knell
knell
About
- Username
- knell
- Joined
- Visits
- 7,862
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Corrupted said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/662060#Comment_662060
You're not quite getting it and your analogy is off. The idea of telling survivors "you survive then you win." Even if they did bad is like saying, in a real life scenario "If you graduate then you win" But they had all D's and nearly flunked. Like sure, the person graduated or survived but what on earth is the point if you nearly failed in the process or did poorly? You will find very little if any progress.
Sure, life will never hand you a win but that isn't the point. The people who do well or contribute a great deal will always be far more likely to do better and progress accordingly in a game or life which is ultimately the point. The guy who just "survived" is barely making ends meet and will find little progress meanwhile the other guy who does well is far more likely to progress and proceed.
NOTHING is promised in life but the people who do better and work harder are far more likely to succeed or progress opposed to those who do bare minimum or "just survive." which you aren't getting. The mentality you have going into something plays a big role and thinking "as long as I survive even if I do bad is okay." "Graduating is all that matters even if I literally have all D's." Is very unhealthy and will ultimately get you no where. Hell, with that mentality you likely won't have the opportunity to get into Harvard or any great school to begin with. You're half assing in a sense and when is that ever good? Once again, this is common sense and adds up but whatever you say, to each their own. Just wanted to clarify.
In your example, it seems that the requirement set up by the school for graduating (which I assume you are equating with 'winning') is getting grades of minimum of all Ds. A person who didn't graduate means that they didn't even manage to do that. Sure, they may have volunteered in their local community, may have been involved in school sports, or even had a part-time job. These extra experiences will likely become important and helpful for that person's future, perhaps even more so than being in school. But guess what, if that person didn't even bother to fulfill the basic graduation requirement for that school, no matter what other extra activities they had participated in, they don't just *deserve* to just graduate.
Similarly, in a game where your "goal is to escape the trial", if you couldn't even do that minimal task, then it really doesn't matter what else you did. Sure, it may help you 'pip' or 'gain more bloodpoints' or 'have fun,', but it doesn't change the fact that you failed to meet the assigned goal. Just because you 'did well' in all of these other aspects, the game isn't obligated to just hand you a 'win.'
-
@chieftaco said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/662063#Comment_662063
you know what's funny? you're trying to argue this point now about "goals" being "winning", when "goals" are actually just "milestones to complete".
first let's consult google for the definition of goal so we can make sure we're all on the same page:
the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result."going to law school has become the most important goal in his life"
synonyms:aim, objective, object, grail, holy grail, end, target, design, desire, desired result, intention, intent, plan, purpose, idea, point, object of the exercise;
in the example sentence, someone decided going to law school was the most important goal in his life. if that guy finishes law school, he has obtained his "goal", but that doesn't make him a "winner". he still needs to now utilize what he learned there to make something out of himself.
if i set a goal to stop smoking and achieve it, that doesn't make me a "winner", it makes me someone who accomplished a "goal".
if i am a sports player who scores a "goal", that is only one tiny piece of an entire game. both sides are able to achieve the "goal" numerous times, and ultimately one of them will become a "winner", but not because they reached a "goal".
if you see a trainer or a doctor or someone of any professional sort who advises you to make a goal and work towards achieving it, once you achieve it you are not declared a "winner", you are given another "goal".
the fact of the matter is, we can all walk around as much as we want declaring ourselves "winners" for whatever reason we decide to, but, it takes other people to actually declare you a "winner".
please stop trying to use a general "goal" as a valid definition of "winning".
thanks.
In games, there is a "beginning," and an "end," as well as "winners" and (usually) "losers."
None of your examples of "goals" provide any of these conditions that are always included in games. So let's change them all into games.
If the goal of a law school game is to successfully graduate from the school, then you win when you graduate from the school.
If the goal of a non-smoking game is to successfully stop smoking, then you win when you've successfully stop smoking.
If the goal of a sports game is to successfully score the first goal, then you win when you score the first goal.
So is DBD a game? Yes. Does it have a "beginning," "end," "winners," and "losers?" Yes. So perhaps you should be making your point through examples of games instead of other worldly experiences to fit your strange narrative.
-
@chieftaco said:
lets see if we can type this again in a manner that they surely can't flag for any reason whatsoever.
nobody has ever stated that "surviving" a trial is "winning" anything other than the few of you guys trying to argue it. you say that since you "survived" you "won" by completing a "winning condition" that doesn't exist except that you seem to think it does.
what you are describing could be and is actually an "ending condition" that ends the match. once all survivors have been dealt with, whether sacrificed or escaped, the "ending condition" has been met.
we are then presented with the scoreboard to see how everyone did. this lets you know that the game is in fact over.
never were you declared a "winner" of any kind for any reason, other than you felt like you were a "winner" because you happened to "survive" the trial that has now "ended".
there is not an argument that can be made that would convince anyone who actually plays and understands the game that what you did was "win" anything by completing some fabled "winning condition".
what you are describing could be and is actually an "ending condition" that ends the match. once all survivors have been dealt with, whether sacrificed or escaped, the "ending condition" has been met.
There are no mention of any "ending condition" in that screenshot of the tutorial that @NuclearBurrito has posted earlier. It states that "The Survivors' goal is to escape the trial."
If a goal of a game is to get the most victory points, then you win if you have the most victory points.
If a goal of a game is to get to location X before any other players, then you win if you get to that location before any other players.
If a goal of a game is to capture your opponent's piece X, then you win when you captured your opponent's piece X.
If a goal of a game is to be the last player standing, then you win if you are the last player standing.
So...
If the goal is to escape the trial... hmmm.
-
@Corrupted said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/661306#Comment_661306
At red ranks, good players prioritize pipping and doing well. At brown/green ranks players just wanna live and escape. Then when they die to billy or flipping Myers or can't hit ruin skillchecks, they are the first to scream nerf. That in itself should speak volumes. I'm not gonna go back and forth about what the game says, but that mentality of "I survived therefore I won." Isn't a healthy one and never does anything positive for the team that I notice new or bad players typically have, putting the cart before the horse so to speak and this thread in a sense is validating that.
It's just common sense, not a dilusion or perspective. If you are in a bad spot in life or in a game (lowest points, not pipping constantly despite surviving.) and what you're doing isn't helping you progress then you are clearly doing something wrong or nothing at all. Usually the two ideas coincide, you do something right then you usually progress unless you're already in a great spot or there's no need.
There are so many brown and green ranks in this game that wanna get more bp a game, pip, etc but they don't understand that surviving shouldn't be the most important aspect or "winning" yet most of them have that mentality that they must live, even if it means doing little to nothing and hiding in a locker which eventually frustrates themselves and ultimately their teammates. Nobody likes that person.
I don't promote the idea, no matter how literate or how "correct" it may be in a sense because it's unhealthy overall and stifles new/bad survivors. Players that have a true understanding of how the game works see it very differently than most bad/new players for a good reason because they know what a win truly is and the game validates it by giving more bp, pipping points, etc. They get rewarded which you normally do for a win. That's just my two cents though, hope newer players just get it eventually.
I've already given you some examples of games when 'winning' and 'playing well' don't coincide. I could continue to give you plenty of other examples if you like. You've also brought up 'real life.' Even in real life, even if you believe you've done everything correctly during your time in primary education, there are times when you are not selected for certain colleges or universities. Even if you have an outstanding resume, you may not be selected for a job/higher position you wanted. Sometimes you are just unlucky and they are currently looking for someone with a prior experiences or different skill sets, or even different sex that are more suited for the task - other times there are just better candidates who excel at the same things you do, but even moreso.
Life doesn't automatically just hand you a "win" just because you think you *deserve* something because you've done well. That is life. Games are an excellent way of teaching you that.
I don't promote the idea, no matter how literate or how "correct" it may be in a sense because it's unhealthy overall and stifles new/bad survivors.
And herein lies the problem. You don't care how "correct" the point is because you believe it's "unhealthy" for the game. So you have chosen to prioritize what you believe and *want* over what is "correct." At that point, there is no further reason to discuss this, given that you have shut your eyes and closed off your ears to what is correct.
-
@Corrupted said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/661196#Comment_661196
Please don't incite this. Too many newer players ultimately decide that surviving is winning opposed to actually being useful during the match thus pipping. And I severely disagree with the notion that the game would still be the same if the pipping system wasn't a thing. That's simply not true, if it didn't exist then everyone would be too immersed and caught up in the notion of escaping opposed to actually doing well in a match because objectively there would be no incentive or point. The only thing to prioritize would be escaping.
Winning SHOULD be pipping. The game validates this by having you move on to playing with and against better players. The classic idea of "you passed this level, so move onto the next, harder level." It does no one any good to be too caught up in surviving to only fall short of pipping points. You survive, okay ,but you didn't pip so in a sense you're stuck on the same level and not progressing. Which is generally considered a loss or neutral. Anything but a win.
Please don't incite this. Too many newer players ultimately decide that surviving is winning opposed to actually being useful during the match thus pipping. And I severely disagree with the notion that the game would still be the same if the pipping system wasn't a thing. That's simply not true, if it didn't exist then everyone would be too immersed and caught up in the notion of escaping opposed to actually doing well in a match because objectively there would be no incentive or point. The only thing to prioritize would be escaping.
Even though the winning condition (escaping) does not require players to play skillfully, they're also not mutually exclusive conditions. If a player want to win (escape) without any skills, that means that they have to rely either on 'luck' or 'skills of other players' - basically whether they win or lose is completely out of their hands. So if they want to win *consistently* then even without the pipping system, players will eventually have to take it upon themselves to learn how to play the game well. So yes, even without the 'pipping system' there certainly is a point to raising your skill level. Being skillful will help you win in a more consistent manner - it's just not necessary to win a match.
Winning SHOULD be pipping. The game validates this by having you move on to playing with and against better players. The classic idea of "you passed this level, so move onto the next, harder level." It does no one any good to be too caught up in surviving to only fall short of pipping points. You survive, okay ,but you didn't pip so in a sense you're stuck on the same level and not progressing. Which is generally considered a loss or neutral. Anything but a win.
That's simply a matter of perspective. If I were to escape but did not 'pip', I don't consider it as "loss or neutral." I simply take it that I won due to luck or other players' participation and that I need to practice more. If I were to die despite pipping, I simply take it that I lost, but I did perform well enough where I need to be playing with better players. What I don't do is delude myself into thinking that I 'won' despite not fulfilling the winning objective just because I did well in a game.
-
Seems like @NuclearBurrito and @Fibijean get it.
The pipping system simply determines how well you did in a match, which in turn, then is suppose to match you with people in a similar skill level. It has nothing to do with the winning conditions.
The idea that you have to "play well" to win in a game should be debunked. There are plenty of games where active players' skills don't determine the outcome of the game.
For example, let's say you are playing Tetris against your friend. You are hitting 4-line Tetrises and multiple T-Spins. Your friend is clearing out few lines at a time, simply making sure he isn't topping out. Because you were building up the columns for a bigger multi-clear and your friend hit a small combo at the right time at the end, you top out. Who won? You, who displayed more skills, made more complicated moves, have tens of thousands more score points overall? Or your friend who only understands the basics, and have much less points, but who made you top over most likely due to luck? The game is very clear on this.
Let's also take a game of Werewolf, for example. A complete-newbie Werewolf who stays silent all game could still win, whether it is due to the other more experienced Werewolf bluffing his butt off, or simply due to luck and never being picked by the Villagers.
So how can a Survivor survive and still depip? It simply means that you fulfilled the winning condition without having to display any type of skill, or if you did, it was very minimal. Of course, this (not having done much in the match) also means that you probably shouldn't be placed in that skill level setting, so if the matchmaking is functioning correctly, you should be placed with your less skilled peers by the pipping system. The opposite (Survivor dying and yet still pipping) holds true, in a similar manner where you failed to fulfill the winning condition, but displayed enough skill to be pushed into a setting with others will higher skill level to have a more even match. That's all it is.
Ultimately, even without the pipping system, Dead by Daylight will still be Dead by Daylight. I wouldn't even notice a difference in the gameplay if it were made invisible. Without Escaping or Sacrifices though, this game wouldn't be Dead by Daylight.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/660356#Comment_660356
Actually I've almost word for word said what you said in regards to Catan. Sometimes I know I have no chance of getting to 10 points so I celebrate getting the largest Army or longest road
Hey, if people are so desperate for a win to the point where they have the need to conflate "personal achievements" with "winning" whatever game they are playing, then good on them. I'll support whatever keeps their emotional and mental well-being stable. I personally just find it sad that we come to live in a world where people have become so fragile that they have to convince themselves that they are "winners" to the point where they have to make up their own rules for a game.
-
DBD Players on Scrabble: "Yeah, I know you won, but in my eyes, I also won because I had more seven letter words than you."
DBD Players on Chess: "You may have checkmated me, but I had fun taking your Queen, so doesn't that really make me the winner?"
DBD Players on Catan: "I don't care that you got to 10 Victory Points before I did, I had fun getting my Longest Road, therefore, from my perspective, I also won."
DBD Players on Poker: "You may have taken all of my chips, but who is really the winner? I mean, I'm the only one who had a Four-of-a-Kind during the whole playing session."
DBD Players on Werewolf: "The Villager Team may have wiped us out, but we did take out your Fortune Teller on the first turn, soooo who's really the winner?"
DBD Players on Whitehall Mystery: "Sure, you may have caught me in the end, but I had fun looping you the whole time, so surely that also makes me the winner."
DBD Players on Street Fighter 2: "But, really, my personal goal was to get as many throws as possible, and given that I accomplished that goal, doesn't that mean I win, at least from how I see it?
DBD Players on Rock, Paper, and Scissors: "Ok, you may have beaten my Scissors with your Rock, but given how we both had fun, doesn't that make us both winners in the end?"
-
@AWesley91 said:
So we've all seen plenty of threads on here from killer mains talking about how when they go up against a good SWF group, they have to bring ruin, or pop goes the weasel, or noed, and play hard just to get a 2k because the SWF is popping gens like no tomorrow.
Here's the thing.
- The devs have specifically balanced the game that the average round should be about 2 kills and 2 escapes, so if sweaty high rank killers are getting 2k against sweaty high rank SWF, that's balanced.
- When high rank killers go sweaty and only get 2k against sweaty SWF... that means those SWF went sweaty and only had two escapes. It's not a reason to nerf survivors just because killers had to play sweaty against sweaty SWF.
- At high ranks in any videogame, people are a lot more skilled than low ranks. Go play COD at level 50 vs level 10, it's different. Same on Rainbow Six Siege.
- Killer mains. This isn't Resident Evil 4 on ultra hard. If you're getting 4k's a lot, that either means you're really good, or up against crappy survivors, or the game is unbalanced. It also means you're killing the game and contributing to long killer que times. When 1 killer gets a 4k, that means 4 survivor players lost and feel cruddy. 4k's are not a sellable game model. And not only are there TONS of addictive online games, DBD is not an A list game. It's has a fair share of bugs and not amazing graphics. I'm sure the Devs have done their best on the budget, but the gameplay is limited and the graphics are xbox 360 level at best. You really think if killers are getting a lot of 4ks, that people will keep playing survivor just to play and lose so you can win?
- This only applies to a few killer mains who stand out like spotlights on forums and make them all look bad--You're not the "power role" this is not a BDSM relationship with you as a dom, you're not here to "punish the cancer that is SWF" or "want to make them fear you and picture their hope dropping and becoming despair." GET THERAPY YOU DEMENTED FREAKS.
I agree with the OP for the most part. As he says, if the strongest killers go against the strongest survivors over hundreds of games, it should eventually average out to 2 kills and 2 escapes since that is how the developers have decided (in its current state) this game should be balanced.
That said, it's important to point out that this means that the strongest 4-Man gen-rushing SWF, all Rank 1s, all with utmost experience on looping and dragging out a chase as long as possible, all fully focused on escaping with the maximum number of survivors (so no unnecessary risk-taking or other foolishness that may unnecessarily endanger their personal survival rate), all communicating pertinent information to each other to maximize efficiency - should, on average, have only 50% of escaping against the strongest killers.
Hopefully this doesn't even need to be said, but this 50% escape rate of these strongest SWF also doesn't mean only against the strongest Nurse, Hillbilly, or Spirit players, but also against the strongest Trapper, Leatherface, or Doctor players (or any other killers.)
Which also leads to the idea that if these same teams of Survivors should not play in such a way, but prioritize "fun" (or "socializing with each other") over "efficiency" and "maximizing their time and skills to fulfill the game wincons," of course, that means that they should be slaughtered by the strongest killers 100% of the time, and therefore should no longer have any effect on the balance of the game, since they are no longer playing as the "strongest survivors."
So, the OP is right. If the strongest 4-Man gen-rushing SWFs are getting more than 2 Escapes on average against the strongest killers (whether it's Trapper or Leatherface), it most likely means that this game is not balanced and a fix should be prioritized.
-
If you live in Eastern US, and in mid-high ranks, come join PS4 - generally killers seem to get faster matchmaking times than survivors (in my experience.) So we definitely need more killers playing.
-
https://youtu.be/uMnqbV3CN6o
This was a while ago, but one of the more memorable moments.
-
@Carpemortum said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/624669#Comment_624669
My question for those is, if they DC, can a killer leave them afk to prevent the hatch spawn for the true last survivor?
Or will it be a husk for 30 seconds to use, then it disappears if you havent.
I assumed that they would immediately go into the dying state as soon as they disconnect, and go into bleedout timer mode. It would be helpful for killers to get a notification (kind of like when someone forgets to mend after a deep wound ) so they know where to pick them up.
-
Community: "Please fix matchmaking! Why should Rank 20-15 have to face off against Rank 5-1?? Why is this even a thing??"
Also Community: "We want to watch a developer around Rank 20-15 face off against Rank 1 SWFs."
-
I hope the hook-able husks come soon.
-
Obviously, they are the status effects for the new add-ons for The Doctor. Can't wait to run Oblivious on him!
-
As a solo survivor, I'm usually on a generator in the first 5 seconds of the game, while I watch other survivors (through Bond) opening chests, cleansing dull totems, crouching and hiding around for no reason, tea-bagging each other.
Want to know part of the reason why the average survival rate is low?
It's because people waste time in this time management game. Instead of threatening "gen-rush" on the forums, if players actually "gen-rush"ed like they are actually supposed to do, I guarantee you that the survival rate would sky rocket and show how unbalanced this game really is in favor of Survivors.
-
Unlike the other platforms, PS4 seems to constantly lack killers, as in less than 20% at any given time. Which means that Survivors have to wait just a bit longer so killers can be recycled.
In other platforms, I believe killers still have a longer waiting time than survivors, due to the fact that they lack survivors, as in less than 80% at any given time. It's just how it is.
But at least in my current experience (PS4 US East, generally in Red to Green Ranks) the wait time for Survivors isn't that bad. 3-5 minutes maybe. Compared to killer wait time, which is around 0-1 minute to start a lobby and maybe 0-2 minutes to fill it with Survivors. It's not that of a big difference.
-
For those who still mistakenly believe that DBD is a "team" game:
Mathieu: "It is an asymmetrical multiplayer game where you can live in the world of these 70s and 80s horror movies. It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends. Whereas the people playing as the killer, they just need to straight up murder everyone."
11/12/18
McLean: "That being said, however, this is a game where we tried to have this horror atmosphere, this sense of isolation, there's no spoken dialogue in the game, it's very lonely and quiet, except for the pounding of drums when you are about to die. And that's all intentional. It really builds up the feeling of the game."
10/26/18
After all, this game is based on horror movies. And in most horror movies, the ones who you have to most watch out for isn't the monsters - it's the other people in your situation who become a liability due to their overconfidence, cowardice, etc. and screw you over. (Sound familiar?)
In addition, in many games, you often have to negotiate and collaborate with people who are not in the lead. Doesn't mean they are suddenly in your "team" and certainly doesn't mean they won't backstab you when they have the chance to gain the lead. Same thing here.
-
@Mellow7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/617092#Comment_617092
That makes no sense since hypothetically speaking if solos were as strong as SWF what happens when they decide to group up and run a SWF? This means that they would be much more stronger. This all could be solved by nerfing SWF and giving solos individual buffs to make the experience better.
Hey Mellow7,
I've talked about a bit about this on the second page, but I'll explain it again in a bit more simpler terms.
The main advantage of SWF is the 'information' they obtain from each other. Otherwise, they would be the same as Solo. In other words, each player is: [Solo] + [Info] = one member of [SWF].
The idea that Behaviour "said" they are going to do is to add [Info] to each of the [Solo] players. In this case, even if each of the [Solo + Info] player groups up to form a SWF, they actually won't benefit more than keeping themselves separate because they have already obtained the same [Info] that [SWF] does.
The problem with nerfing [SWF] is that their very existence promises extra [Info]. In other words, it is impossible to nerf [SWF] - [Info] to = [Solo]. So instead, the developers would have to substitute some other negative effect [E] to bring [SWF] down to the [Solo] level. In other words they have to make [Solo+Info]-[E] to create an equivalent of [Solo]. But because [Info] and [E] are different, even if the developers are able to find a suitable replacement for that particular version of the game, as new patches with new maps, killers, features, and perks are added to the game, the [E] may become too strong or too useless, in comparison to [Info].
For example, let's say the developers chose to slow down SWF's running speed where SWF' survival rate falls down to Solo's. But after a few patches, they decided to change the game where Survivors' running speed stops affecting the result of the game as much as it used to - for example, defaulting to smaller maps. If that becomes the case, SWF with their Info resumes becoming the strongest again, and therefore would need to become nerfed again. And so on and on, as the game adds new contents with each new patch.
Hopefully, that helps explain the "why." Of course, the developers actually haven't done much to balance SWF even after three+ years, so it may not even ever get to that point, and all of this talk about it is just a pointless venture.
-
@theArashi said:
Kindred is a bit too much really.
SWF knows that someone is going for the save. They don't know each others exact location.
That would be too much information. Maybe some kind of ping system would work so survivors can share simple messages between each other like: "I'm getting chased" or "I'm going for the save"?
Wouldn't that pretty much remove the gap between SWF and soloes?
Actually, because the hooked person is able to see everyone's aura, currently SWF can communicate to everyone the approximate location of all other survivors.
But knowing the exact locations of survivors aren't really necessary though. The important information that SWF can share amongst each other is 1. which direction (generator or survivor) the killer is heading towards, 2a. who should go save the hooked person (usually dependent on how close they are, but also on whether they have perks that may help such as 'Borrowed Time' or 'We'll Make It') and who should stay on generators, 2b. and how many should come for the save (1, if the killer leaves, 2, if light camping, or 0 if hard camping.)
Ping system with messages would probably be fine, except in addition to yours, I would add messages such as, "I'll be bait," "Killer is going towards... [person] or [location]" "Killer is camping." as well as making sure there is a way for every player to know if certain players have perks like the ones mentioned above. I'm sure there are other helpful messages that SWF can give each other in the game's current state that I haven't thought of.
-
@Damarus said:
@knell They are still considering about the totem counter, even though it has been "brought up many times" (including by myself), because killer mains are crying about it. Or, to better put it, incompetent cheap killer mains who pick NOED. About Kindred, even though it would only be fair to have all SWF info available to solo players, having a perk that shows you the exact position of the killer by his aura would be too much. But, on the other hand, Kindred only shows killers who are within a certain radius from the hooked guy, since they are camping. That would effectively reduce camping, and I would love that.
I don't doubt that many people who mostly play the killer role would be uncomfortable with the idea of 'totem counter' or 'base kindred.' The fact of the matter is, eradicating the gap between solos and SWF (by providing solos with information so that everyone has the same amount of intel) means that it would be as if current killers will be forced to play against 4-Man SWF 100% of the time, which the game has never been balanced for. DBD will no longer be a 'hidden information' game, but more of a team-action game (in which it already is for SWF players.)
So yes, if the killers aren't massively buffed as solo catch up to SWF, then the game will remain heavily unbalanced, and they absolutely have the right to complain. I believe the developers already understand this.
If people don't mind, please refrain from continuing to debate about the effectiveness and use of NOED, or any other perk. It seems to lead to personal attacks, and as I've mentioned before, I would like this thread to remain on topic, which is about the direction that the developers have already chosen for balancing SWFs, and why it's seemingly taking them so long to actually take any action on it. I believe there are actually many other threads that actually discuss the merit of NOED and other perks, so please take your discussions in there.
-
Although I would like the discussion to remain on 'the direction that Behaviour decided to take in regards to SWF imbalance' (buffing solos to SWF level, then balancing killers to it) and their action (or the lack thereof) taken so far, I would like to quickly address something that has been brought up several times.
That is, why they don't just nerf SWFs instead of buffing Solos, given how 1. SWF seems to be the problem, and 2. killers already seem to be mostly balanced for solo players.
The reason, I believe, is mainly due to the fact that '(hidden) information' can't be taken away from SWF, but information can (ideally) be given to solos. The main advantage that SWF have over Solo players is that they can obtain information through communicating (and coordinating) with each other instead of gaining that info through the actual game. And 'information' itself can't be taken away (nerfed) from SWF. So you have to nerf them in some other respect - aka find a substitute nerf-object. However, since you are not dealing with the actual source of the problem (information), even if suitable 'nerf' replacements can be found for the current state of the game, as new contents (new killers, perks, maps, etc.) are added over time, they may not continue to have the same effect as they originally did, and may have to be changed again and again.
However, buffing Solos are different, in that they can actually add 'information' that SWF already has by adding visual cues to the UI. Since they are directly adding 'information' to solo players instead of some other aspect, ideally, it shouldn't become as much as a problem over time. Even this isn't foolproof, and I can already foresee several problems with this direction, but my suspicion is that this was the reason for their decision.
---
If folks would like to discuss about this topic further, please create a new thread for it - although it is certainly important to talk about other ways developers could have better implemented a solution for the SWF imbalance, I would like this thread to remain on topic about what the developers have already decided to do, and what they have done so far about it after three+ years.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/612116#Comment_612116
You are wrong in your assessment.
I don't come up with any ideas as I don't have any that would sort the issue.
Separating queues only works in theory for 4 man and 2 x 2 man but a 3 man needs a solo. Then you have the problem of who would play in one queue and not the other which could potentially hurt both.
As for information the amount we already have been given has hurt certain perks which work best off players not knowing or having to be aware. It also has ruined the immersion of the game making it become more mundane over time with so many aura perks and notifications happening.
These are the reason I also think the devs may be reluctant to add more and find it so hard to find a way to balance the game for the two player sets as at least 50% or more may be affected by the changes.
I also recognise something has to be done but what that is I do not know. I am a believer of fixing the actual problem and not everything around it as the problem can come back over time which means changing SWF directly but as they have stated its not what they want to do as not all are tryhard squads and most simply want to have fun.
If SWF were in a separate queue, then 3-Man SWF probably wouldn't even require a solo and the Killer probably wouldn't need any buffs either, since that's one less person to worry about in the beginning. And if both Solo queue and SWF queue are both properly balanced, then they could always set up a system in which they offer (bloodpoint?) incentives for the queue/role that needs players. But I believe we've already had that discussion before, and right now, I rather stay on the topic of how the developers have decided to handle the SWF imbalance and what they have done about it so far.
***
The direction that they are heading in will indeed hurt certain killer perks (as well as many killers' 'invisibility' powers), but killers have already been suffering these same problems every time they are forced to face SWFs. Which is why many of the killers' powers and their perks will probably have to be buffed to the point of being unrecognizable while solo adjustments are made to be on the level of SWF.
And like I said previously, I absolutely agree with you that it would ruin the immersion of the game (at least, as a solo for me). You have no idea how much I don't want my solo experience tampered with. But I also understand that game balance is much more important than my personal feelings on the matter. And I recognize that for many killers, SWF have been ruining immersions since its implementation. Just like the changes in the result screen where players' perks became covered until the match ended, some aspect of the game will have to change for the health of balance at the detriment of some other aspects and convenience. But like I said previously, I don't want the sacrifice to come at the price of some haphazard attempts. All I'm saying is, if the developers are going to do this, they better do this at 100%.
-
In regards to SWF imbalance, I notice that you never seem to offer any solution, whether it's a separation of Solo/SWF queues or solo's information buffs to the level of SWF, proceeded with Killer overall buffs. You always seem fixated on the potential problems that may come up, or how some people may not like the change. It's as if you prefer the status quo of keeping the imbalance between Solo and SWF. If I am incorrect in my assessment, I apologize.
As a mainly solo player, the developers' decision about buffing solo to the level of SWF isn't something I personally want, due to the fact (like you've stated) it takes away from the atmosphere of the game, as well as how it is originally intended to be an anti-social multiplayer game. Honestly, it makes me really sad that this is the solution that the developers decided on. But I also recognize that something absolutely needs to be done about the imbalance, and if this is the direction that the developers are heading in, then I will grudgingly support it. BUT I want them to do it with 100% commitment, and not half-ass the issue in which they pick and choose what communication prompts should solo players be allowed to have when they know that SWF players already have all of them. I want them to invest in fully balancing the game, however it may turn out. And if it doesn't work, then immediately put 100% into another solution. The worst thing that they can do is not do anything, or only take minimal steps just to say they've done something.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
Horvath said that base Kindred was way too powerful for them to put in. Maybe watch the entire stream next time.
And a totem counter would also be way too powerful to put in, as it would mean a complete negation of NOED every single game.
Like honestly THINK about these things before making such comments. Think about what would happen, it doesn't take much to see when something would be way too powerful.
Also stop asking for details. Details can and do change. If they tell us something and it changes, now they look like ass hats. When the features are near ready to go live THEN we will get the details because at that point the details won't change much if at all.
I just rewatched the portion of the stream in which Horvath addressed the Kindred issue. He did not say it was too powerful for them to put in. ...maybe you should rewatch it?
Yes, a Totem Counter would be too powerful against current killers, and yet SWF can easily keep track of how many totems have been cleansed. Why should SWF have that advantage over Solo players?
-
@brokedownpalace said:
They've been thinking about bringing the gap for years now. It's not a priority for them and given how many killers they still need to tweak and maps they need to rework I'm not sure it will be anytime soon.
The problem is, the developers don't know what the killers are being tweaked against. What are the killers being balanced against? Solo players? Or SWF players who are capable of having plethora of information that are not given to them from the game, but from each other?
The Nurse is too strong? Against what, solos or SWF?
The Trapper is too weak? Against what, solos or SWF?
As so long as SWF have any advantage over Solos, the killers are never going to be able to be appropriately balanced.
-
@Kerbert said:
So those rumors about in the code of the game showing "push to talk" and "voice coms" ia true? They're really bringing voice comms to dbd?
No, @Peanits had clarified that they have no plans to do that. When asked what those codes were, he (8/2/19) answered:
Those are plugins that are packaged with the Unreal Engine. This is also why VR popped up a while back. Sometimes when you update the engine, they slip back in. You can find those exact same strings of text, word for word, in loads of other Unreal games.
-
@Kerbert said:
So instead of bringing SWF down to Solo level or both meeting in the middle, they decide to bring solo up to SWF? So Randoms will be just as powerful as SWF? Wondeful, just wonderful.
No, their intention is making Solo players as powerful as SWF, so that they can buff all killers to the overall 'Survivor' level.
Ultimately, they want Solo and SWF in the same playing field so that killers can be balanced against just one type of opponent, instead of how it is currently, where killers waver between the Solo and SWF gap while Solos complain that Killers are too strong, and Killers complain that SWF are too strong.
-
I don't believe Behaviour actually hates solo players or killers. I do believe that they don't have any team dedicated to fixing the imbalance between Solo/SWF/Killers, given how they have not made any progress in the area since they closed off the results screen until everyone was finished with the match.
In my opinion, this should have been prioritized since the day SWF had been implemented, given how it affects so many aspects of this game, from individual killers to perks.
-
Peanits' statement above:
With that said: We are working on changes to help greatly with this.
But Peanits' statement as a 3-tiered perk:
With that said: We are working on changes to help greatly/considerably/tremendously with this.
Time to grind this perk to tier 3!
-
It doesn't matter if certain SWF players are incompetent, unskilled, or "just having fun." Just like it doesn't matter if certain Nurse players are incompetent, unskilled, or "just having fun." The game still needs to be balanced around competent and skilled players who aren't goofing around and just handing their opponents easy wins. If one side is focused on the game and determined to win, and the other side is simply fooling around, then it's obvious who should win. So balance the game with that in mind.
It doesn't matter how rare good SWF groups are to play against, just like it doesn't matter how rare great Nurses are (especially on consoles.) The game still needs to be balanced at the top, so that the most skilled players playing against each other, with the strongest tools they have, have a 50/50 chance of winning. Once they determine the ultimate skill cap, then they can proceed to balance from top-down.
Buffing and nerfing killers is meaningless until they balance solo survivors and SWF to be on the same level. It's way past time Behaviour addressed this seriously, instead of continuing to deflect the problem, fully knowing that it affects the overall balancing problems in DBD. Hopefully they will be discussing their plans on SWF balance in a Developer Update in the near future.
-
@Peanits said:
That's easy enough. If you know someone's using Spine Chill, look away from them as you approach. If you know they're using alert, don't break stuff as your approach. You can save yourself a perk slot just by using your noodle, even.
Spine Chill actually used to be meta back in the Wraith/Spine Chill meta of early 2016. There's definitely counterplay there.
Doesn't the same logic apply to a perk like Distortion? I imagine some killer players would like an equivalent of that type of perk. It probably won't be used much by most people, but given how most perks are already designed to be uncompetitive, I don't see it as a problem providing something like that.
-
I was wondering about this too. In addition to the patchnotes from October 24th, 2016 (almost 3 years ago), there was also this:
Livestream #71 (around 31 minute mark)
Back in September 28, 2017 - about 2 years ago.
Horvath: "Now, with that being said, I do believe there is a significant mismatch that happens time and time again. Survive With Friends is very difficult to manage and I've seen this in a lot of different games; I've experienced it myself... it's not cool, right?"
Cote: "So what we are talking mostly is about adding maybe a..."
Horvath: "Better balance. Better balance, better matchmaking..."
Cote: "More points. Multiplier, or something. For facing Survive With Friends."
Horvath: "Or maybe even if you play Survive With Friends and majority of your group level is 10, let's say, maybe we'll make you play against a level 5 killer. Something of that nature. There are some things we can do and we are looking into. But I don't think Survive With Friends will necessarily be removed."
Again, this was from 2 years ago. Now for some reason, Behaviour is discussing going back to SWF average rank matchmaking as if it is something completely new. I'm also a bit lost.
@Peanits Can we get some clarification?
-
Have you tested a version in which freddy husk and blood appear from the 3 closest generators that freddy is teleporting to as his base kit? Seems like it would give much more mind game potential, especially since freddy seems to get weaker as more gens are completed (less place to teleport to) and more survivors die (less 15% sleeping deduction for teleportation).
-
I reported this 'activated trap escape' bug back in February of this year (before EGC). Even included a video. Disappointed that it has not been fixed yet.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/46114/reverse-beartrap-gate-escape-bug
-
You stated that you increased the area of GF detection by 4% in each direction of the screen. So what is the total percentage of the GF detection screen area now? In other words, what is the 8% vertical and horizontal increase being added to? (An actual visual as well as the number would be appreciated.)
-
@Peanits said:
It's way more complicated than it seems. Not all groups are super coordinated and trying to win as fast as possible, most are just a couple friends hanging out and chatting while they play a game. How would you suggest doing so in a way that would unnecessarily punish the casual groups that are not trying as hard as possible to win? And how could that not be avoided by queuing solo at the same time as your friends?
Unless playing in a KYF mode, most killers don't have the option to just "hang out and chat" with friends while playing this game. So instead, they try hard to win. And they are forced to play against people who, like you said, aren't even trying hard to win. You seem to be saying that people with similar skill levels, with one side trying their hardest to win, and the other side not even focused on the game, but "just hanging out and chatting" - that they should both have an equal chance to win. Does Behaviour honestly believe that is a fair balancing philosophy to follow by?
And how could that not be avoided by queuing solo at the same time as your friends?
Have a separate mode for SWF. I would change the solo mode lobby a little bit so that it is individualized - so in this new lobby, the survivors can't see the other survivors (or their usernames.) Stagnate the initiation of the load-in to the maps (though they will all arrive at the same time.) The UI for the survivors' names are replaced with numbers or letters. If these types of people DCs once they load onto the map and find that they are on different maps, and they do this often (and most likely they would have to), then they will be banned from the game as usual, especially after the dedicated server come into play.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/546523#Comment_546523
I'll just elaborate what you said:
Basically, whenever a rank 1 survivor was sacrificed, killed, or disconnected, it would be counted as a rank 2 sacrifice, kill, or disconnect because rank 1 survivors tend to de-pip when they don't escape.
Therefore, we got a 80% survival rate at rank 1 because everything was skewed towards rank 2. If I remember correctly, the actual survival rate at rank 1 is 43%. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If all of Rank 1's sacrifices/kills/disconnected were counted as Rank 2's, then why is Rank 2's Survival Rate still high as being around 60%? If the answer is 'Rank 2's sacrifices/kills/disconnects were counted as Rank 3, then why is Rank 3's Survival Rate still high as being around 60%? And so on. The problem is, there's no other huge discrepancy in that graph as the Rank 1 and Rank 2 difference of ~20%, including at Rank 20, where all of Rank 19's sacrifices/kills/disconnects should have been dumped at.
So overall, this graph itself is very questionable to me. Why didn't they just take the players' Rank at the beginning of the match instead of after the match? After all, isn't the point of the graph to find out the survival rate of each individual match in THAT rank, and not the survival rate of the rank where they END UP in?
In addition, it is still unbelievable to me that they included matches with disconnects in the first place. @Peanits had at one point mentioned that exclusion of matches with disconnects would skew the results, but in reality, if you are attempting to balance the game around these numbers, it is absolutely essential to have excluded matches with disconnects, because those are not the kind of matches the game balance should be striving towards.
Let's say, for example, the 2-Killer exploit was rampant throughout the game, and plagued many of the matches people are playing in. Should such matches be included as part of the data? Should such matches be included in the statistics in which the developers decide whether to buff or nerf a particular group? Should all the killers be nerfed because the 2-Killer exploit's effect on the statistics significantly showed the killers to be too strong? Of course not, because the game isn't meant to be played with 2 killers in a match.
Then why should matches with disconnected games be included as part of the data? Is this game meant to be played with constant disconnects? Are disconnects due to deranking part of this game? Are involuntary disconnects part of this game? Is the chain of disconnects by SWF groups part of this game? Is prevention of BBQ by disconnects part of this game? Is rage quitting part of this game? If they are not supposed to be part of this game, why are they balancing around them?
Why is Behaviour giving the power to balance the game to people who are constantly disconnecting?
-
At any given time, when there are more than 20% of the current players who want to be killers (based also on your geolocation and rank), the queue times are inevitably going to take longer. I don't think there are any matchmaking algorithms which will help with that. So if your killer queue is taking a long time, but not your survivor queue, that is probably the problem.
PS4 has generally always been lucky for killers because there usually is lack of killers (less than 20% of killers) which means that survivors are the ones that usually have a longer queue time.
However, during many of the events (especially double/triple bloodpoint events), the number of killer players tend to increase in number, which is what I believe is happening right now. It also doesn't help that the 103% BP offering seems to be easier to obtain as a killer than as a survivor for some reason in my experience.
I do wish that there is option for players who don't care which role they play to gain a 'Quick Mode,' in which they have an automatic access to the role with the current smaller population, without the needing to check in with queue times of both sides.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/532527#Comment_532527
I've gotta' clarify some things here because there seems to be a lot of confuison.
The range to break him out of stealth is unchanged. The detection area refers to the area on your screen that the killer needs to be in to start revealing him. That will be made about 8% larger. This does not make him easier or harder to reveal, it's just a little QOL change for those that aren't perfectly accurate (particularly helpful for those playing on a controller who are having a hard time keeping their camera right on him during a chase).
The pallet stun is something we got a lot of feedback for. A survivor is meant to be reveal you once they've seen you. If they threw a pallet down on you, they've definitely seen you. (That, or they're just running around the map throwing pallets down for fun and just won the lottery.)
Most of his add-ons are not being changed. His stalk rate add-ons are being decreased due to how powerful they were. It was possible to reduce the stalk time to under 1 second while leaning. The killer instinct add-ons are being reduced to compensate for his base killer instinct duration being increased. The rest of the add-ons remain unchanged.
You stated "4% to the left, 4% to the right. 8% total" in another thread. Has the detection area been increased vertically too, or is it just a horizontal adjustment?
Let's take this picture for example: I think 8% would be slightly longer than the width of David's head, but slightly shorter than the width of The Hag's head - would that assessment be correct? If this is indeed correct, then what is the actual detection area in addition to this 8% increase?
Peanits:
" it's just a little QOL change for those that aren't perfectly accurate (particularly helpful for those playing on a controller who are having a hard time keeping their camera right on him during a chase)."
In the previous patch, when the community brought up concerns about Legion's "missed attacks ending Feral Frenzy" nerf due to the accuracy issues for those playing on controllers (especially on consoles), we were told that the developers will first gather data to see if it made any difference in the first place. Is there a reason why this particular issue (regarding the survivors' detection area for Ghost Face) was more critical to be immediately changed, even before the console users even had a chance to try it out?
-
Can you explain to us more in detail how the previous stun visual was not consistent or understandable? For many of us, the effect of the stun (not being able to move, uncontrollable camera shake, etc.) seems very obvious (as well as frustrating - as it probably should be). I'm not sure what confusion it had created for other players for the immediate need to add even more additional (frustrating) visual cues, especially one that seems to be very unpopular.
-
I'm just surprised that many people are conflating 'personal achievements' with 'winning the game.' Sure, go ahead and set personal objectives for yourself that are completely separate from the game's actual winning conditions. If you accomplish them, great, be proud of yourself. Nothing is stopping you (nor should it.) But I simply don't see how that's any relevant to the question of whether you won at the actual game.
Same goes for whether you had fun in the game. I've had plenty of experiences of losing in games, but having lots of fun. I've also had experiences of winning in games, but not enjoying the victories very much. The results of whether I won/lost have never been dependent on whether I was having fun or not, but instead of whether I had fulfilled the winning conditions provided by the game.
I can sort of understand the statement, "I won, therefore I had fun" if you are that type of human being (although I personally feel like that person is probably missing out on a lot of whatever that game is offering.) But "I had fun, therefore I won the game," doesn't make any sense to me. It would take a lot of mental gymnastics to even convince myself that this is true. Perhaps it's the generation gap, in which the younger generations are forced to always feel like they have to be winners. Or perhaps it's cultural differences in which 'losing' is associated so much with 'being weak' that it isn't tolerated in that part of the world. But people's attachment to 'winning' here seems, to me, obsessive to an unhealthy degree, and hopefully one day they realize that there is nothing wrong with losing. Ultimately, you don't even really have to care about winning or losing - if you want to play for fun - then just play for fun. But also realize that it has nothing to do with the winning condition.
-
"The Doctor's Orders" - Made from electrolytes and ice cream; will snap you out of your funk.
"Adiris' Adonis Cocktail" - Green (sometimes Red) Grapes fermented inside Babylonian Priestess from 4000 years ago.
"Hawk's Toxic Tonic" - Carbonated drink mixed with gin and yeast of dead skin cells - has distinct flavor that may remind you of nail polish.
-
DBD Player on Scrabble: "Yeah, I know you won, but in my eyes, I also won because I had more seven letter words than you."
DBD Player on Chess: "You may have checkmated me, but I had fun taking your Queen, so doesn't that really make me the winner?"
DBD Player on Catan: "I don't care that you got to 10 Victory Points before I did, I had fun getting my Longest Road, therefore, from my perspective, I also won."
DBD Player on Poker: "You may have taken all of my chips, but who is really the winner? I mean, I'm the only one who had a Four-of-a-Kind during the whole playing session."
DBD Player on Werewolf: "The Villager Team may have wiped us out, but we did take out your Fortune Teller on the first turn, soooo who's really the winner?"
DBD Player on Whitehall Mystery: "Sure, you may have caught me in the end, but I had fun looping you the whole time, so surely that also makes me the winner."
DBD Player on Street Fighter 2: "But, really, my personal goal was to get as many throws as possible, and given that I accomplished that goal, doesn't that mean I win, at least from how I see it?
DBD Player on Rock, Paper, and Scissors: "Ok, you may have beaten my Scissors with your Rock, but given how we both had fun, doesn't that make us both winners in the end?"
-
I do agree that getting outside advice would be immensely beneficial for the DBD team. The problem is, "who?" I mean, look at this forum. People who have spent thousands of hours on this game are almost always, always constantly disagreeing with each other - everyone loves this game, and is passionate about its concept, but how often do people agree? Sure, there have been times when we all identified and agreed that something is a "bad" idea, but for the most part, almost everyone (even the "most experienced") have had different ideas on how to fix it. Both the developers and those of us on the forums always talk about "the community" as if we are one entity with one cohesive idea, but that's rarely the case.
I would gather that mostly everyone thinks they know how to make DBD the best game possible. And I believe that they all sincerely believe that they have the best ideas. Observing the forum though, I would also bet that mostly everyone would have different ideas on how to go on about it, and many of them would conflict with each others' ideas. So again, "Who?"
-
In regards to Janick's "stat" statement, there's another thing that I think people should be concerned about.
'Was the data taken with the players' ranks after a match, or before the match (as it should be.)'
If this sounds familiar to anyone, it's the same oversight that was made in the recent 'Survival Rate By Rank' data sheet, in which survivors' survival rate appeared to be close to 80% at Rank 1. This was due to the fact that many who had died had deranked back to Rank 2, and therefore was not counted as being in the Rank 1 group despite being in Rank 1 when the match started. When this was taken into account, Peanits stated that its actual Survival Rate would have been around 43% (although that number, too, probably should be questioned, due to the fact that it was only taken from one day's worth of sample size).
So similarly, Janick's 4K Average Kill Rate at Rank 1 could have resulted from taking players' ranks from after the match, where Rank 1 killers who had not performed well were deranked to Rank 2, and therefore was not counted as being in Rank 1. It was just not questioned because, this time, there was no graph showing how The Plague performed in the other rankings.
This is just a possibility, and far from being a speculation, but something that should be questioned and answered regardless, just as sample size and the inclusion of disconnected matches should be questioned for the accuracy of the numbers given.
I personally find it disappointing when people disregard statistical data for no apparent reason, just because they don't want to believe it. But I find it equally pitiful when people swallow up statistics without question and believe it wholeheartedly as a 'fact' despite not knowing where the numbers came from. So I'm really glad that many in this thread is taking the right approach of questioning the data. How was the data collected? Why was these samples included/not included? How big of a sample size was it overall? Why is the data being interpreted this way, but not that way? And hopefully, the data analysts are willing to be transparent with the answers, because they believe what they did is the correct way.
-
Hm. If The Plague's average number of kills at Rank 1 is 4K, then that means there is not even a single instance of a match with a 3K1E result, since that would drop any average to 3.9999 at best. I also wonder what the sample size was, given the fact that every single match resulted in a 4K according to his data.
Since we're talking statistical data, can you give us the following information?
What is the current survival rate for Survivors in Rank 1-4, [excluding all matches that include any disconnects]** against The Plague? (To clarify, not asking for The Plague's kill rate, but for Rank 1-4 Survivors' survival rate against The Plague in general)
**Please, please stop including matches with DCs when analyzing your data, especially if you are making balancing decisions based on them. We all know that DCs (especially DCs done near the beginning of the game) have a severe effect on the outcome of the match, probably moreso than what killer was played, which is why we eliminated the possibility of starting the game with just 3 (or less) survivors.
-
Given the expectation of arrival of new players from the announcement of the Switch and Mobile versions of DBD, and given how complex DBD has become in the last 3 years (from 3 killers to 16 killers, all with different powers, from 21 teachable perks to 99, addition of different currencies, new maps, status effects, totems, obsessions, End Game Collapse, etc.), do you have any plans to extensively update the tutorial so that newcomers won't feel overwhelmed and be more willing to stick with the game?
-
They were quite vague when talking about this on the stream so I'd like to get some other opinions on this.
Can you give me a timestamp on what Not_Queen said about it? I didn't even realize she mentioned something.
Dave Richard's quote (around the 1:03:16 mark) on the topic was this:
"What we have right now, in the rank, is comparing killers with survivors, and we think that this doesn't make a lot of sense since they have very different roles. So what we want to redo with this rank rework is to compare killers with killers, you know, Trapper with Trappers, so that you have, you know as a player your own progression in there, you want to get better and compare to your game, and then compare with other players who are playing the same kind of thing."
So at first glance, it does sound like an individualized rank system for each type of killer. But that last sentence also makes it almost sound like a rank system based on a leaderboard for each type of killer. I don't know - seems too vague right now to speculate much about it.
I do agree with the opinion that it could cause low rank bullying by killers who are already quite proficient in killer-plays in general, which I am absolutely against. Of course, not that the current way works any better, given someone learning a completely new killer usually ends up being bullied if he is already ranked high with another killer. ...yeah, I don't know how I feel about it either way right now. Hopefully they'll come up with a fair ranking system that would be fair to newcomers of both survivors and killers.