knell
knell
About
- Username
- knell
- Joined
- Visits
- 7,862
- Last Active
Comments
-
Couldn't get out of hill at wretched shop, autohaven wreckers as a survivor on ps4. The killer saw that i was stuck, intentionally chose to not hit/down/hook me until everyone else was sacrificed. Basically the game was suddenly 3 vs 1 since i couldn't do anything.
-
On PS4 (US-East), we've always had severe lack of killers (especially in high ranks), which caused survivor queue to almost always be long (except possibly during Blood Hunt events and when new killers come out).
But from what I remember, PC community had supposedly the opposite problem, and had excess amount of killers, which was why the crossplay option, despite its own problems, seemed appealing for all parties.
So its a bit disappointing that the reality seems to be that the current crossplay option hasn't helped the survivor queue time much, if at all. I wonder if the PC's killer numbers were exaggerated on the forums, or if PC population actually isn't that big comparative to PS4's population to make that much of a difference.
-
@SoulKey said:
Yeah, That's a VPN connection; Pretty common atm for trash killers. Another way to lagswitch, i just had one today.
I'm pretty sure that this wasn't a player trying to take advantage of the DBD game system. The only hits they got in the entire game were the ones you saw above. No kills, no hooks, no downs. Just the 2 hits that you saw in the video. They apparently couldn't even seem to grab me while I was downed. The scoreboard showed that they were a Rank 20 with no perk (thanks MMR!) So if they were using VPN, it certainly wasn't for this game. Like someone said above, I'm interested what the killer was seeing from his perspective.
*edit: well, technically, I guess he did get 1 down... but given the circumstance, it's difficult to say whether it was advantageous to him in any way.
-
I have to admit that I started laughing when I kept getting more and more injured while I was downed.
-
@Mandy said:
We're aware that the system is not working as fully as we had anticipated, this is something that the team is investigating.
I'm very sorry that it's ruining people's matches right now, I truly am - sadly there's no more that I can say other than that.
@MandyTalk Can you by any chance pin your statement at the top of this forum, as well as having your statement displayed when we first start the game (like when we are usually notified of new chapters and hotfixes.) I think that would be the best way to relay the information to many people as possible without having to repeat the statement to different people in different threads.
I think part of this entire problem is, from players' point of view, we don't know if these lopsided matchmakings are how the MMR system is supposed to work from here on out, or it's not functioning correctly. I think you are the only person with some knowledge who has mentioned that there is something wrong with the MMR system. We're repeatedly told to be patient and give MMR system some 'time', but we don't know whether we are expected to simply give time to new players to adjust their MMR scores, or to give time to the developers to fix codes that are fundamentally broken. If we interpret it as the former - that nothing is broken, that would mean that new players will always be first forced into broken matchmakings until their MMR scores are adjusted - just like how it is for many people right now - maybe that is part of the reason why people are so frustrated.
My opinion is that, as a company, admittance of mistakes is very important part of its growth and potential.
-
@Gay Myers (Luzi) said:
It has been mentioned before that MMR might take some time until it "properly" works. It only was just enabled on a wider scale, so it will take some time for it to adjust. PLease check these threads for more information: Link 1, Link 2 and Link 3
@Gay Myers (Luzi) The Q&A thread that you linked to has PatBrutal saying, "We’re specifically monitoring the experience of new players to ensure the system doesn’t immediately throw them games where they are hopelessly outmatched, and we have a few techniques that we’re implementing already to help with this."
Are these "techniques" just not working or have they not been implemented yet?
-
"Currently, SWF groups will calculate an average rating of the players in the group, and then the matchmaking system will attempt to find an opponent based off that average. We will be monitoring this and the results it gives in the real world, and may tweak the formula to produce better results if we identify any problems. "
-
How quickly we forget. Just a reminder: "Red Ranks" statistics weren't really from red rank matches.
-
I should probably have also mentioned that all of the survivor icons at the bottom of the screen, as well as the icon that shows the number of generators remaining were also missing.
-
What's offensive is that people seem to believe that there needs to be a "good reason" to explore a fictional characters' sexual preference. It's just additional information about the character for the lore, regardless of whether it's needed or not.
Was it important to inform us that Jeff Johansen was an only child, or that he had at one point worked in a video store? No, but no one complained.
Was it important to inform us that Yui Kimura was a feminist in support of women who have been abused or stalked? No, but no one complained.
I could go on and on about each character.
There's so much information from the lore that are completely unrelated to the gameplay of "fixing gens and murdering survivors" but no one bats an eye.
Yet suddenly there are people being triggered about a fictional characters' sexuality being known. Why is it less important to know a characters' sexual preference than to know what they had for their high school jobs?
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/982381#Comment_982381
I don't think its as simple as they chose to allow it. My reasoning is if they made the choice to allow it then why not have party chat in game for swf? I think it was accepted it would happen and there was nothing they would do to prevent its use outside of the game when they first had discussions about the implementation of adding swf.
I think any new co-op/multiplayer game in today's market has to include a mode where you can join with friends. It would be commercial suicide not too. By adding this option you then also have to assume people will use voice chat. To not would be very ignorant to the consumer base you are aiming for.
It's not really about 0% or 100% its about acceptance of what would happen. It's a business decision and one i'd say all devs would make.
If we look at the rules BHVR do have firm stances on racism/sexism and they are bannable. The chat logs in game are stored on the server so if someone uses that system they can be reported and the logs will back up the report.
The issue with banning for those issues on a third party system is that they don't have the man power or way to access the proof. We all know a picture is not evidence as these can be easily doctored. This is why it's advised to go to the third party place direct as most if not all have similar rules. Microsoft, Sony and Steam for example all have rules in place and they can access the consumer chat logs so its logical that is where it should be reported as proof is needed or we end up banning players on someone's word alone.
I really don't think outlawing it would change anything apart from initially drive players away from the game until they found out its not posdible. As I said they didn't chose to incorporate chat into the game but accepted it will be used. That is a nd always will be a business decision for the game they wished to make. I have to agree with them from that standpoint as like I said it would be commercial suicide not too.
Take MLGA as an example. It was basically outlawed but the playerbase did not stop using it as they knew for a fact its use would never flag up for a ban to happen. So outlawing it would never stop players from using it. Console would also be a topic of contention as I highly doubt Sony or MS would agree to allow any ban if someone was caught using it. At best they could ask nicely in reality.
While I agree swf can be and is unbalanced especially with really good players. I can't really see a way to fix it as punishing players is not really an option. I used to believe it was in tge padt and argued my point regarding it but after thinking about it for a long time my mind changed. I feel now the issue is more what the community want over what the devs want for the game. The ones who do seem to complain the most seem to be highly competative. The devs though seem to want the game to be fun and engaging by the wording they use and not highly competative but instead casual.
We have really no clue what they truly want for the game as visions for anything tend to change over time and turn into something better or worse as they evolve. We also have to always remember, it is just a game.
I don't think its as simple as they chose to allow it. My reasoning is if they made the choice to allow it then why not have party chat in game for swf? I think it was accepted it would happen and there was nothing they would do to prevent its use outside of the game when they first had discussions about the implementation of adding swf.
I think any new co-op/multiplayer game in today's market has to include a mode where you can join with friends. It would be commercial suicide not too. By adding this option you then also have to assume people will use voice chat. To not would be very ignorant to the consumer base you are aiming for.
It's not really about 0% or 100% its about acceptance of what would happen. It's a business decision and one i'd say all devs would make.
That's what I'm saying, except instead of using the word "accepted," I would use, "forfeited" or "gave up." Instead of spearing through their vision of the game, they acquiesced to commercial trends and expectations. Instead of engaging intently with their own game to see what it needs, they looked outward to see what everyone else was doing. "All the other games have a chat option for their teams," they said, despite the fact that they knew that this isn't really a 'team game', but more of a player elimination, hidden movement game. They didn't believe in their game enough to stand by its mechanics on their own, and so sought out popularity by adding factors outside the main game mechanics. And that is why you constantly hear them saying something to the effect of, "It's not our game any more - it's the players'." It sounds nice, but in actuality, they absolved responsibility of its direction, and placed the gamers, who don't understand anything about game design or balance, in command. They simply prioritized the game as a business, and not as the result of their personal passion. And here we are.
Which isn't to say it was a wrong decision, or even a bad one. Unlike board games, player population is important in online video games. If not enough people play, the server goes down. And then no one will get to play. But would it really have died without SWF and voice communication? Personally, I wish they had at least taken the time to take that chance to find out - a little bit more time to let it grow. I wish they believed in their game enough to at least see if enough people would follow. I certainly would have. When you take out all the fluff, it's an interesting concept that's been around since the 80's. Asymmetrical one vs many, hidden information/movement. Except this game went further and allowed both sides to be hidden. In addition, instead of the usual 'team' based systems of typical asymmetrical hidden movement games, it stuck with its theme and made it player-elimination, where you are forced to work together, but still can't completely trust each other. That is indeed innovation!
But then they included SWF and voice communication out of desperation for popularity. Suddenly it lost its identity. Is it a team game, or not? Is it supposed to be hidden information, or not? Do you win by killing/surviving, or not? And to me, considering what it could have been, that's a shame.
If we look at the rules BHVR do have firm stances on racism/sexism and they are bannable. The chat logs in game are stored on the server so if someone uses that system they can be reported and the logs will back up the report.
The issue with banning for those issues on a third party system is that they don't have the man power or way to access the proof. We all know a picture is not evidence as these can be easily doctored. This is why it's advised to go to the third party place direct as most if not all have similar rules. Microsoft, Sony and Steam for example all have rules in place and they can access the consumer chat logs so its logical that is where it should be reported as proof is needed or we end up banning players on someone's word alone.
I really don't think outlawing it would change anything apart from initially drive players away from the game until they found out its not posdible. As I said they didn't chose to incorporate chat into the game but accepted it will be used. That is a nd always will be a business decision for the game they wished to make. I have to agree with them from that standpoint as like I said it would be commercial suicide not too.
I'm not sure if you understood the comparison here. My point was simply that if BHVR don't have the man-power or the control to do something in its entirety, they shouldn't just give up. They should just do what they can do on their end to their full potential, and if someone else need to step in, ask. If the third party don't/can't comply, well, at least they are taking a stand on the matter. It's not all or nothing. Just as you shouldn't give up because you can't completely eradicate racist/sexist comments on your own, you shouldn't give up on implementing rules for your game because you can't completely punish everyone who breaks the rules.
While I agree swf can be and is unbalanced especially with really good players. I can't really see a way to fix it as punishing players is not really an option. I used to believe it was in tge padt and argued my point regarding it but after thinking about it for a long time my mind changed. I feel now the issue is more what the community want over what the devs want for the game. The ones who do seem to complain the most seem to be highly competative. The devs though seem to want the game to be fun and engaging by the wording they use and not highly competative but instead casual.
We have really no clue what they truly want for the game as visions for anything tend to change over time and turn into something better or worse as they evolve. We also have to always remember, it is just a game.
You state it's just a game. And it is. And a game, to a developer, may just be a business or a job. To many of you in this forum, a game may just be a tool to socialize with others - a connection tool, where the focus is on other people and not the game. And for others, it may be a way to feel validated, or powerful, or just to feel like you are better than others. Their focus is on "winning," and not the game.
But for me, I love games for its own sake. I love game mechanics and how they mesh with each other, spinning like cogwheels. Sure I enjoy games on a personal level too, but I love the concepts and ideas behind games around the world. And for me, these particular developers should have been more confident in their original vision - I wish they loved games as much as I do. Unfortunately, from my perspective, it has become a missed opportunity.
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/982398#Comment_982398
I understand why people could dislike it but I’m going to defend it since I’m ok with it.
And some people aren't ok with it because of its unfairness, and attack it. And that's ok too.
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/982221#Comment_982221
What is the problem with that? It makes sense that someone who is ok with swf on comms would differ from people who aren’t ok with swf on comms.
There isn't a problem with that. There are different types of people, after all. Just understand that, unlike you, there are people who aren't ok with the unfairness presented by SWF, and don't want to play against them, even if 'authority figures' try to force them to.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/982140#Comment_982140
I just quoted the last one you posted. It's relevant to your first one.
Well, hopefully I understand what you are driving at.
First of all, my emphasis was on why the developers chose to "allow voice communication." It wasn't because 'voice communication' was an important mechanic of the actual game - it was because they didn't know how to execute a fair punishment system. Basically, they chose the fragility of its rule enforcement than what is good (mechanically) for the game. So that post is mainly about how their decision about voice communication was made, not about its possibility or impossibility of restricting voice communication.
Second, even if they didn't have a foolproof way of completely restricting voice communication, they could have made it much more difficult than it is now. You're right that people will find ways around it, whether it's by using less detectable third party systems or even simply sitting next to each other on a couch. But does it always have to be 0% or 100%?
For example, let's take at the current rules about racist/sexist harassment. Much like voice communication, there is currently no way to 100% prevent the problem of racist/sexist remarks that could be targeted at another player. If they are not presented in the first-party in-game chat log, some people may instead use third-party messaging systems to make the same horrible types of remarks. Does that mean BHVR should do nothing at all? No, of course not. BHVR should do what they can on their end to minimize that type of problem as much as possible, and if needed, seek help from some third-party systems' administrators if they are willing to make some concessions and changes on that end.
Similarly, if they had simply chose to outlaw voice communication because it didn't fit well with their game intention and design, then they could have made it at least much more difficult for voice communication to occur on their end, even if they couldn't control what third party systems did, and thereby standing up for what they believe their game to be.
But the fact of the matter is, they didn't. And even despite all these years, they still have not properly balanced the game for SWF/Solos/Killers. So I can't blame anyone if they find SWF incredibly unfair to the point of not wanting to play against them - because game-mechanics wise, voice communication was unintended for this game, and only exist due to the developers not wanting to restrict what they could within the game.
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/982078#Comment_982078
That’s why I find it reasonable.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/982112#Comment_982112
I just like talking to friends while playing, distance based would ruin that.
So you personally don't mind going against SWF players, and therefore you find the massive communication advantage of SWF over solos and killers 'reasonable.'
And yet, you have a difficult time understanding why people who DO mind going against SWF players are players that find SWF 'unreasonable' with their ability to have communication advantage over solos and killers?
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/982031#Comment_982031
I would say its actually impossible to punish for it due to the all the ways someone can circumvent the system. All the platforms people play on have chat and party tools built in, thousands of third party programms or using phones which have chat tools working over wifi or data.
There is also the legallity of it all. Searching someones system for a third party app that has nothing to do with the actual game and does not interact with it in any way is not information they are allowed to gather in every country around the world.
Its not about them not bothering to try but accepting from the start that by allowing players to play with friends will mean that some will play while chatting. They may have not realised the actual impact it could have on the game of course which I think could be highly possible but thats another discussion.
?
How is your post relevant to my comment you've quoted?
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/982074#Comment_982074
I don’t mind playing against swf. 🤷🏼♂️
Some people do. What's your point?
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/982063#Comment_982063
Because since the rules are reasonable I have no reason to be angered over them.
So in your mind, SWF having the ability to have massive communication advantage over solo players and killers is reasonable. I see.
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/982031#Comment_982031
Yet I don’t think everything else they say is law, I’ve been against this ruin change since it was announced, I’m against how legion currently is and I disagree with giving Freddy oblivious.
I don't know what they have stated about this Ruin change, the current Legion, or Freddy, but now my question to you is, "Why are you willing to accept and happily swallow what the 'authority figures' said about the usage of voice communications, but not these other things you just mentioned?"
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/981977#Comment_981977
That’s like me saying that they should nerf Trapper because someone like Otz is really good with him, regardless of your opinion on voice comms, it isn’t cheating and that is that.
I don't know who Otz is, but if he is one of the best Trapper players, and he goes against the best 4-Man SWF players of this world doing their best to escape, and they play hundreds of times, and the average win-rate falls in favor of the Trapper, then yes, they should nerf the Trapper. What's your point?
You're right, according to the 'authority figures,' voice communication isn't cheating. If you are the type of person to just accept whatever the 'authority figures' state to be the absolute law, well, good on you. But just realize that there are many individuals in the world who like to think for themselves about what is 'right' or 'fair' and want to make necessary changes if things are unjust or corrupt - whether it be in general society or just in games. Just differences in personality - that's all.
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/981688#Comment_981688
I told you a fact said by the devs and I told you that not every survivor playing with friends is good which is a fact.
Instead of saying that my argument isn’t valid you should instead prove the facts I listed above wrong if you truly think they aren’t facts.
1. Why does it matter if not every survivor playing with friends is a good player? In fact, why does it matter if majority of the SWF players are horrible players, intentionally or unintentionally?
What matters, balance-wise, is if the best killers playing efficiently against the best 4-Man SWF (who also are playing efficiently), and these 4-Man SWFs, on average, still have a higher win rate than the killers.
2. The only reason why voice communication isn't considered "cheating" in this particular game is because developers couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) find a way to enforce a punishment in cases where the rules are broken. In other words, they prioritized their ability to execute rules over what is good (mechanically) for the game. Much like if the government decides one day that slavery is legal again due to their inability to sufficiently find slave-holders, then it wouldn't technically be "illegal" anymore. But is it good for the society? Probably not. Basically, all of these reasoning fall under an 'appeal to authority' instead of each individuals thinking about what is right/fair for the game/society.
-
@Almo said:
Yes, we do ask the question about what's fun for Killers. Hence the changes to insta-heals, Decisive Strike, and some others. :)
I would categorize both insta-heals and Decisive Strike as being game-changers that killers couldn't do anything about, no matter how much of an improvement they make in their general skill level (unless you call 'dribbling' as being skilled). The 'nerfs' therefore had less to do with "killer's fun" and more to do with fixing a detrimental aspect of an unbalanced game.
I would categorize Hex: Ruin in a different category, given how Survivors simply had to A. find the Lit Totem or B. make personal improvements in doing skill-checks.
Do you have any other examples?
And speaking of imbalanced aspects of the game that killers can't do anything about, is there any plan on balancing SWF, so that best killers and best 4-SWF of similar skill levels have an equal chance of winning/losing? I don't think killers have a "fun" time against SWFs, and as a solo survivor, I don't really enjoy playing with them either.
-
@T2K said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/972627#Comment_972627
Tbh I can only provide you with my own experience. Because I run kindred I can see my 2 other mates. If they working on a gen and dont seem to go for the unhook, then I will. I will even completely give up my gen for the unhook and then taking the chase. Chances are that the 2 others will finish their gens, maybe find my gen or start a new one.
I enjoy playing solo because of the higher difficulty due to potato survivors xD
I cant tell you how they should balance. Since coms are a thing its barely manageable.
Agree. I saw that stream where they said they would try to not widen the gap further. Like I know behavior they will try to fix this issue with perks just like kindred. And in 2021 you will have to run 4 aura perks as solo player to have the dame amount of information a swf team has. Cant wait to see this bs happening.
Fair enough.
-
@Almo said:
Hi!
Just wanted to address one common concern I've seen from the community. "They nerfed Ruin so it wouldn't be hard for new Survivors."
That's not quite what the intention was. This is subtle, but bear with me.
New Ruin is in fact really brutal for new Survivors... because it is insidious. They have no idea what's happening, and they struggle to get gens done at all. That little zap effect when you take your hands off a gen? Barely noticable to a new player who's panicing because of the L3 Terror Radius they are hearing. It's not even noticable that the gen is regressing twice as fast as if the Killer had damaged it.
What we wanted to do was not "make it easy for new players" but "make it less frustrating for new players". In playtests with newer Survivor players, it was 4k with 4 or 5 gens up almost every time. But they didn't hate their time in the game as much because those red skill checks weren't in their faces.
I'm looking forward to playing on the PTB with some of you tomorrow; see you in the Fog!
What we wanted to do was not "make it easy for new players" but "make it less frustrating for new players".
Why do new killer players still have to face frustrating SWF squads if you truly want to "make it less frustrating for new players?" Why do you think that new killer players are forced to take a chance with the current Hex: Ruin to make the game last even slightly bit longer?
If you really care about the new incoming players, maybe it would be a good idea to put more thoughts into ranking and matchmaking issues so that more new killers end up facing more new survivors for more balanced games?
-
@T2K said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/972032#Comment_972032
Sure it will cost you more if you leave your gen as solo player. I play 90% of my games in solo queue too. But lets be real, the problem is not ruin or the "new" ruin. E.g. if you leave your gen at 99% and it regresses, I takes roughly 160 seconds to go down to 0% with new ruin. I dont think you will suffer from this. I know its really hard playing solo. I even have kindred in basekit to get at least some informations about my mates. But imo the gap between solo and swf wont widen significantly by the ruin change.
Let's take your example a little further - after you make the save, the patrolling killer comes back. Do you A) leave the injured survivor to deal with the killer (the advantages of that being - that survivor should know which pallets have already been used, and you can go finish the generator you were working on) or B) start a chase. Most of the time I end up choosing B) (start a chase) because I don't know the random well enough to know how long they would last while injured, and I don't want a 2nd hook/last hook to happen to them immediately. But then in this scenario, I can't go back to the generator I'm working on. Now, if I were in SWF, I can direct a teammate to go finish up my generator while I'm in a chase, but not as a solo player - I have to rely on luck or another observant random player to go prioritize finishing my gen after they are done with theirs. So most likely, even if I run the killer for about 2 minutes, lose him/her, and run back to my generator, I may have to start from almost the beginning. Again, another communication benefit that a good SWF can take advantage of - knowing which gens are almost done and work on them in the most efficient manner possible.
I know a lot of people feel playing solo survivors are difficult, but for me personally in my experience, it's not too bad. I have some good games, some bad. But my personal experiences don't really matter because that doesn't change the fact that there is a large gap between good solo players (who have to rely on luck and good guesses to make up for the lack of information) and good SWF players (who have the ability to have pretty much any information they need to know at any moment). Which then presents a problem with balancing - are good killers being balanced against good solo players? or are they balanced against good SWF players? Or somewhere in the middle (which still means that SWF still remains the strongest of these groups)?
You're right - solo and SWF gap won't widen significantly by this Ruin change. The problem is that there is a gap between the two experiences at all. The developers already stated that they aren't doing anything to 'reduce' the gap - they stated that they are simply making sure the gap 'doesn't increase.' But if that is true, at the very, very minimum, whenever they are adding something to the game, they should make sure that these changes aren't giving any advantage to SWF over the solo experience at all. Because every little advantage becomes additive. In that respect, it makes me wonder if they actually understand that and are trying to balance the game for the better.
-
@T2K said:
I think if the killer runs the new ruin you can just finish your gen as solo player and then go for the save. I dont see a problem there. You can finish it quicker because you dont get penalties for non great skillchecks. I do think players will have the urge to finish the gen before moving away but honestly, the gen will still regress slower than your repair speed. Oh and you can still cleanse it. so...
And yes Im also disappointed of the dev update
That urgency to finish the generator 'first' is exactly the type of problem that often ends up costing solo players, at least decent ones. Good solo players often tend to have more self-control on not immediately running for the save, but instead first calculating the likelihood of another survivor doing it instead. Are they SWF? Or a solo player with WMI and Borrowed Time? Or have I observed a bad solo player who tend to run head first into killers to save someone? Am I the closest one? Do I think I can finish this generator before the killer comes? Is the hook person worth going for a save (as in, is he/she capable of making up for the time I spent saving him/her?) Most of the time, we end up guessing correctly, but there are times when the remaining few mistakes end up being very costly and game-changing. At the end, solo players end up making lots of "guesses" from previous experiences (both from that one game and other games) which SWF never have to do. The new Hex: Ruin will be another factor that solo player would have to ponder over, while SWF players will have less of a chance of making the same type of mistake due to their ability to communicate.
-
If you are a Rank 6 Survivor and Rank 5 Killer, and you are having trouble queuing for BOTH roles, then it's either 1. the geolocation that your matchmaker searches in currently don't have enough players at all or 2. something is wrong with your network setting/your PS4.
The other possibility is something is wrong on the DBD server end, but then it should be affecting a lot more people, not just you.
For most people though, if you are having a long queue time on survivor role but not the killer role, it means that there are too many survivors. If you are having a long queue time on killer role, but not the survivor role, it means that there are too many killers. The optimum number of killers to have at any given time is 20%, or 1 in 5 people.
-
@xEa said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/945895#Comment_945895
And why are we talking about red ranks at all? These are statistics overall. I just mentioned, that red ranks are even worse. Rank 10 Killer vs Rank 10 survivor is still the same, Killer gets more kills then he should.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/945902#Comment_945902
The "japanese community mananger" said something nobody else did...
alright..
Also i call big bullshit on that one, as Red rank killer i run into red rank survivor all the time and so does every other Red ranked killer i know
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/945901#Comment_945901
thats what i agree aswell. Less kills, better way to pip.
@Endstille is right.
forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/108370/fyi-stats-red-ranks-werent-really-red-rank-matches
The Red Rank stats were based strictly from data that only required killers to be red ranks - not survivors. Therefore many of the killers' opponents could have been Rank 10s, or if they were SWF, even Rank 20s.
It's like taking a data on 4-Man Red Rank SWF's escape rate against any ranked killer that matchmaking decides to put together - the escape rate is going to be abnormally high, but it doesn't amount to much meaning because only one side is restricted to being in red ranks.
The only thing that matters in balancing the game is taking statistical data on what happens when the game pits the potential of the best skilled survivor players (as the best 4-SWF genrushing team) against the potential of the best skilled killer players (regardless of what killer they play), and see if it is more or less than two kills on average - if it is less than two kills, buff the killers, if is more than two kills, nerf the killers. And then ultimately, balancing downwards, so that similarly skilled players end up facing each other. Nothing else really matters. Unfortunately, you can't even get a glimpse of how the game is balanced from the data we received, since the only requirement was for killers to be in the red rank at the beginning of the match.
-
@Well_Placed_HexTotem said:
You haven’t pointed anything factual out regarding Kindred vs SWF. Just your opinion. I’ve also detailed why Kindred is superior to SWF. Your reply is that it doesn’t matter that 99% of SWF don’t utilize communication well enough, I disagree because that is nonsense and not ideal for balancing a game. You’re welcome to disagree.
SWF gets access to some stuff for free because they can communicate. We’ve been over this already. Im still waiting on some logic as to why breaking the game somehow balances it. What are these mystical killer buffs that will account for the vast amounts of power all survivors will have now? A second objective? 😆😆
Again, adorable.
You haven’t pointed anything factual out regarding Kindred vs SWF. Just your opinion.
Exactly what part of my argument do you believe is an opinion?
I’ve also detailed why Kindred is superior to SWF.
Either I've missed it or found your argument lacking and dismissed it - please copy and paste (as I have done for you) these reasons and circumstances you've apparently provided to believe that Kindred is better than SWF.
Your reply is that it doesn’t matter that 99% of SWF don’t utilize communication well enough, I disagree because that is nonsense and not ideal for balancing a game.
Just clamoring that something "is nonsense" doesn't actually support your side of your argument, you do realize that, right? Please explain why you believe it "is nonsense" and why you believe it "isn't ideal for balancing the game."
SWF gets access to some stuff for free because they can communicate.
Yes, and we are saying that this ability to communicate gives SWF a free advantage not available to solos. What is your point?
Im still waiting on some logic as to why breaking the game somehow balances it.
Clearly define "breaking the game" and I'll see what I can do for you.
-
@Well_Placed_HexTotem said:
And I’ll just say again that you can scream “buff killers accordingly!!!” all you want and I’ll continue to ask what game you people have been playing these years to have faith that this is even possible and more importantly wouldn’t take BHVR seven years to achieve.
Idk what you’re going on about in regards to looping and generators. You’re bringing up SWF getting free access to Kindred info, the problem with balancing around that is that one, Kindred is still superior, and two, SWF groups aren’t utilizing their “free” info nearly as well as you make it seem. And certainly not enough to remake the entire game 😊
Theres zero logical reasoning behind the idea that every survivor should by default get access to something as powerful as Kindred. Again, take off your exhaustion perk or Adrenaline or Iron Will and put Kindred on.
And I’ll just say again that you can scream “buff killers accordingly!!!” all you want and I’ll continue to ask what game you people have been playing these years to have faith that this is even possible and more importantly wouldn’t take BHVR seven years to achieve.
Then your problem is with the BHVR developers - and your distrust in their capability to adjust the killers' strength to be on par with SWF groups. Granted, it's understandable for you to feel that way given their history, but it doesn't take away from the fact that BOTH solos and killers need to be adjusted for the game to be properly balanced at the top.
the problem with balancing around that is that one, Kindred is still superior
I've already pointed out to you how SWF is much stronger in many ways than Kindred. Here, let me copy and paste it so that you can be reminded.
In addition, SWF still have advantages that Kindred doesn't. For example, let's say you are all far away from the hooked. Even if you are slightly closer than other survivors, you may want to finish your 90% generator first because you know that the killer has the PGTW perk equipped. As a solo with Kindred, you still have no way to relay that information to other randoms, while SWF can obtain that information even before the hooking happens, thereby getting into position much more quickly. Another example - even if you are farther away than the other survivors from the hook, you may have perks that may make up for that loss in time to get there, such as WMI (for non-camping killers) or BT (for camping/patrolling killers.) Again, no way to relay that to randoms as a solo, while SWF can take the initiative. Speaking of camping/patrolling killers, sometimes you actually may require two people to go rescue - one player as the new target and one player as the actual unhooker. Again, no way to communicate that to randoms, but SWF are able to do just that. You also spoke about traps earlier. It's true that sometimes Kindred can be helpful in the regard that everyone can see the trap-placing animation, but when you actually get close to the hooked, it's often difficult to determine exactly where it is so you are forced to slow down some, while SWF can simply direct where not to go. In addition, Kindred also only allows a Killer within a range of 16 meters to be shown, so even if the hooked survivor can see that the Killer has gone back to a strong chokepoint around the 20 meter range, there is no way to inform the survivor who is about to unhook you to not go in that direction. Again, good SWF can.
So in conclusion, even if Kindred is made base kit, it still certainly wouldn't make solos as strong as SWF - it would, however, bridge some of the massive gap between them at the highest level.
On the other hand, you have so far failed to provide exactly under what circumstances Kindred would be "superior" to SWF. Please provide detailed explanation about it.
two, SWF groups aren’t utilizing their “free” info nearly as well as you make it seem.
I've already pointed out to you how SWF players failing to utilize their communication advantage has nothing to do with balancing the game. Please reread what I've written in the post prior to this.
Theres zero logical reasoning behind the idea that every survivor should by default get access to something as powerful as Kindred. Again, take off your exhaustion perk or Adrenaline or Iron Will and put Kindred on.
Again, why should SWF have their access to "exhaustion perk or Adrenaline or Iron Will" in addition to having pretty much the same effect of Kindred without equipping it?
-
@Well_Placed_HexTotem said:
It’s not “given to SWF” though. It’s available to SWF, but a vast majority do not use it. Is it fair to the killer that sometimes they face groups who excel in teamwork and communication and make it almost impossible to win with some killers? Of course not. But is the answer to that problem to buff every survivor whether they’re SWF or not? No. That’s adorable and ridiculous.
Im not complaining about the lack of balance in some situations because, as I’ve said, it’s virtually impossible to balance without breaking the game down completely and rebuilding it. And that certainly doesn’t include giving every survivor free access to one of the strongest perks in the game 😆
It’s not “given to SWF” though. It’s available to SWF, but a vast majority do not use it. Is it fair to the killer that sometimes they face groups who excel in teamwork and communication and make it almost impossible to win with some killers? Of course not. But is the answer to that problem to buff every survivor whether they’re SWF or not? No. That’s adorable and ridiculous.
You know what else is "available" to survivors? Working on generators. Looping. How about for killers? Hooking, slugging, camping/patrolling... pretty much any aspect of the game. Sure, some people may choose not to focus on generators, or choose not to loop the killers. Some killers may choose not to slug or camp or patrol. But do we avoid balancing the game for what players fail to do? Of course not. Then why do you think we should balance the game for these vast majority of SWF players who fail to communicate effectively?
The basics of balancing is this: You always balance the game based on what players are capable of doing, not on the majority's failures. For pretty much any game, you balance at the top to gauge the potential, and then balance down from there.
Im not complaining about the lack of balance in some situations because, as I’ve said, it’s virtually impossible to balance without breaking the game down completely and rebuilding it. And that certainly doesn’t include giving every survivor free access to one of the strongest perks in the game
And yet, SWF groups pretty much have that "free access" that you speak of. Sure, many fail to take advantage of it, but that's on them - it's their failure, not the game's. And if that's the case, why shouldn't solos have that same access? Why shouldn't killer be buffed enough to counteract it so that the strongest killer-players have a chance against the strongest SWF players?
-
@Well_Placed_HexTotem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/940457#Comment_940457
Yes, I said people complaining about balance should be asking for SWF to be brought down to everyone else, not to buff solo survivors to where they’re on par or closer to already broken SWF. But I’m not one of the people complaining, so I’m not sure where you’re confused here. Hope that helps.
Im not really going to bother debating what qualifies a SWF as good or try hard etc etc we can just agree to disagree. But I will say a vast vast majority of them are not nearly as sweaty as you’re describing.
Kindred is a great perk. If you want it, take off one of your meta perks and run it.
Yes, I said people complaining about balance should be asking for SWF to be brought down to everyone else, not to buff solo survivors to where they’re on par or closer to already broken SWF. But I’m not one of the people complaining, so I’m not sure where you’re confused here. Hope that helps.
Are you not complaining because you believe that the balance between solos/SWF/killers are fine, or because you want other people to argue the point for you?
But I will say a vast vast majority of them are not nearly as sweaty as you’re describing.
It doesn't matter if the "vast vast majority" of SWF are not "sweaty." What matters, balance-wise, is whether the minority of SWFs who actually tries to win (or as you call it, are 'sweaty') ends up beating a similarly skilled opponents vast majority of the times on average. No one cares about the majority of players who are intentionally playing moronically, without self-restraint or self-control - they should not have any input in the overall balancing decision in the first place.
Kindred is a great perk. If you want it, take off one of your meta perks and run it.
The effect of Kindred is indeed great. The point that everyone is making is that this effect (and more) are given to SWF without having to take up a perk slot, so that they can keep one of their "meta perks" - as you put it. How is that fair?
-
@Well_Placed_HexTotem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/938627#Comment_938627
Depends on your definition of try hard. To me a SWF does not have to make super quick accurate call outs or have great perk synergy to be try hard. Just running the meta load outs and knocking out gens is try hard enough and very hard for most of the killers on the roster to combat.
Again, as a solo player, I run Kindred. It instantly tells me where every other survivor is exactly. Which direction the killer is going after the hook, exactly. Where a killer may place a trap, exactly. Whether someone else is in a chase and exactly where they are being chased. Most SWF don’t get this. At best you’ll get call outs that may or may not be super descriptive, and are very often not. With Kindred it’s all there instantly with zero effort required. That not only buffs solo, it buffs SWF.
And no, I don’t think they should bother nerfing SWF down to the level of solos because as I said, it’s not possible. Four random teammates, even great players, will be outclassed by equal levels that are in SWF. There’s no way to make them an even level. Even Apex Legends which goes far and beyond anything I’ve ever seen other games try to do to bridge the gap between solo and groups, can not replicate the group dynamic for solo players. The only thing BHVR can do is make in game voice chat which would essentially make everyone SWF.
Theyve had years to balance the game around SWF. They haven’t done it. Because they can’t. It’s a nice fantasy to want to solos buffed to match the OP status of SWF but the reality is that would just make killer pointless to play.
Depends on your definition of try hard. To me a SWF does not have to make super quick accurate call outs or have great perk synergy to be try hard. Just running the meta load outs and knocking out gens is try hard enough and very hard for most of the killers on the roster to combat.
Your "try hard enough" isn't really "trying hard" if they are not communicating pertinent information effectively and quicky. Yes, "knocking out gens" would make winning difficult for most killers, but in order to do that, survivors need to be very aware not only of the killer's movements, but also of the other survivors. That's why Kindred is good for solos - to make up for the ability that SWF is capable of. Key words being "make up."
Again, as a solo player, I run Kindred. It instantly tells me where every other survivor is exactly. Which direction the killer is going after the hook, exactly. Where a killer may place a trap, exactly. Whether someone else is in a chase and exactly where they are being chased. Most SWF don’t get this. At best you’ll get call outs that may or may not be super descriptive, and are very often not. With Kindred it’s all there instantly with zero effort required. That not only buffs solo, it buffs SWF.
Again, good SWF are capable of communicating all of those things (if they are any good). Where the other survivors are - check. Which direction the killer is going - check. Where the killer is placing a trap - check. Whether someone else is in a chase - check. The exact positioning of these things hardly ever matter because the only things that needs to be clarified are 1. who should go rescue, 2. who should stay on gens, and 3. who is/should be in chase. The advantage of equipping Kindred on members of SWF is very minuscule. That's why, if they are any decent at SWF, there is no reason for them all to be equipping Kindred - it makes almost no difference to a good SWF group, and in fact, take up perk slots that could be used to make themselves more effective.
In addition, SWF still have advantages that Kindred doesn't. For example, let's say you are all far away from the hooked. Even if you are slightly closer than other survivors, you may want to finish your 90% generator first because you know that the killer has the PGTW perk equipped. As a solo with Kindred, you still have no way to relay that information to other randoms, while SWF can obtain that information even before the hooking happens, thereby getting into position much more quickly. Another example - even if you are farther away than the other survivors from the hook, you may have perks that may make up for that loss in time to get there, such as WMI (for non-camping killers) or BT (for camping/patrolling killers.) Again, no way to relay that to randoms as a solo, while SWF can take the initiative. Speaking of camping/patrolling killers, sometimes you actually may require two people to go rescue - one player as the new target and one player as the actual unhooker. Again, no way to communicate that to randoms, but SWF are able to do just that. You also spoke about traps earlier. It's true that sometimes Kindred can be helpful in the regard that everyone can see the trap-placing animation, but when you actually get close to the hooked, it's often difficult to determine exactly where it is so you are forced to slow down some, while SWF can simply direct where not to go. In addition, Kindred also only allows a Killer within a range of 16 meters to be shown, so even if the hooked survivor can see that the Killer has gone back to a strong chokepoint around the 20 meter range, there is no way to inform the survivor who is about to unhook you to not go in that direction. Again, good SWF can.
So in conclusion, even if Kindred is made base kit, it still certainly wouldn't make solos as strong as SWF - it would, however, bridge some of the massive gap between them at the highest level.
And no, I don’t think they should bother nerfing SWF down to the level of solos because as I said, it’s not possible.
No, what you said earlier was,
"So again, whine to BHVR to bring SWF DOWN to solo, not solos up."
But now you are saying BHVR shouldn't bother trying to bring solos/killers up to SWF level, NOR should they try to bring SWF down to solos/killers level. Basically - to give up on balancing the game. It's true that SWF will always be stronger than solos (as I just demonstrated in my example above), but to not even try to diminish the gap between them to make a more balanced game? To me, it sounds like you actually want an unbalanced game - where a good SWF will always dominate over good killers, and good killers to dominate over solos. Perhaps you are satisfied with how the balance is broken due to it, but the developers (and people who actually care about the game quality) should never be.
-
@Well_Placed_HexTotem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/937675#Comment_937675
SWF don’t get all the info Kindred gives. It gives you a lot of info easily. Even try hard SWF groups would have to have detailed lightning quick info and awareness to communicate the same information Kindred gives you.
This idea that a game can be balanced around coordinated SWF groups AND solo players while giving killers an equal chance against both is an adorable pipe dream. People fail to realize any buff for solo players will buff SWF also. So again, whine to BHVR to bring SWF DOWN to solo, not solos up.
SWF don’t get all the info Kindred gives. It gives you a lot of info easily.
What kind of information can Kindred give that SWF can't give that would also save them a lot of time?
Even try hard SWF groups would have to have detailed lightning quick info and awareness to communicate the same information Kindred gives you.
Part of being a "try hard SWF group" is being able to give important information as quickly as possible, and being able to communicate in the most efficient way possible. The failure to do so says more about the quality of that particular SWF than the effect of Kindred.
This idea that a game can be balanced around coordinated SWF groups AND solo players while giving killers an equal chance against both is an adorable pipe dream. People fail to realize any buff for solo players will buff SWF also. So again, whine to BHVR to bring SWF DOWN to solo, not solos up.
If you want to push the developers to nerf SWF down to solo/killer level, go for it - I personally don't mind that as long as the game gets balanced for all solo/SWF/killers at the highest level. The only reason why many people are pushing for solos/killers to be pushed up to SWF level is because that's what the developers are already claiming they want to do - the problem is they are doing it in the most sloppy, half-baked attempts possible and people are simply sick of the unbalance. If you truly believe that you are capable of changing the minds of developers and convince them to nerf SWF to solos/killers level, then more power to you.
-
@LordRegal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/937675#Comment_937675
I have used the perk in SWF and have not used it in SWF. The games I had it were smoother than the ones I did not. So while I will agree that SWF get something akin to Kindred, I will not agree that it’s the same, nor that Kindred does not help SWF.
How is Kindred an "extremely valuable perk, worth the perk slot" for SWF groups, to a point where it overrides the necessity for all other survivor perks?
-
@LordRegal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/937543#Comment_937543
Seriously though. It earned its spot on my survivor builds. Extremely valuable perk, worth the slot. No idea why people aren't willing to let go of a single one of their perks for it...
If Kindred is such an extremely valuable perk that is worth the perk slot, then what people should be asking themselves is, 'What entitles SWF to gain pretty much this same extreme advantage without having to use that perk slot?'
-
@Blueberry said:
Kind of side related, but I find it interesting that were told that there is no real significant survival increase as a SWF when killers complain about how broken it is, however at the same time they tell us they want to decrease the gap between solo and swf because of how significant the difference is.
This just sounds so contradicting.
So which is it, is SWF significant or not? If it wasn't significant then why are they trying to close the gap.
I'm not trying to start a conversation about whether SWF is op or not here, just pointing out the inconsistency of the information we've been given.
It's really not a contradiction, but more about how the data was inferred.
When Almo had last attempted to mock and minimalize the effect of the ~7% difference, this is the response I gave him:
For example, let's say that you have two sets of data: 100 games of solo games, and 100 games of 4-SWF games.
If the results of those 100 games of solos, in which every player attempted to fulfill their goal (surviving and killing) to the best of their abilities, is 200 escapes out of 400, it would result in a 50% survival rate.
Let's continue to suppose that in the 100 games of 4-SWF, 85 of these matches contain players who are "We just want to have fun with our friends - we're not even trying to win - most of the time, we just troll each other haha" crowd that we constantly, constantly see on the forums. Basically these are the majority of players who are not even attempting their best to fulfill their goal of surviving and instead, continually choose to make blatant bad decisions (over-altruism, overconfidence, etc) due to their focus being more on socializing with each other than actually focusing on the game. Let's say they are able to have 2 survivors escape on average (170 Escapes), in which their terrible gameplay decisions are offset by the advantage of communication. The other 15 matches have players who are 4-SWF who are actually trying their best to win (just like the killers) and are able to make good use of the advantage that they have. Let's say they are all able to 4-man escape (60 Escapes).
This 4-SWF scenario results in 230 escapes out of 400 or a survival rate of 57.5%, a survival rate increase of 7.5% compared to the games of solos, which is very close to the 7% you have presented yourself.
...as a developer, does that sound fair for the killers to you? Does it sound like a balanced game from the standpoint of game design? A game in which, if SWF is actually choosing to play to the best of their abilities, they are pretty much guaranteed to dominate the killer with a 100% win, and if SWF is just "having fun" or "trolling" or "memeing," they have an EQUAL chance of winning as the killers who are, unlike the SWF, trying their hardest to the best of their abilities?
This scenario doesn't even consider the ranking differences or incidences in which SWF chooses to DC all at once.
What's most disappointing is that this trivialization of the solo/SWF difference is coming directly from a developer - as if they have not an ounce of concern for the repeated outcry to balance the game for Solos/SWFs that's been going on for years. Despite the fact that it breaks the balance of the game, and makes the "buffs" and "nerfs" of killers meaningless since we don't even know what the killers are being balanced against. Despite the fact that it has continually been labeled as "unfun" from majority of people who don't play any SWF (whether as a solo survivor or killers) since its inception - and even now on the steam forum, has one of the longest threads (if not THE longest thread) on the problem of SWF. Despite these facts, developers such as @Almo continues to ignore the problem and pretend that they hardly matter. At times like this, I feel truly bad for Dead by Daylight - the game, for having developers who just seemingly don't care much about it.
-
@Nutty_Professor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/928307#Comment_928307
It's a judgement thing, if that scenario happens then so be it. In most cases if I'm on a generator and there's a hooked survivor on the other side of the map from me, in most cases it would be pointless for me to abandon my gen and go for the save. By the time I would get there the player would have been unhooked.
Normally due to bond I'll know if another survivor is going for the save or not. Kindred is also very popular since it's buff.
Regardless, it doesn't change my point that a killer will struggle against four good survivors regardless if they are using comms or not.
But I just showed you an example of a killer struggling LESS against 4 good solo survivors compared to 4 good SWF survivors. Because the circumstances like above wouldn't happen to 4 good SWF survivors. You say it's "a judgment thing," but the fact is, it's only a matter of judgment for a group of solos, because the right answer is already provided for a SWF group. And the entire game consists of these continuous "judgments" and "so be it" scenarios for solos, while SWF are handed the right calls time after time on a silver platter.
-
@Nutty_Professor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/928246#Comment_928246
I use bond. So I have a rough idea whose going for the save. If the hooked survivor is too far away for bond to read what the other survivors are doing, I'll just hope a random is going for them and I'll continue working on my generator.
I use bond when I'm SWF anyway, as it's a very good tool for avoiding running into loops and jungle gyms where the other survivors are working on generators.
"hope a random is going for them?"
What if the randoms, like you, determine that the hooked survivor is too far away from their curent position? Your decision just now has cost the survivor-side one hook stage which wouldn't have happened with a competent SWF.
-
@Nutty_Professor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/928088#Comment_928088
I'm still a good survivor in SWF, in fact a lot of my friends rate me as one the best players they've played with. I'm in a more of a competitive mindset when I play solo, when I'm in SWF DBD becomes more casual.
I've played at high ranks as both killer and survivor (despite being a bad killer) since last year, I don't think SWF is currently as strong as it was. Survivors play a lot more optimal then they did in the past. As I said quite a few times in this post, you don't need to have comms to know that if you are not being chased by the killer to work on generators.
SWF is strong with mediocre survivors as they need the coordination to play optimally, but killers will struggle against four good survivors regardless if they are on comms or if they are all playing solo Q.
Again, you choosing to be in a "competitive" mindset as a solo and you choosing to be "casual" in SWF is all on you - it has nothing to do with how people can play in SWF.
Ok, how about when someone else is hooked? Do you rescue or hope that someone else will take that risk while you work on the generator? In a game where every second counts and can determine whether you live or die in the end, are you saying that 4 good solo survivors would be able to make the same optimal, most efficient decisions (and as quickly) as 4 SWF survivors without relying on luck or good guesses (or wasting a perk slot)?
-
Your inability to concentrate has absolutely nothing to do with SWF.
There are people who can concentrate on the game while playing SWF.
There are people who can't concentrate even while playing solo.
If you and your opponent are both of equal skill level, and your opponent is fully immersed in the game, concentrating to his maximum potential, and you are not focused on the game at all (for whatever reason), you should get destroyed every single time. You choosing to play in non-optimal fashion has nothing to do with SWF. That's on you. You playing worse in SWF than in solo is all on you.
-
Since this thread was brought back up, I'd like to take the opportunity to quickly correct something I have stated in my original post: "Ultimately, if there are no available Red Ranked survivors when the Matchmaking Algorithm are grouping players together, Red Rank Killers will be facing lower (Purple to Grey) ranked survivors."
Given that the new Matchmaking Algorithm was presented to us on October 2nd (as part of the September Developer Update) and therefore went into effect around that time, and our recent Statistical Data were collected from around August 20th to November 20th, this means that the implementation of the 6-rank limit should have affected the data at least part of that time period. So if the new matchmaking was working as intended during those times, it would have been impossible for those (solo-only) matches to have contained survivors who were in the Brown or Grey Ranks as I had originally claimed. That stated, even with the new matchmaking algorithm, it would have been possible for Rank 3 or 4 Killers to end up facing an entire solo's crew of Rank 9 or 10 survivors, so my overall point I believe still stands. (In addition, if SWF matches were also included as part of the data, it would be also possible for the Red Rank killers to occasionally face some Brown or Grey Ranked survivors.)
-
@ad19970 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/916122#Comment_916122
That kind of balancing can't fully work in a game like DBD. Especially because of the gap between solo and swf survivors. You can't try and balance the game around the absolute optimal 4 man swf groups, at least not until solo survivors receive buffs to close the gap between solo and swf survivors.
But even then, survivors depend on each other, while a killer doesn't have to depend on anyone. Just one survivors who is not up to par with the other survivors and the killer can really screw the other survivors up. So it makes sense to me if the absolute best of the best survivor teams have a bigger chance of winning than a killer who is equally skilled. Just because it takes four people to play optimal on the survivor team, but only one player on the killer side.
Also, in games like Overwatch that are balanced in particular around the best players, both sides have always access to the same characters and the same potential team play. If some character in a game like Overwatch is balanced at high ranks but is op at lower ranks, that's not as bad since both sides still have access to that character. This is not the case in DBD. An overpowered killer at lower ranks is therefore a bigger problem.
That kind of balancing can't fully work in a game like DBD. Especially because of the gap between solo and swf survivors. You can't try and balance the game around the absolute optimal 4 man swf groups, at least not until solo survivors receive buffs to close the gap between solo and swf survivors.
But even then, survivors depend on each other, while a killer doesn't have to depend on anyone. Just one survivors who is not up to par with the other survivors and the killer can really screw the other survivors up. So it makes sense to me if the absolute best of the best survivor teams have a bigger chance of winning than a killer who is equally skilled. Just because it takes four people to play optimal on the survivor team, but only one player on the killer side.
Trust me, there is no one on this forum who advocates for the Solo/SWF gap to be eradicated moreso than myself, as you can read in this thread:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/79245/behaviour-not-reducing-solo-swf-gap
As long as solos are mixed in with SWF in the same game mode, it is absolutely necessary for solo to have the same advantages as any SWF - or at least to the point where a group of best solo survivors in the game has the same survival rate average as the best 4-Man SWFs (ideally 2 Kill/2 Escape) can have at all times.
What I don't agree with your point is the idea that 'because survivor side has to depend on one another, they deserve more than 2 Escapes against an equally skilled opponent.' What your idea essentially boils down to is that if both sides (survivors and killers) are equally skilled, 1. 4-Man SWF, who is easily able to depend on each other due to their very nature, should have an advantage over their opponent (unless they choose not to) and 2. 4 Solo Survivors, who must rely only on luck and good guesses to depend on each other (due to their very nature) to have the same outcome as a 4-Man SWF - should NOT have that same advantage over their opponent. S why should SWF have an advantage over both killers and solos of the same skill level just because they are able to "depend on each other" more consistently?
Also, in games like Overwatch that are balanced in particular around the best players, both sides have always access to the same characters and the same potential team play. If some character in a game like Overwatch is balanced at high ranks but is op at lower ranks, that's not as bad since both sides still have access to that character. This is not the case in DBD. An overpowered killer at lower ranks is therefore a bigger problem.
For me, 'the lack of access to the same characters' that you are mentioning is the exact reason why the game should be balanced at the top. If everyone has access to the same characters, it wouldn't matter if different characters were not adequately balanced, because at least everyone would have access to the 'best' character. They can all play that 'best' character so that no one has any advantage over others. The same is not true for this type of asymmetrical game in which there are specific roles and functions.
However, what you seem to be alluding to is the problem of different characters having different learning curves, and thereby causing players of specific play-times and similar game experiences to have uneven matches. If that's the case, that's usually more of a problem with the ranking system - in which the characters with easier learning curve (and therefore faster progression in the players' skill level) should ideally be ranking up faster to face more difficult opponents, compared to characters with more difficult learning curve (and therefore slower progression in the players' skill level) should continue to face other more novice players until they are able to learn the character well to the same degree.
-
@Sleephartha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/915928#Comment_915928
I read your post. That’s good clarification to know. But as a data analyst for the past 15 years or so I am comfortable that the red rank killers (at the start of the match) were in matches with red and purple rank survivors most of the time. I don’t believe that some small amount of lower ranks would skew the data enough to make an impact.
Bear in mind the clarification means there are also times when a rank 4 killer was going against rank 1 survivors. The exceptions wouldn’t all be ones that make getting a high kill rate easier.
And honestly, come on... the “all ranks” data was basically the same. We all see the same numbers and we all play this game and know the data is true. 3k average.
My main point is you can’t just jack up ease of pipping for survivors and say “hey. It’s asymmetrical horror. You’ll just die every game but you’ll rank up”. A 4 man team should have the same chance of all escaping as the killer has to 4k. Thus it should average out at an appx 50% kill rate. And killer perception of win and pipping should adjust accordingly.
I read your post. That’s good clarification to know. But as a data analyst for the past 15 years or so I am comfortable that the red rank killers (at the start of the match) were in matches with red and purple rank survivors most of the time. I don’t believe that some small amount of lower ranks would skew the data enough to make an impact.
Can you prove that? As in, can you prove that the majority of the matches consisted of ONLY Red/Purple Rank survivors (and not, for example, majority consisting of SWF groups with SOME Green/Yellow/Grey survivors?)
Bear in mind the clarification means there are also times when a rank 4 killer was going against rank 1 survivors. The exceptions wouldn’t all be ones that make getting a high kill rate easier.
That's true. Like you say, the highest ranked survivors that a Rank 4 Killer can go up against are 4 Rank 1 Survivors. But the lowest ranked survivors that the same Rank 4 Killer can go up against are 4 Rank 10 Survivors (in all solo group.) If it is a SWF, the lowest ranked survivors that a Rank 4 Killer can go up against are 1 Rank 10 Survivor and 3 Rank 20 Survivors. So even looking at simply the variety of "exceptions" that are possible, it seems to much more favor higher kill rates than if it is simply a statistical data set of "real" Red Rank Matches, in which all 5 players are in the red ranks.
And honestly, come on... the “all ranks” data was basically the same. We all see the same numbers and we all play this game and know the data is true. 3k average.
Yeah, I really have no interest in the "all ranks" data. My only concern was in finding even a semblance of what the skill ceilings are on both sides. After all, that is how most games are generally balanced - at the top first, then down. So, to me personally, it was disappointing that BHVR couldn't provide even the idea of that - and even more disappointing that they weren't more honest and clear in how they gathered their data.
My main point is you can’t just jack up ease of pipping for survivors and say “hey. It’s asymmetrical horror. You’ll just die every game but you’ll rank up”.
You're absolutely right. In fact, I'd argue that pipping and ranking should be much more difficult on both sides. There is too much skill disparity even among the red ranks for both killers and survivors - where I'd argue that most people in red ranks currently probably shouldn't be in the red ranks. It's as if the 'time-played' dictates more about the rank than the actual skill of the players. As a casual, averaged-skill player, I should never be in the Red Ranks, but there I am. This does indeed make data-gathering for "best players" even more difficult.
A 4 man team should have the same chance of all escaping as the killer has to 4k. Thus it should average out at an appx 50% kill rate. And killer perception of win and pipping should adjust accordingly.
Again, you are right that a 4 man survivor team and its killer opponent should both have an average of 2 Kill/2 Escape rate if they are of the same skill level. In order to do that, BHVR should look closely at the very top skill level on both sides (for survivors and each of the killers) and make sure that on average, 2 Kill/2 Escape Ratio is maintained. If a perfect, gen-rushing, voice com 4-SWF survivors have more than a 2 Escape average against a perfect kill-focused Trapper, then Trapper should be buffed. If a perfect, gen-rushing, voice com 4-SWF survivors have less than a 2 Escape average against a perfect kill-focused Nurse, then the Nurse needs to be nerfed. From that point on, BHVR should balance the game downwards so that similarly skilled survivors can be matched together.
-
Just to emphasize again that Red Rank stats weren't really from Red Rank matches...
-
There is a much more simple explanation for the recent data that should be more concerning overall.
(I do need to correct something in that thread though - given the recent matchmaking algorithm of plus/minus 6 ranks, if all players are solo, the worst matchmaking scenario for the data set is to have Red Rank 3 and 4 Killers facing off against Green Rank 9 and 10 Survivors - not Brown and Grey Ranks as indicated in my original thread. Of course, if SWF was included in these 'Red Rank' matches, Red Killer matches against Grey and Brown Survivors could still have been part of the data set also.)
-
The problem usually isn't the "stats" themselves. The problem is usually how the data is gathered for these particular stats.
For example, let's look at the "Red Rank" stats that were presented to us recently. Despite repeatedly being asked, "What types of matches constitute as being 'Red Rank' matches to be included in the data set?" none of the English-speaking community managers provided us with an answer*. It was finally in the Japanese forum, in which the Japanese Community Manager stated:
"今回の統計でのレッドランクとは、"殺人鬼がマッチ開始時にランク1～4だった"マッチングです。マッチした生存者のランクやマッチ後の昇降格は考慮していません。"
which basically translates to:
"For this particular statistical data, Red Rank is defined as 'matches that consisted of Rank 1-4 Killers at the beginning of the match.' The ranking of survivors or the rank results after the match were not given consideration."
In other words, if the Japanese Community Manager is correct, then that meant that this "Red Rank" stats consisted of matches where Rank 3 or 4 Killers could easily be matched with Survivors as low as Rank 9 or 10, and if it included SWF matches as well, then even matches with Rank 20 Survivors.
Does this really sound like "Red Rank" matches to any of you? Instead of presenting it to us as "Red Rank" Stats, why weren't they more open with us and just state, "Red Rank Killers' Kill Rates" to avoid any confusion? And then provide us with "Red Rank Survivors' Escape Rates" just to present a more fair view of both sides? Or if they wanted to simply give us "Red Ranks" data, then why didn't they just gather matches in which all five players were in red ranks?
The same holds true for Nurse's Statistical Data. Why present just PC's data? If the skill ceiling for the consoles' version of the Nurse is vastly different from PC's version, don't they think that it is an important information for the community to know definitively?
All that stated, it's not like BHVR hasn't made any improvements in gathering more accurate data. After years of explaining why disconnected games should not be included as part of Kill Rates/Survival Rates statistical data, they finally seemed to have understood the reasons, and this time around, did them correctly. So all hope isn't lost. It's just that, for some reason, BHVR seems to often push back in gathering more accurate data overall.
The point of all of this is to say that people shouldn't dismiss statistical data outright for no reason, just as they shouldn't swallow it whole without any inquiry. If people care at all about statistics that are given to us, what they should do every time, is to question it.
*To give credit, a moderator, @MandyTalk did inform us later in the Japanese forum: "I've double checked on this to be totally sure, the killer would definitely have been red ranks at the start of the match, the survivors would have been red or purple ranks." which, although very much appreciated for at least some form of answer, also raised more questions like, "Why purple rank? How about SWF?" (Which was never answered.)
-
Everyone who are always complaining about killer queue times (especially on US East) should come play killers on the PS4 - it's always instantaneous (except when maybe there is a bloodhunt).
People should also remember that even if matchmaking is working properly, the queue time would still depend on the killer/survivor ratio (ideally killer population is always 20%) in your 1. Gaming platform, 2. Geolocation (region of your server) and 3. Rank. So just saying "queue times are long" doesn't give much information to solve it. I do wish there was an option to put those 3 info next to our forum names so we know where members' experiences are coming from.
-
Just want to point out that the EGC bug, in which the survivor was unable to leave the game through the exit gate (and if the hatch was already closed - unable to leave the game, period, until the Entity took them) was in place for probably close to half a year.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/897857#Comment_897857
Again, to reiterate:
- People focus on the big changes, like the new content. For example, very few people tried the Legion changes during the PTB.
- It's not a controlled environment. You're playing against a new killer, you can't tell if Kindred is OP or if the killer is weak.
- Rank is not used for matchmaking on the PTB. You might be paired with great survivors against a new killer, or you might get bad teammates against a great killer. You really can't get a true feel for balance on a PTB.
If you want a realistic scenario, I would strongly suggest trying it on live. I'm sure you could get together a couple people from the forums to try it out.
People focus on the big changes, like the new content. For example, very few people tried the Legion changes during the PTB.
That wouldn't matter because a base Kindred would affect the base gameplay. Whether or not people focus on the "big changes" or not, they would still be experiencing the effect of that change. Unlike, "new killers" or "changes in perks," every player would be testing it out - similar to how the Endgame Collapse was.
It's not a controlled environment. You're playing against a new killer, you can't tell if Kindred is OP or if the killer is weak.
Again, that wouldn't matter. If the new base Kindred becomes the standard gameplay and "the new killer" is weak with that new standard, then it simply means that it needs to be stronger. But if you are truly concerned about it, then simply just test it in the mid-chapter version or even the live version. You've placed new changes in the live versions without having tested in the PTB before - why does it need to be tested in PTB first now?
Rank is not used for matchmaking on the PTB. You might be paired with great survivors against a new killer, or you might get bad teammates against a great killer. You really can't get a true feel for balance on a PTB.
That would be still true in the live version - although, granted, to a lesser degree. Even in the live version, you have a rank disparity of plus/minus 6 ranks - 12 rank difference total. That's more than half of the entirety of all 20 Ranks. In addition, if you are truly concerned about balance - it (and everything else) should be tested out simply in the games where all players are Red Ranks (unlike the "Red Rank" stats in which only the Killer was required to be in the red ranks) so that skill ceilings can be determined. However, if you really don't want to do it in the PTB though, then just test it in the live version and see how it works out.
Ultimately, the point is this: "If the information is already readily available to SWF players through communication, why should Behaviour 'pick and choose' which information should be implemented for solo players? Shouldn't ANY and EVERY information that can be obtained by SWF be also available to Solo queue, if the ultimate goal is indeed to bridge the knowledge gap between the two types of players?"
This is what I've already stated in this thread few months ago. If you have a response to it now, please feel free to do so.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/79245/behaviour-not-reducing-solo-swf-gap/p1