equal. That’s not perception. Thats not opinion. That’s objective difference.
To say that there is no difference between a DC that results in 4 players still being able to play and a DC that instantly ends the game for all 5 players so that nobody can play, is objectively not true.
Now, I’m positive you’re aware of this, and not trying to insist that there is no difference between the two. Which means that maybe, are you saying that while yes, it does do different things, but that it simply doesn’t matter? That if someone who is playing the killer wants to quit, it shouldn’t matter that the game ends for everyone. Wouldn’t true equality mean that if a singular survivor quits, that the game would also end for everyone? That even regardless of role, if 1 player quits the entire match should end?
I’m genuinely trying to understand your perspective. If the text comes across as condescending or anything it’s not the intent, tone is difficult to convey through message sometimes. I’m trying to get to the absolute bare bones of the differences of opinion and why.
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3928823#Comment_3928823
I have this post bookmarked, and there have been a small number of comments attempting to reasonably consider solutions.
But for several days now, I've seen a bunch of people accusing 'one side' or 'the other side' of not seeing the real problem or of being biased. Personally, I think there's much too much 'us vs. them' going on here, and maybe some perception of an 'us vs. them' perspective when it might not be present in some people even when their opinions appear biased. Don't get me wrong; some people do mainly play only killer or survivor and do have biased opinions. But I imagine that might be fewer people than it appears. Anyway, this paragraph feels preachy... sorry about that. But I think it's true that there's been a bit of that divisive talk in this thread.
@hermitkermit has proposed a pretty decent idea, suggesting to shorten the egc or make it more dangerous to stay in the gate. I think I've made a decent suggestion as well, that once all survivors are in an open gate for a short time, an abandon option for the killer would be fine. I'd be interested in seeing more solutions proposed :D
I agree that we shouldn't just end the match once egc happens. That takes away a critical part of the game. But I do think it would be great if we find a way to decrease toxicity in the community. Personally, I think the DBD community is much more positive than certain other online gaming communities, and I'd be happy to see it improve more. Maybe more of our games can end with ggs and glnm!
Thanks for the tag, and I really appreciate the thoughtful tone here. It’s been a long thread with a lot of strong opinions flying around, so seeing a post that actively tries to cool down the “us vs. them” energy is honestly refreshing.
I completely agree that things get unnecessarily polarized sometimes. killer mains, survivor mains, casual players, competitive players, we’re all ultimately here because we love the same game, even if we experience it differently. You’re right, most people probably aren’t walking in with malicious bias, but from a place of wanting the game to be fair and fun for everyone, even if we disagree on how to get there.
I also appreciate your willingness to engage with ideas from both perspectives, including mine. I still think we can address endgame stalling and BM without needing a full abandon button that ends the match outright, but I’m absolutely on board with exploring compromise solutions like yours if they respect the pacing and investment of everyone involved.
More than anything, I think the shared goal here is keeping matches respectful of players time, effort, and dignity, regardless of which side of the trial you’re on. And I’m with you— more GGs and GLIYN would be a win for everyone. :)
-
@frozzenk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3928833#Comment_3928833
There is absolutely no reason to NOT seek equality in this other than bias. It's not a perception of it. It's great that one team has the option. The other team should too. Both teams should have the option. This is what a fair person would argue for.
Disagreeing with this means you only want ONE team to have it. That is bias by definition. No matter how fair you think you are, if you are in here defending that one team should have an option while the other team should not, then you are part of the issue. This is a general "you" not a specific you to your person, by the way.
And if you're in here typing stuff like "be the bigger person, just go deal with it" at killers to defend them not having an option that you DO HAVE, like someone literally did earlier in this thread, you are committing hypocrisy to an absurd degree. These should be called out. These people are the rotten apples of the community. This community needs far less hypocrisy than it currently has.
I think where they may be a disconnect is here: I’m all for equality between the roles, (for the most part. I do think killers should have a higher win rate than survivors) but “one button for both sides” only makes sense when the outcomes are actually comparable.
What happens when a survivor abandons?
The survivor is replaced with a bot.
The rest of the match is still playable by both the other survivors and the killer.
What happens when a killer abandons?
The match instantly ends for everyone.
These outcomes are completely different. It’s 2 different game states entirely. The only way this would be a comparable outcome is if when the killer abandons, they are replaced with a bot.So if this is about creating the abandon button after killer bots are implemented— then yes, I would 100% be in support of it. I have been very vocal about killer bots for a long time, as survivors have no way to practice against killer bots in customs unlike how killers can practice against survivor bots in customs. So rejecting this particular suggestion isn’t “wanting only one team to have an option.” It’s saying the proposed “option” doesn’t give equal results.
If the goal is less BM, (which is great) we should address BM directly (faster collapse if survivors idle in the gate, clearer penalties for extended slug bleed‑outs) not introduce an immediate eject button that ends the entire game for everyone regardless if they were even in the gate at all.
And just for clarity sake, I do not agree with the way the current abandon system works as it gives draws. I feel that any abandon, no matter which role does it, should count as a loss. Not a draw. But BHVR did mention they understood the abandon mechanic can use some better improvements, so hopefully this will be changed in the future.
-
@JimbusCrimbus said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3928412#Comment_3928412
Notice the downvotes we're getting. The narcissistic and ego driven survivor mains need the validation of making the killer watch them at the gate. Without that, they have nothing.
It’s possible to disagree with the idea without being a narcissist ego maniac.
I think making the exit gate less safe, and discouraging the behavior by causing a negative effect by being in the gates, like the EGC going faster for every survivor standing in the gate in addition to how long they remain In the gate etc, would be a great deterrent. But in my opinion there’s a big difference between asking for asking for tools to handle potential BM rather than simply just ejecting into an end game screen for everyone, even if a survivor wasn’t even near the gate. As there are currently no killer bots to replace them, unlike survivors. I would love for killer bots to be added for more purposes than just this, but until that kind of feature is added I don’t agree with shutting the whole match down.
-
I get that watching survivors teabag at the gate is annoying, and I’m not against ideas to make the exit gate less safe in order to discourage this behavior but abandoning the match the moment gates are powered isn’t a good solution. That would completely bypass the endgame collapse and cut the match short for everyone, even survivors who are still playing seriously or haven’t reached the gate yet.
There’s a big difference between asking for tools to handle BMand asking for the power to end the game early and force an end on the survivors who might not even be involved in it. There’s no killer bot, the match will just instantly end. There are challenges that require you to do certain things during the EGC as well, such as being the last to leave.
I feel a better solution might be making the Endgame Collapse timer go faster if survivors are inside the exit gate, that way, there’s a built-in system to discourage camping at the line without breaking the match flow for everyone else.
-
@Twiggsy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925232#Comment_3925232
This is if everyone survivor is NOT hooked when egc activates and your idea would just get countered by standing outside of the gate if it's safe
I don’t think it makes sense to let the killer abandon the match during the EGC, especially since there’s no bot replacement like when a survivor disconnects. If a killer leaves, the match ends instantly for everyone. No warning, no chance to react. That would feel jarring and unfair, especially for survivors who might be mid-action cleansing a totem, opening a chest, or healing an injured teammate for end game heal points. There’s even challenges to be the last one out of 4 of a gate, and that would completely bypass those.
There’s a big difference between shortening the EGC timer and completely bypassing it.
As for the claim that survivors would just stand outside the gate to avoid speeding up the collapse, that’s kind of the point. The inside of the exit gate is significantly safer. Standing outside leaves you vulnerable to a hit, a grab, or a down. The reason people heal, take body blocks, and T-bag inside the gate is because it’s mostly risk-free. That’s exactly why it’s frustrating for killers to deal with. If the EGC timer accelerated based on how many survivors were inside the gate, it would reduce the safety of it and force teams to commit to an escape or take risks by staying outside it. It doesn’t remove strategic play, it just makes the decision-making more meaningful. Suddenly, that injured survivor doesn’t have the luxury of lingering in the gate while their teammates try a last-minute rescue. Survivors with flashlights can’t hide behind the pillar for a save. Injured survivors can’t heal on the inside without some kind of consequence. It raises the stakes.
All in all, I think making the gate less safe by tying it to a faster collapse is a better way to encourage faster escapes than giving the killer an instant match-ending button.
-
@Twiggsy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3924796#Comment_3924796
Then allow killer to abandon after the doors open we shouldn't be forced to wait 2 mins for survivors tbagging at the gate
I do still stand by the idea than any abandon should result in a loss, regardlesss of wich role uses it. When it comes to giving the option of allowing killers to abanond after the doors are open, that could cut a game rather short. If someone is on a hook, and someone on the team opens the gate, then does that mean the killer would abandon and the person on hook would automatically die? I don't feel this is balanced.
I wouldn't be opposed to the EGC decreasing with every survivor within the exit gate, however. If two are there, it collapses twice as fast, three - three times as fast, and four - four times as fast. -
I personally feel that any time a player uses the abandon feature, it should result in a loss, not a draw. I’m not the biggest fan of how the system currently works in that regard, but I know the devs have acknowledged issues with it and are working on adjustments.
That said, if all survivors are slugged, I do think the option to abandon makes sense. This feature was introduced because some killers were deliberately bleeding out players as a form of punishment, and removing it entirely could bring that issue right back. Even adding a required wait time risks leaving players vulnerable to BM, like body-humping, without any way to exit the match. The devs have made it clear that respecting players time is a priority, and I think that’s the right direction.
As for the mori on a bot, I respectfully disagree as I honestly don’t see it as a real problem. You still get to use the mori, and you still get the kill, it’s not as if the bot is skipping the cinematic. Wanting to force a human to sit there and watch it feels like the flip side of survivors who wait at the gate just to T-bag. It’s performative. If the point is the kill and the cool cinematic, then the bot shouldn’t ruin that experience.
-
GRAB THE PITCHFORKS!! BRING HIM BACK!!
-
These features should not affect the 60% kill rate goal. I am sure that if implementing these features does bring down killer performance below that 60%, then adjustments will be made.
It is much better In the long run of the game for both killers and survivors alike, if all killers are viable without having to resort to a singular kind of tactic or either role being forced to rely on certain perks.
I understand you’re concerned, but I assure you as of right now that BHVR still intends to ensure killers win continue maintaining their 60% killrate. So if killrates for certain killers start tanking, that leaves room for some base-kit buffs!
-
I feel there hasn't been enough time to know about the effectiveness of the nerfs. They just came today, right?
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
Easily the worst Rift they've ever done, and the first one in years I'm not going to bother trying to complete.
It looks like each of the outfits were made by different people who interpreted the theme completely differently. I don't understand what they were going for here at all. The outfits are far too busy. Clashing colours, clashing patterns, strange cuts, eccentric hair styles, all topped with flowers? I'm lost here.
I thought maybe it was gonna be like a Midsommar's kind of horror vibe. Like cults, flower crowns, white gowns, dancing around with flags kind of thing? But they do seem less cult-ish and more just… cutesy springtime. I do like the little detail of the flower petals falling off the crown when they move, but it does feel less "fear" and more "frolic."
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3922427#Comment_3922427
If you don't have anything to loop you played badly. Hands down.
The same issues are there when it comes to Blight or Slinger in Lerys, or Huntress/Dredge with maps with low locker count. A good or bad map can make or break a killer, and it can make or break counters to killers too.
-
Well, it’s an anti face-camping mechanic. Camping is still very much possible. I don’t think any people are claiming that it isn’t. The whole point of the system was to stop killers from standing directly in front of the hooked survivor.
Camping still exists but it’s not as easy as it used to be, and for that reason I think the mechanic is fine. Sometimes camping is the right move, but now you have to be more strategic about it, which is a good thing.
-
I completely understand not wanting to wait around, especially when it feels like the match is over and you’re just stuck watching potential showboating at the gate. I think it’s similar to how some players skip the mori. Once the outcome feels set, many people just want to move on.
The tricky part with abandonment is that everyone has a different threshold for when it’s “justified.” Because of that, a lot of the current system feels subjective…? And it probably shouldn’t be.
Personally, I think if you abandon a match, no matter the reason or role, it should be counted as a loss. Giving up is still giving up, even if you’re slugged for four minutes or stuck at the gate during EGC. Wanting to leave is understandable, but the ability to do so early shouldn’t be treated like a neutral outcome or a soft win. The anti-hiding mechanic and the anti-slug mechanic upcoming will take care of the only legitimate reasons I think to ever abandon a match. I don’t like the way the abandoned features are counted right now.
I’d rather those base-kit solutions or new concepts that encourage new endgame builds or perks, something that gives killers tools to manage gate gameplay. Because when the killer leaves, that’s it. There’s no bot to replace them like when survivors DC, the game just ends super abruptly, just a sudden stop. And that doesn’t feel good for anyone.
-
I’m Solo Q, but I’ve been pretty lucky with my Ghoul games. I’ve had people give up but only if like 2 people are dead hook at 5 gens. I haven’t had anyone immediately DC at the start aside from maybe like 2 or 3 times on the day he came out (probably burnout from the sheer amount of ghouls playing at that time)
I think a lot of it depends on the build they run too, and also map/rng. If it’s a big open space then yeah it’s kind of GGs.
I’m waiting for his kill stats to release to form a more solid opinion. As of my own experience/evidence of some of the hits he gets he feels slightly overturned but not OP. But again, we don’t have the stats yet so who knows, he could be at a 61% kill rate and actually be fine but he just feels slighty overtuned. Time will tell.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920597#Comment_3920597
Do you really think the majority of players would use a practice explain mode? I doubt it. There is nothing more annoying in games than having to play a tutorial. Sure you greatly benefit from them (if the tutorial is well done), but in reality none cares about playing them.
I think even a potentially underutilized tool doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist. There are some people that get great uses out of certain perks than others, but that doesn’t mean those perks aren’t worth putting in the game.
When it comes to the tutorial, I feel many people have voiced/acknowledged how bare bones the tutorial is, and how it should be relooked at because it doesn’t actually explain what it should. Having a simple message at the end of the basic tutorial explaining if you’re having trouble with any killer, or survivor perks, to be made aware of the ability to practice in custom bot matches I don’t feel would be very invasive. Including a killer bot for custom matches would only be providing the same kind of resource already provided for the other role. It’s not bringing in a new concept, only providing equal access. -
@SoGo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920597#Comment_3920597
I feel like it boils down to killer AI being hard to program well, if Snug is anything to go by.
That's the only reason why there are no ways to practice in custom games.
I do think they had killer bots during DC for 2v8.
I don’t expect them to be perfect. Survivor bots are a good example of that. But having something is better than nothing. The game is already very unfriendly to beginner players, and it gets more and more bloated and difficult with every new perk/killer. As it stands right now it’s like trying to study an exam at the same time you’re taking it, and the test changes a little more every time. It’s not consistent enough for substantial growth unless it’s over literal thousands of hours of time. I understand it would be a lot to program, but I think the effort is worth it.