knell
knell
About
- Username
- knell
- Joined
- Visits
- 7,862
- Last Active
Comments
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/499686#Comment_499686
Well if you are taking him at his exact word you also have to take the context into consideration, he was answering your question on swf as it currently is in the game, there was no reference that is was meant to be anything different and no further discussion on that.
Also since It was delayed what we have is what was intended as if it was put in and simply rushed they would have had it from the get go or have stated it would be changed.
If you show me definite proof and get the devs to state otherwise then I will openly say you were right but I don't beleive it will end up how you wish It to.
Being on the same side is not the same as being on the same team, by working with a killer you cannot share you items or work together on a gen, heal your friend or save them from a hook or with flashlight etc, why can't you comprehend that some players like to do the above and t9 remove that option form only a portion is not fair play.
I never said that, you have a tendency to try and put words in peoples mouths, I said its not your game to decide if their vision is wrong, there is a fine line between giving an opinion and telling someone they are doing it wrong.
The devs have always stated their core vision for balance is a 2 die 2 escape scenario over the whole userbase, the stats reflect this in slight favour of the killers right now so maybe they are doing what they deem is correct but not ehat you want it to be.
You talked about how the game should be balanced and originally used a quote from McLean (which you also misquoted by changing the wording to mode may I add so here tour own words).
I said this to show you have to take the context it was said in and not just the what he said, after that many posters started saying the devs wanted survivors to be stronger and tried to use it as proof.
That is not what I have bern saying, if you care to read its about removing that option from a portion of the userbase and leaving it in for the rest.
Well when you talk about the idea you don't seem to care how it could affect others players enjoyment of the game and are fine with removing options from a portion of the userbase, people tend to think this way when it won't affect them directly but in the long run benefits them.
Well if you are taking him at his exact word you also have to take the context into consideration, he was answering your question on swf as it currently is in the game
I've taken the context into consideration, and there's nothing that indicates that McLean made a mistake. So why did you insist that he did?
Also since It was delayed what we have is what was intended as if it was put in and simply rushed they would have had it from the get go or have stated it would be changed.
Or what we have is the result of the change in plans for the addition of SWF. We all know that these developers test multiple different iterations of the changes they make. The developers are also not obligated to let us know every single different versions of the changes they go through, or any change at all - we know this already.
why can't you comprehend that some players like to do the above and t9 remove that option form only a portion is not fair play.
No, I can understand that. What I can't understand is people not being able to play through their non-preferred role for 10 minutes if their focus is really about spending time with their friends.
I said its not your game to decide if their vision is wrong, there is a fine line between giving an opinion and telling someone they are doing it wrong.
So if my opinion is that the developers are taking a wrong approach on a subject and wish for them to change their course, I shouldn't be able to state that opinion?
You talked about how the game should be balanced
You're right; I think that games should be balanced from the top, which is different than how the DBD developers are currently balancing the game. Again, should I not be allowed to voice that opinion?
Well when you talk about the idea you don't seem to care how it could affect others players enjoyment of the game and are fine with removing options from a portion of the userbase, people tend to think this way when it won't affect them directly but in the long run benefits them.
No, when I talk about an idea, I don't consider how it could affect every single other person's enjoyment of the game. Because not everyone will ever be happy in unison with the choices that are made; some portion of the community will always prefer some other change, or changes not made at all. After all, look at the addition of SWF in the core mode - made lots of folks happy, but certainly not people who mainly play solos, killers, and pretty much anyone who appreciates good balance in their games. So yeah, when I give my opinion, I base it off what I personally think a good game should be, and not for the sake of appeasing every person in the community.
-
@DoubleTap said:
If the title of this thread was:
HOW TO SOLVE THE GAP BETWEEN ATHLETES WHO USE STEROIDS AND THOSE WHO DON'T
It'd be a completely different (yet ironically similar) conversation.
Method 1:
Force steroids on athletes who don't use them.
Method 2:
Given how steroids can't ever be taken away from athletes who want them, we should weaken these athletes by poking their eyes and cutting their tongues out.
Method 3:
Have an athlete tournament just for steroids users and an athlete tournament just for non-steroid users.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/499416#Comment_499416
McLean is on of the better speakers but that doesn't mean he is infallible to mistakes, it's just a word he used and without him explaining it exactly it can be taken multiple ways, you chose to see it differently than myself.
If you are taking him at his word then all he confirmed is that swf was meant to be in the game from the start, not once did he say it was meant to be a complete seperate entity and not mixed in with the solo player base.
I don't know how you can get that idea from what he said as even KYF is the same game but the one thing different is a friend plays killer.
You are still assuming that they always intended it to be a complete seperate mode with no proof what so ever, they may well had had a discussion about swf but let me point another thing out, the devs did not think the game would be as successful as it was so why would they split the userbase?
What you wrote is pure speculation and in the end the fact is swf is mixed into the normal game so that fact says more than all your assumptions, I never said he misspoke, I said it may have been a mistake in the context that he was meaning.
He may not be aware of how it may be taken by some due to english not being his first language.
Again with the pointless analogies, each one of them is not comparable to this situation as you are still in the same place as your friend doing exactly the same thing, your are together and can share what you have with them.
How your movie analogy would work is, you went to with a friend to a movie theatre that you had visited numerous times but now upon turning up there was another group of three, there is only four spaces so they gave them to the group of three and you and your friend had to either see the movie seperately in different screens or try another theatre.
It does not matter what you think about how to balance any game, the devs are balancing in a way they see fit and the game has been successful doing it their way, you may not agree with it but in the end it's not for you to say it's right or wrong, it is not your game to mould into how you want it.
Do you remember McLean being quoted for saying "who ever said the game was meant to be balanced"?
If you remove an aspect of the game where they no longer have 100% choice of what role they play from someone while others get to keep it simply because they play with friends that they have always done then yes it's a punishment in essense for doing so.
You may like it but others may not, what makes your opinion more valid than theirs?
I never used the word inferior, I've enliven stated its not a bad idea I just don't think it would work out that well.
If you are taking him at his word then all he confirmed is that swf was meant to be in the game from the start
Correction: If we are taking him at his exact words, what is confirmed is that SWF MODE was meant to be in the game from the start. You know, because that is literally what he said. Why are we going through this again? Why do you keep insinuating that he made a mistake when there's nothing that would even suggest that? Stop forcing a narrative by mischaracterizing the developer as if he had made some mistake.
You are still assuming that they always intended it to be a complete seperate mode with no proof what so ever
"The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes, before release." So when the KYF MODE was released, it came in a separate mode, correct? Now, reread what he says again. Why would you suddenly assume that when SWF Mode is released, it would NOT come in a separate mode, just as KYF mode did? What do you even think he meant when he kept mentioning 'mode' in those sentences?
How your movie analogy would work is, you went to with a friend to a movie theatre that you had visited numerous times but now upon turning up there was another group of three, there is only four spaces so they gave them to the group of three and you and your friend had to either see the movie seperately in different screens or try another theatre.
Again, in NMCKE's mode, you and your friends are still on the same team sharing the same experience, despite playing a different role. What is so difficult to understand about that concept?
It does not matter what you think about how to balance any game, the devs are balancing in a way they see fit and the game has been successful doing it their way, you may not agree with it but in the end it's not for you to say it's right or wrong, it is not your game to mould into how you want it.
Are you saying that I shouldn't express my opinion on how I think the game should be balanced by the developers?
Do you remember McLean being quoted for saying "who ever said the game was meant to be balanced"?
"Nobody said it was balanced," McLean referring to Marth88's SWF experiment. What does that have to do with anything? And please don't misquote people; it reflects badly on them, as well as you.
If you remove an aspect of the game where they no longer have 100% choice of what role they play from someone while others get to keep it simply because they play with friends that they have always done then yes it's a punishment in essense for doing so.
So all of these complaints about NMCKE's mode boils down to you needing to be able to always, always pick your preferred role. Gotcha.
You may like it but others may not, what makes your opinion more valid than theirs?
Who said it does?
I never used the word inferior, I've enliven stated its not a bad idea I just don't think it would work out that well.
Fair enough.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/498266#Comment_498266
How many streams have you watched? The devs constantly say the wrong words when referencing the game and situations, they are Canadian and some are very much from the french side and don't speak English that well, the words used don't have to mean something so specific, it's ll about the context it was used in and what he said afterwards.
Now if he had stated that swf was never meant to be mixed with solo that would be something but as I pointed out that could never work with a 3 man swf, the fact they included that says they intended to mix them with solos.
Now you see my point that it would be forcing someone to play something they do not wish too, it's not about being grown up that's not entirely fair, it's about playing something you may not find fun.
How many times have you read these forums and players from both sides state they don't enjoy playing the other?
Imagine if the devs decided to remove the option to chose sides and the killer was always chosen at random from the 5 players who joined, how would that make you feel?
If you enjoyed playing killer and hated survivor gameplay and now have a 1 in 5 chance, I couldn't see that going down well.
Because it's a game, the mistake people make is they think it's meant to be highly competative, it is competative but as the devs say they want it to be fun, this should be evident with them trying to remove strats which are a more competative nature like tunnelling and camping.
The whole emblem system as well promotes screwing around to rank up which also lends to the above.
Our opinions do differ, as I said I used to be like yourself and thought that punishing swf was the way to go but then I realised they are just gamers playing a game with what the devs gave them.
That is why oo force a new game mode onto people that differs from the original is not the way to go.
I wasn't belittling you directly I was making an analogy as to this forum and its users which can be like that at times.
There are a lot of people who simply come here as they want the game moulded to their vision and think the devs dont have a clue all the while trying to tell them how it should be done.
The devs constantly say the wrong words when referencing the game and situations, they are Canadian and some are very much from the french side and don't speak English that well
McLean has never seemed like he had difficulty speaking English, so why would you suddenly bring that up? You are choosing to dismiss what he has said because "they are Canadian and some are very much from the French side and don't speak English that well", despite the fact that there is nothing that substantiate that kind of claim. It just seems like you simply don't want to take him at his word.
Now if he had stated that swf was never meant to be mixed with solo that would be something but as I pointed out that could never work with a 3 man swf, the fact they included that says they intended to mix them with solos.
The SWF Mode that they had originally intended to put in the beginning (but never did) does not have to have excluded solos. It could have been a simple mode where a solo could have jumped in if the queue was high in the standard mode, being fully aware that they are going to most likely be paired with SWF players. Of course, all of this being in the initial planning phase, way before the developers realized that they would have had to re-balance the entire SWF mode for killers. Given how that would take more time than what the community was willing to give them, they scrapped the idea and just mashed it into the core mode. Just a speculation on my part, but the context fits, and seems more reasonable to me than claiming that McLean misspoke because he's Canadian.
Now you see my point that it would be forcing someone to play something they do not wish too, it's not about being grown up that's not entirely fair, it's about playing something you may not find fun.
The thing is, when you are with friends, you may sometimes do things that you yourself may not particularly find fun. You may sometimes end up playing a game with them that you may have already burnt out on. You may end up going to a restaurant or the bar with them, despite not particularly wanting to eat or drink (or spend the money for it). You may go see a two hour movie that you don't much care for, despite the fact that the movie you are actually looking forward to watching is playing right next door. You may do all of this because you simply want to socialize and hang out with your friends and want to take part in what they are excited for - that's what friends do for each other. You are simply putting your friends over your own enjoyment, and hopefully they are also willing to replicate that for you. That's part of life.
So someone making mountains out of molehills out of who plays what role in a videogame match which only lasts about 10 minutes seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Are they even really friends if they can't even work that out?
Because it's a game, the mistake people make is they think it's meant to be highly competative, it is competative but as the devs say they want it to be fun, this should be evident with them trying to remove strats which are a more competative nature like tunnelling and camping.
You should understand that games themselves are usually not designed for competitiveness or casualness. People can play the same games competitively or casually, but ultimately what makes a good game is its balance and mechanics, not how "fun" someone finds it to be. Chess, for example, may be viewed by many people to be competitive, but it can also be played casually between friends. Same with Scrabble, Poker, Magic the Gathering, etc. This holds true for most 'versus' games. And on the subject of "fun" - the fact of the matter is, "fun" is very subjective, differing from person to person, based more often on their own background and history. What one person finds fun may be woefully boring to another. That's why you often see vastly different opinions on videogames/boardgames reviews and recommendations. So yes, the developers should attempt to make the game fun, but not at the cost of its balance or their core vision of the game - because ultimately, some in the community may find that the change has instead made the game much less fun while destroying the balance of the game.
Our opinions do differ, as I said I used to be like yourself and thought that punishing swf was the way to go but then I realised they are just gamers playing a game with what the devs gave them.
Again, I don't see NMCKE's mode as a punishment to SWF because there's nothing inferior about the mode. In fact, it's a superior mode for SWF plays due to the fact that it's more team-oriented.
-
You know when you have to result to belittling or trying to insult someone it generally means you are frustrated and have no real argument left, it's not how adults tend to conduct a discussion.
I have no intention of belittling you, especially if you are not doing it on purpose. Your run-on sentences makes it literally very difficult for me to understand what you are saying, and that's how these miscommunication keep occurring. Neither one of us wants that, correct? So can you please make an attempt to keep all of your sentences from being a run-on, and I will do the same? This last post of yours was a bit more comprehensible, so I appreciate that.
no where does he state it was ever meant to be a whole seperate game mode, it is why your whole argument on that is mute and rather silly, I will say my it again you are assuming with no proof to state otherwise.
So again, I ask you, "Why did he specifically mention 'mode'? What did he mean by "SWF Mode?"
I already gave example but just in case your having trouble with it, a 2 man and 3 man join the lobby, no one want to be killer so the only option is auto chose or it could be an indefinite wait (that's not hard to see happening since players sat for hour the hatch) the game choses and one person cannot play what they want or with thier friends, is that clearer for you?
In a case of 2-man and 3-man joining a lobby and no one wants to play killer, sure, someone would have to be the grown up and play the killer. Like I said earlier, most of us learn 'turn-taking' and 'compromises' when we are children, so hopefully it's not an issue for adults playing this game. But once one of them chooses killer, the rest are the same. In fact, the killer-player can share information about the opposing team with his/her survivor friends and vice versa. So to answer the question of whether they can or can't play together in this mode, the answer would be 'yes, they can play together.'
casual simple means people playing the game for fun and not taking it overly seriously as they arent that good
If the casual player is not taking the game seriously, and facing against an opponent who is taking it seriously and putting 100% of their effort in, why should the casual player have as much a chance of winning as that opponent?
If the casual player just isn't that good, facing against an opponent who is good, why should the casual player have as much a chance of winning as that opponent?
How exactly do you believe this game should be balanced?
You wrote that to peanits but the one thing you failed to realise is this is not your game, it is not up to you to decide that the devs vision is wrong
You're absolutely right; it's not my game. But developers have listened to us before on some topics, and will probably continue to listen. That's why we are all contributing by voicing our opinions and giving feedback, correct? My hope is that they will eventually do what I believe is the correct course of action in regards to the SWF problem (which obviously differs from yours).
players like yourself who seem to want it to be something it will never be and come to the forum screaming I want over and over like a toddler in an ice cream shop.
...soooo who is belittling whom?
Also, @NMCKE , if I am misrepresenting your mode (or you) in some way, please feel free to correct me and let me know. I also apologize for seemingly taking over your thread - if you prefer that I stop posting so that others may feel more comfortable jumping in, I don't mind doing that also.
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/498145#Comment_498145
"Good news! Even with this new mode, they can still play with their friends! For some reason, you seem to keep thinking they can't. Provide me with a specific example of when you and your friend can't play with each other on this mode."
When you both want to play regular DBD without this 5v5 crap.
Also you keep bringing up this mode thing. But you seem to forget that SWF is referred to as a mode in the same way that KYF is. However the actual gameplay of KYF is identical to just normal, so clearly it isn't the gameplay that makes them a mode.
It's more like how other games have a ranked mode and casual mode. They don't have mechanical differences, and so you would never say that you should change one without doing the same change to the other. However they are both considered different modes despite that.
KYF and SWF are like that. Different modes despite having identical mechanics.
So no. You can't fully solve the SWF issue. This game type just makes SWF much more tedious to do for anyone impatient. Not something that actually solves the issue. People don't need the SWF button to get access to a group chat. Even if you instabanned everyone who dodges players have a pregame chat where a discord link could be sent. And even if you removed that players can send it directly through steam. If someone is determined enough then they WILL get access to VC.
The only games I know of that successfully prevent 3rd party comms among teammates are games with hidden alignments, since trying to get an advantage that way could easily backfire.
When you both want to play regular DBD without this 5v5 crap.
So why would you want to play the standard mode over 5v5?
But you seem to forget that SWF is referred to as a mode in the same way that KYF is. However the actual gameplay of KYF is identical to just normal, so clearly it isn't the gameplay that makes them a mode.
Actually, that is exactly my point. SWF is referred to as a mode in the same way that KYF is. We obtained a separate mode called KYF that allows friends to play together. However, we never got a separate mode called SWF that allowed friends to play together. It was instead forcefully integrated into the main mode, taking away the place of just solos and killers, and thereby creating the whole balancing problem.
People don't need the SWF button to get access to a group chat. Even if you instabanned everyone who dodges players have a pregame chat where a discord link could be sent. And even if you removed that players can send it directly through steam. If someone is determined enough then they WILL get access to VC.
What I wrote about that subject in the previous page:
For those types of people who want to keep their advantages in the standard mode despite having a mode specifically made for them, I would change the standard 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. Given that they have this new mode that are balanced more fairly just for them, that is the minimal punishment I think they would deserve.
-
First of all, please stop using commas in place of periods. Use capitalization when starting a new thought process. Have you never been taught these basic concepts? Or are you doing this purposely to obscure the discussion? Look at your very first sentence. Does it even make sense to you?
Just in case you are actually being sincere and they are honest mistakes, here's a link to learn more about run-on sentences. It should provide you with enough tools to help me decipher what you are trying to say.
https://grammarist.com/grammar/run-on-sentences/
Now, back to the topic.
So it seems you changed the wording to suit your narative as mode and lobby are entirely two different things, why not simply quote McLean and say lobby?
Because the actual word in McLean's quote was "Mode" and "Modes." It was never "Lobby." I inserted the word "lobby" in place of "mode" to show you how ridiculous it sounded. Because YOU stated, "mode in this instance could easily just be refering to how you join the game." Do you remember saying that? Ok, now, explain to me in short, concise sentences what you meant by that.
of course they bought it to play the hide and seek, the thrill of the chase etc etc but they also bought it to play with friends
Good news! Even with this new mode, they can still play with their friends! For some reason, you seem to keep thinking they can't. Provide me with a specific example of when you and your friend can't play with each other on this mode.
Did I ever say I had a better idea? You obviously dont understand that its not nitpicking to bring up a counter argument, you know this is what is used when someone doesn't agree with someone idea, many ideas have been stated over the years and all of them so far have had a counter argument as to why it wouldnt work or is not fair on the player
So you spend your time just attempting to poke holes in other people's ideas and solutions to problems, and yet don't contribute anything to the solution yourself. Gotcha. Moving on.
Again another silly argument, that analogy is not comparable to this situation and if you can't see why then I dont really know what to say.
Heeey, right back at ya!
it's simple, a really good coordinated SWF will always be better than solos but as peanits said that is not the majority of cases and why they don't want to nerf swf as casuals do play the game for fun and not to tryhard
Are you saying that because majority of the SWF players are casuals, the game should be balanced around them? Then let me quote you what I have said to Peanits in a previous conversation:
I hear this ("friends that are just having fun") argument often, and it never sits well with me. For any other game, if I am playing against an opponent of equal skill and he/she is trying their best to beat me with their focus 100% on the game, and I am on my phone casually talking with a friend about things that are completely unrelated to the game "for fun", my expectation would be for my opponent to beat me every time. If people are purposely playing in a way that distracts them from the core basis of the game, why should they have a chance of winning against opponents who are putting in their all? Why should any game be balanced for the players who don't appreciate the game mechanics enough to put all of their effort into their gameplay, but instead are making their "own fun?"
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/497673#Comment_497673
Yes I can say it is an assumption on your part as when this came about McLean was referencing the current game, no where did he say it would be a complete seperate lobby (you changed it from mode) which does not enter the normal game like KYF, I can also say that as using some common sense shows that no matter how much you want to beleive it the so called lobby you desperately want to believe it as a whole seperate game would not have worked with a 3 man SWF as that needs one solo player, the only way to make that work is to mix the userbase.
Do you know that when you solo queue you join into a lobby? When you play swf you simply join an invite lobby first before joining the game lobby, it's not rocket science.
Being able to chose your role IS a main factor of why some people bought the game, it being a core mechanic are just one in the same one in that context, you are still missing the whole point, yes some may take turns and enjoy it but forcing players who may not want to is not what should be done just because they want to play with friends, it's major change to what they bought the game to do, if you can't understand that after this time Its a lost cause trying to get you to see it.
Of course I understand what swf is not balanced, I have stated so many times in numerous posts since the forum appeared, what you ceant seem to get past and bring in irrelevant arguments is the fact I am not arguing something needs done, I am arguing against this idea as removing aspects of the game people purchased while others aren't is not how I beleive it should be done.
It does actually have a lot to do with skill, If you can't understand that a group of really good solo players can be better that a group of swf well that's on you and your knowledge of the game, information can make it alot easier but it does not mean those players can be good enough to give the othes the time to do gens, if a solo runs a killer for 3 mins while 4 members of an swf can't run them for longer than 30 seconds what set of players will do better?
Yes I can say it is an assumption on your part as when this came about McLean was referencing the current game, no where did he say it would be a complete seperate lobby (you changed it from mode) which does not enter the normal game like KYF, I can also say that as using some common sense shows that no matter how much you want to beleive it the so called lobby you desperately want to believe it as a whole seperate game would not have worked with a 3 man SWF as that needs one solo player, the only way to make that work is to mix the userbase.
You are the one that claimed "Mode" was being referenced to how players join the game. To me, "how players join the game" would be through the lobby, ergo, I thought you are saying that McLean is discussing 'lobbies' when he stated, "SWF Mode and KYF Mode." Glad we both agree that it would be absolutely ludicrous for him to be talking about how players join the game when talking about "modes."
So let's try this again. I'm asking again: When McLean made the comment, "The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes, before release. And we chose Kill Your Friends," why did he specifically mention "Mode?"
Be very short, concrete, and concise in your answer. And please proof-read first. I don't want to read a bunch of run-on sentences any more that make me waste time trying to decipher what you mean.
Being able to chose your role IS a main factor of why some people bought the game, it being a core mechanic are just one in the same one in that context, you are still missing the whole point, yes some may take turns and enjoy it but forcing players who may not want to is not what should be done just because they want to play with friends, it's major change to what they bought the game to do, if you can't understand that after this time Its a lost cause trying to get you to see it.
If being able to choose a role is the MAIN reason they bought the game, and not the hide-and-seek, nor the horrific atmosphere, nor the thrill of a chase, nor the excitement of being a hunting killer, nor the hidden movement/time management, nor the one-vs-many aspect of the game, then perhaps they bought the wrong game. Might as well go buy a fighting game where you are assured that you can pick your own character. Ridiculous.
Repeatedly saying "Just because they want to play with friends" isn't a free pass to get everything their way. If people want to play with their friends in a game that revolves around hidden information/movement, then they would have to follow certain rules and guidelines just like everyone else. If one of them is that they are restricted to their own mode, then that's just how it is.
Of course I understand what swf is not balanced, I have stated so many times in numerous posts since the forum appeared, what you ceant seem to get past and bring in irrelevant arguments is the fact I am not arguing something needs done, I am arguing against this idea as removing aspects of the game people purchased while others aren't is not how I beleive it should be done.
I don't see you proposing any better idea than what NMCKE has done in the OP. To me, it seems like you are continuously nitpicking at his idea, moving the goalposts one by one, such as 1. comparing it to KYF Mode, 2. being paired with random players, 3. not being on the same team (untrue).
All of this just so that you can keep the status quo and SWF can keep playing the same way they have been. You say that you understand the imbalance of SWF, yet you've yet to propose a better solution.
It does actually have a lot to do with skill, If you can't understand that a group of really good solo players can be better that a group of swf well that's on you and your knowledge of the game, information can make it alot easier but it does not mean those players can be good enough to give the othes the time to do gens, if a solo runs a killer for 3 mins while 4 members of an swf can't run them for longer than 30 seconds what set of players will do better?
This argument has always been flawed. Just because 4 good solo players can bring the same result as a 4 good SWF players doesn't mean they are the same. If one student gets a 100% on a test by studying (and with some luck) and another student gets a 100% on the same test by paying off the teacher for the answer sheet, are the two students on equal grounds? Of course not. The first student did what he was supposed to and got that result. The second student got information he shouldn't have from an outside source and got that result. The only problem that needs to be corrected here is the second student. But, you say, what if the second student couldn't even remember everything off the answer sheet and do worse than the first student? Doesn't matter - the problem still remains with the second student. It's the same with this game.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/496907#Comment_496907
Mode doesn't have to mean it was meant to be a whole seperate game type, mode in this instance could easily just be refering to how you join the game, there is no indication that swf was ever meant to be completely seperate by any one, its about the context it was said in, you are making an assumption there.
Not to mention they had the time to do that if they wanted but didn't since it was already delayed to finish it which lends to the argument it wasn't meant to be seperate.
Yes it is on the devs to fix the issue they created but not by removing aspects of the game from some users while leaving it for the rest.
You didn't get my point regarding 2 and 3 man SWF, my point was if they join then who plays the killer out of them? What if no one wants to play killer? Do the devs then make it a random choice? That means friends wanting to play together can't and it removes the choice of playing what side you want to which is a main factor in DBD.
You are blaming the players and wanting them to lose what they enjoy for something the devs did, while I do want swf changed or balancing I beleive it needs to be done in other ways.
The stats they collect should be a factor, a group of friends who constantly win, good at running the killer etc hould be matched with a killer of equal skill or the killer gains buffs against them, killer stats with the amount of 4ks etc also come into it for matchmaking, the whole matchmaking needs overhauled as it means a strong team can play a newer killer and vice versa, this is how I think changes should start to be made and not by removing or forcing players into something they don't want or may not enjoy.
The fact is a lot of complaints are from people not good enough to deal with them and may never be, I sit ing he middle of that bracket as I'm no where near the best but can do well enough, there are players who dont mind the challenge, so is that an issue with them or the game matching them together?
Mode doesn't have to mean it was meant to be a whole seperate game type, mode in this instance could easily just be refering to how you join the game, there is no indication that swf was ever meant to be completely seperate by any one, its about the context it was said in, you are making an assumption there.
I'm making an assumption?
So let's look at the context. You are telling me that when McLean was talking about SWF and KYF Modes, he was in fact talking about joining lobbies associated to them. You are seriously equating "Modes" and "Lobbies." By your interpretation, when McLean had made that statement I quoted above, he was actually saying:
"The Kill Your Friends [Lobby] and Survive with Friends [Lobby] were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these [Lobbies], before release. And we chose Kill Your Friends." Does that make sense to you? You really believe that McLean was addressing this important topic of "lobbies" of SWF and KYF when he was talking about "modes?"
It seems like you are the one twisting the developers' words to fit your narrow narrative - hopefully it is not on purpose, otherwise it would be pretty disingenuous.
Yes it is on the devs to fix the issue they created but not by removing aspects of the game from some users while leaving it for the rest.
Again, what aspects of the game are SWF missing out on?
You didn't get my point regarding 2 and 3 man SWF, my point was if they join then who plays the killer out of them? What if no one wants to play killer? Do the devs then make it a random choice? That means friends wanting to play together can't and it removes the choice of playing what side you want to which is a main factor in DBD
Choosing which side to play is not "a main factor in DBD." It's not a core mechanic. It's not integral to the gameplay. It is simply a design choice made by the company - one that can easily be altered for a new mode. Nobody wants to play killer? Ok, understandable. But see, there's this thing called turn-taking and compromises. When children first learn to play hide-and-seek or tag (or even roleplaying 'heroes and villains'), they learn that sometimes they can't immediately get the role that they want, so may just have to wait for another time to do so. Hopefully, people who are old enough to play DBD had matured and learned these skills by this point in their lives.
And if I understand NMCKE's mode correctly, playing killer has absolutely nothing to do with not being able to play together. If you are a killer in Team A, then you are still playing with / communicating / coordinating with your survivor-friends in Team A. So what exactly is the problem?
The stats they collect should be a factor, a group of friends who constantly win, good at running the killer etc hould be matched with a killer of equal skill or the killer gains buffs against them, killer stats with the amount of 4ks etc also come into it for matchmaking, the whole matchmaking needs overhauled as it means a strong team can play a newer killer and vice versa, this is how I think changes should start to be made and not by removing or forcing players into something they don't want or may not enjoy.
The fact is a lot of complaints are from people not good enough to deal with them and may never be, I sit ing he middle of that bracket as I'm no where near the best but can do well enough, there are players who dont mind the challenge, so is that an issue with them or the game matching them together?
You apparently do not fully seem to understand why SWF is unbalanced. It's not because SWF is too strong or too "challenging." If that were the case, then killers simply need to be buffed until SWF are not. The problem is the fact that SWF is intrinsically different from Solos due to the amount of information they are able to acquire. Therefore when balancing killers, it is impossible to balance for both SWF and solos. That's why SWF is a problem - it has nothing to do with 'a group of friends who constantly win' or the individual skill level of players. No matter how much correction you make to the matchmaking (and I do agree with you that matchmaking does need an overhaul, but for other reasons), the killer will always be unbalanced due to the fact they would continue to waver between SWF and Solo in the current state of the game.
-
The thing is the game yes was designed without having comms, they always planned to add SWF into the game so that lies on the devs having lack of insight that players would use comms when playing together.
Again, what they specifically said was that SWF Mode was intended. Instead SWF was forcefully integrated into the core game, causing DBD to have massive design balance issues. Regardless of whether you choose to believe the developer's words or not, the point is that SWF in itself is unneeded for the core gameplay mechanics in DBD. It's just an extra feature more suited as an expansion.
I dont have a problem with new modes but I don't agree with is forcing players to leave what they have enjoyed playing through no fault of their own due to again the devs lack of insight, no one should lose what they have played for three years due simply because they want to enjoy it with friends.
And the developers should take responsibility by fixing the game to what it was always meant to be. And if that means putting in a mode specifically tailored for balancing SWF, then so be it.
Ultimately though, SWF aren't "losing" anything, except for the advantage they have over their opponents. Survivors are still repairing generators and running from the killer. The killers are still trying to sacrifice 4 survivors. It's the same game that they've been playing for the last 3 years, except it is no longer asymmetrical and therefore they no longer have a massive advantage over the other side. I ask you again, why would they not want to play in this mode?
The new mode yes allows you to play with friends but you need a full loadout of 5 or you are still paired with random, how exactly would that work? How many solo would play that mode? There are also 3 man and 2 man SWF who can create just as much of a problem to the killer as a 4 man can, its down to the players skill lvl, the reason they have 2,3 and 4 is due to not everyone being able to fill 4 slots so you end up making them play with randoms which may not be enjoyable for them, if you don't include 2 and 3 man then it's not worth the idea since nothing changes as around 40% of the normal game is still on comms.
Yes, sometimes you are paired with a random - just like you are forced to right now in 2 SWF or 3 SWF (and you never see them complaining right now, do you?) But in the case of this new mode, so do your opponents - they are just as likely to have randoms as you do. By making the game symmetrical, it is pretty much like any other multiplayer team games with randoms - both sides will sometimes have it. The difference right now is that the killer players don't even have that option. That is the problem.
-
SWF right now is essense a seperate mode as you join the game in another way than the solo queue, the fibtexr if what he meant matters and I took it as I wrote above.
First of all, can you take a deep breath and proofread what you write? I'm starting to have difficulty comprehending what you are writing.
What you have to think about is KYF is same game as the nomal one it's just with only friends and no ranking/BP, they waited to add swf to be so logically they would have added it how it was intended to be.
...what? If English is your second language, I apologize, but please edit what you are attempting to articulate.
They don't want to add voice chat not because it's unbalanced as that would infact balance the current game more, they don't want to add it as it was never intended to be used and many don't want it as the community is toxic enough.
Here are the reasons why they don't want to add voice communication to the game as it is right now:
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."
and Mathieu:
"The magic of Dead by Daylight is that at its core it's about playing hide and seek, everybody can play hide and seek. But then we have so many layers with perks (which is a nightmare for us to test), it also means that every game you play there’s uncertainty. That was always at the core of the design, that’s the reason we did procedural map generations and that’s the reason why you don’t know what killer you're up against, why we don’t have communications in the game."
Essentially, the lack of voice com is due to 1. maintaining the atmosphere of the game and 2. hidden information reveals.
The thing is, when you make this new mode that is symmetrical, it would already have a different atmosphere (more action oriented and fast paced) and it will no longer have the "hide and seek" element of what the original should have. Basically, it is what SWF already is. That's why this mode is a perfect fit for them.
KyF isn't played as they want to play versus random people as a group and gain rewards, they already have everything unlocked on the chars they have but what they don't always have is enough people or someone who wants to be against them, most of the time playing with friends means you want to be on the same side with the same goal
Yeah, and in NMCKE's mode, your friends are not going to be on the enemy's team, so what's the problem? They want to be on the same side? Hey, they will!
-
Having contact with other survivors in the pregame lobby is important if you want to discuss strategy or different builds
Not as important as having a balanced game. And I've never chatted with other survivors as solo - never had a problem.
You would have to remove that, and hide the models of the other survivors (otherwise you can tell by the cosmetics if you are all in the same lobby) to prevent SWF abuse
Yup. That would be the point.
-
My suggestions for those people is this:
For those types of people who want to keep their advantages in the standard mode despite having a mode specifically made for them, I would change the standard 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. Given that they have this new mode that are balanced more fairly just for them, that is the minimal punishment I think they would deserve.
-
No where have they stated it was originally meant to have been a seperate mode, they said playing was friends was always intended to be part of the game.
McLean:
"The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes, before release. And we chose Kill Your Friends."
Why would he say "Mode"?
Yes it can work out that both sides woukd be on comms but honestly do you think anyone would risk that? So effwctively those who dont yse comms would be disadvataged in a mode the devs decided to put them in after 3 years of owning the game.
Sure, why not? Developers don't want to implement voice comms in the current standard mode because it's not balanced for that. Why would it be a risk for a mode that is built with voice comms and teamplay strictly in mind? What are you so afraid of?
There is already a mode balances for them, it's called KYF, the choice means they don't play there, so you effectively want to remove that choice and force them into a similar mode.
Again, why not? KYF doesn't get much play because 1. it doesn't grant bloodpoints and 2. people may be afraid of offending the opposite side. This new mode would get rid of both of those problems. Why wouldn't SWF want to play in a mode that is balanced for them and don't have the disadvantages of a KYF?
-
Swf was always intended, it was not crammedndown the players throats.
Actually SWF MODE was always intended. We just never got it, and instead SWF itself was crammed down into the core mode.
As for the game mode it is significantly different to the normal as you would have to be on comms to compete and work against other survivors and with a killer to get your goal.
No, given the more symmetrical nature of the NMCKE's mode, both sides would have a much a chance to be on voice comms as the other, as well as not be on voice comms. Most games are like that. The problem with voice comm in the current standard mode is that killers cannot do anything against it because they don't even have the option to take part in it given the asymmetrical nature of the game.
Edit:
I'm not saying swf isnt a problem but you also have to realise why locking someone out of something they bought the game for is not right due to lack of insight from the devs part.
And they can still take part in it. Just in a mode where it's balanced for them, instead of giving them overwhelming advantage. Why wouldn't they want to do that?
-
@T0xicTyler said:
This is coming from someone who plays equal parts Killer and Survivor and has for a long, long time.
First of all, map infinites have obviously been a problem in the past but they are significantly reduced at this point to where there are only psuedo-infinites that you as the Killer allow yourself to get looped on. That said, map reworks are supposed to be incoming from what we know about the anniversary stream.
Second, moonwalking is hardly an exploit. I'm not sure when people started the exploit bandwagon on moonwalking but it's simply a tactic.
Third, your solution to voice communication in a small amount of games is... built-in voice communication? But I thought voice communication broke the balance?
I know that map infinites have been almost completely removed (if not all), and hopefully they won't come up too often as new maps are added in the future [knock on wood].
The moonwalking exploit I know has been removed.
My point is this - it doesn't matter how small a population it was that took advantages of things such as above - they needed to be fixed regardless because they broke the balance of the game. And just as they had fixed those issues, they need to fix the problems associated with SWF, not matter how small a population they are, because they break the balance of this game.
As it is right now, voice communication breaks the balance, yes. So NMCKE's idea is to remove them from the core mode of the game, and allow them to flourish in a mode that is more balanced for it.
-
@T0xicTyler said:
SWF accounts for such a small amount of games, especially parties of three or four.
It doesn't matter if only a small amount of survivors take advantage of map infinites, you fix it because it breaks the game balance.
It doesn't matter if only a small amount of killers take advantage of a moonwalking exploit, you fix it because breaks the game balance.
It doesn't matter if only a small amount of players take advantage of voice communication using SWF, you fix it because it breaks the game balance.
-
For those types of people who want to keep their advantages in the standard mode despite having a mode specifically made for them, I would change the standard 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. Given that they have this new mode that are balanced more fairly just for them, that is the minimal punishment I think they would deserve.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/496215#Comment_496215
There is quite a big different to changing aspects such as perks, layouts and rework of the maps for balance from locking players out of the original mode.
The new mode would have you pitted versus other survivors and a killer while also working with a killer and you could guarantee not everyone would like it.
It's a huge difference in gameplay and while some may embrace it it's still not right to deny the game mode they bought to play with friends while others get to keep it.
Now if they redone the whole game to this mode for everyone and it was the only option then it would be fair but i cant see it going down well with the userbase.
Players want to play what they want to play regardless of balance, what makes you think any of those players care if its unbalanced by definition? If they enjoy it and have fun that's all that matters to most players in reality.
@NMCKE can correct me if I'm wrong, but in this new mode, ultimately you as a survivor or killer have pretty much the same objective as in the standard mode. If you are survivor in Team A, then you run from a killer in Team B, and vice versa. If you are a killer in Team A, you go after the survivors in Team B, and vice versa. How is the overall gameplay any different, except it is balanced for communication and teamplay? Again, why would SWF want to play in a mode that isn't balanced for it, and reject the mode that is tailored for it, when objective-wise, you are still doing the same thing?
You keep saying that it isn't right to deny the game mode that people bought it for, but what about the people who bought Dead by Daylight before SWF was crammed down their throats in the standard mode, breaking both the balance and the atmosphere? Why are you so invested in maintaining a broken balance in the core mechanics of the standard game when SWF would have a much better option (both in terms of balance and different type of atmosphere) in this new mode if implemented?
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/496069#Comment_496069
We will still have the regular game mode, BUT SWF are not allowed to queue in it because it's simply not made for SWF. Therefore, this is why I made a second mode that will make SWF actually work properly, namely, verus mode.
I understand that; I completely agree with you. (I'm not sure what I said that made you think that I didn't.)
-
About your third point.
This game have changed drastically from the time it was first launched, and it will continue to change. Killers have changed. Perks have changed. Maps have changed. I'm sure there are many people who purchased the game (or the DLCs) for certain aspects of killer or perks that since then have completely changed. So changing some aspects of the standard mode is certainly possible (afterall, they had forcefully integrated SWF into the standard mode in the first place - and took away the game from people who enjoyed it as it was), and if it is to better balance the game, should be encouraged. Why shouldn't SWF be moved to a mode [that specifically targets teamplay and communication] from the standard mode [that specifically is balanced for no communication]? Why would SWF even want to play in a mode that breaks the balance of the game by their very presence instead of playing in a mode that is tailored just for them (unless they just want to take advantage of the non-communication aspect of the standard mode)? They want to "just play with their friend?" Sure, play with them in a mode that is balanced with that in mind.
-
Given how you seemed to have spent a lot of time on this, you'll probably disagree, but for me, the most important part of your post is this part:
Remove the option to SWF in the regular game mode.
Since there's already a game mode for SWF, and because the regular game mode isn't meant for SWF.
I really hope that Behaviour takes this to heart. One of the most heartbreaking thing (regarding this game) that a developer has said in their stream was this:
"It's interesting that Dead by Daylight has gotten so much from one very simple game mode. It's fascinating, really. But then people will say, 'this is a great game mode, what else is there, could we spice it up... There's definitely a desire for something like that.
Personally I would be sad if we lost the old classic game mode. Like I hope we always got that available."
To give some context, this was in the same stream where they said this:
"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."
For me, the "old classic game mode" is the pre-SWF mode, where the feeling of what the game is supposed to be was actually there. The thematic implementation of the horror element was actually there. The game mechanics of hidden information/time management were actually still there. And SWF had taken all of that away from the game. In some aspects, it became unavailable to many of us who actually enjoy the game for what it is meant to be.
___
Don't get me wrong, the rest of your post is intriguing as well - many people will probably be excited for something like that - but for me, the real "old classic game mode" will always be dear to my heart. I apologize for going off-topic on your post.
-
@Almo said:
I've checked Legion's performance on PC vs console, before and after the gameplay update. I don't see any significant difference between the platforms.
I understand why this is a concern to players; but when I look at the analytics, it seems fine.
Having said that, I will still keep an eye on those performance data in the future.
You have brought up Legion's performance data several times now, so can you elaborate on how this performance data was collected?
- From what day to day was the data collected?
- Do the trials from your performance data include any matches with disconnects in it?
- If the answer to 2. is yes, how were the disconnected counted? (Were they counted as 'kills', 'escapes', or as 'neither?')
- Did you separate the data by Ranks of the Survivors? What exactly did rank 1-4 survivor show against the Legion?
- If the data were separated by ranks, was the players' rank collected for data at the before the match or the end of the match?
In addition, I asked you a week ago some questions about The Legion - were you able to ask one of your data analysts whether they can find an answer to them? This is what I wrote:
1a. What is the current survival rate for Survivors in Rank 1-4, [excluding all matches that include any disconnects]** against The Legion? (To clarify, not asking for The Legion's kill rate, but for Rank 1-4 Survivors' survival rate against The Legion)
**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.
1b. Can you give us the same information as above, except divided by Consoles vs PCs?
2. What percentage increase or decrease is there for the number of people using Legion, excluding any games that were used to complete the Legion's Daily?
Thank you.
-
@Chaemeleon said:
Sure that's fair enough but what I'm saying is it's not that detrimental to gather all that info as a solo because it's not that hard to just use game knowledge.
No I dont put out videos. It's not hard to judge the amount of time spent in a match. It's part of my job to judge time.
Why would I not be able to know this if I didn't have a team? It's common sense. It's not rocket surgery. Anyone who's done time in the service knows plans never go to plan and trying to play this game optimally follows the same format dude
All in all it's not a brain heavy game. It doesn't take a strategic genius to play this game. You're comin at me all wrong man I'm just tryna have a civil discussion but it feels like you think I'm attacking you.
You know what? If you are truly being honest with yourself, and that's the answer you've arrived at, then I'm not going to fault you for it.
But I would also consider this: perhaps what you believe is 'information retrieved easily from the game' that most people struggle to obtain without SWF is that you just naturally have good instinct and gaming sense. Your guesses just works out for you more often than not, much like you "knowing" what part of the map is the most desirable for a chase despite not having the information on exactly which pallets are still available in which area. Or you 'knowing' whether it's favorable to look for a hex totem or to hunker down on a gen, despite not having information on how others are spending their time.
But ultimately, there's a huge difference in having keen instinct and information that are handed to you in a silver platter. You repeatedly saying how easy it is for solo players certainly don't help those players, especially if they don't have that 'instinct' that some people do. Hopefully you understand that.
-
@Chaemeleon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/494318#Comment_494318
On average yes. Most people want to get out so they will focus gens done. I would say on average every 6 of my ten matches are over. Sorry I don't stream.
Yes altogether, waiting, going for save, healing and getting back on gen take maybe a minute. It's not a big deal man.
I'm assuming sure. But I'm usually right.
I'm not sure what you're point was here... Yes? I guess
Hey if optimized is the way you like to play then that's your thing I'm not knocking it. I'm just sayin no plan survives first contact. But I don't have a "team" or anything.
Sure I get that but all the stuff you were saying about SWF sharing info I'm just saying it's still really easy to get all that info yourself. You don't need an info sharing network to figure out any of that info.
On average yes. Most people want to get out so they will focus gens done. I would say on average every 6 of my ten matches are over. Sorry I don't stream.
You don't stream? Well you at least put out videos, right, since you seem to know what your average match length is. Unless you time your match length with your wristwatch. ...it's not just a random guess you are telling us, is it?
I'm assuming sure. But I'm usually right.
I guess we'll never know!
I'm not sure what you're point was here... Yes? I guess
My point was that, because you specifically mentioned "2 players," I figured you knew which two, despite the fact that you are all solos. How do you determine which 2 solo players should look for totems, and 2 other solos should push gens as quickly as possible if you don't even know where they are and what they are doing?
Hey if optimized is the way you like to play then that's your thing I'm not knocking it. I'm just sayin no plan survives first contact. But I don't have a "team" or anything.
If you don't have a "team," then how would you even know that "it hardly ever works out that way even with a team man?" Or maybe this is just an observation you made watching other people play. Perhaps you are watching some inefficient SWF players.
Sure I get that but all the stuff you were saying about SWF sharing info I'm just saying it's still really easy to get all that info yourself. You don't need an info sharing network to figure out any of that info.
I'm not saying that solos can't get the information they need - I'm saying that solos can't get them as efficiently and quickly as SWF can - and time management is good chunk of what this game is all about. But maybe that's what you are saying - that both Solo and SWF are incredibly easy. Fair enough. I guess what you want is for everyone to be just focusing on buffing the killers then. Gotcha.
-
@Chaemeleon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/494287#Comment_494287
I tend to look around while I'm on a gen not mindlessly hold M1. That's how you get grabbed. It's not hard to stay alert while you play survivor.
Most matches on average last maybe 6 minutes. If it lasted 10 minutes we survivors were being monkeys the whole time. I run WMI so healing someone else off the hook takes max like 8 seconds with no greats. So no it's definitely not a minute wasted to wait 20 seconds if not less to save someone or let someone else save.
I mentioned that as the map goes on I keep a mental map in my head where it is highly likely pallets are still in play or have been used. Other than that it's just basic game knowledge to run a chase. It's not hard.
You don't need SWF to do that. Most times in solo 2 people do that anyways. It's a non issue looking for a hex totem and no significant amount of time is lost.
You seem to be really about the whole optimized no time wasted perfect games but it hardly ever works out that way even with a team man. Yes I'm sure I'm not a time waster. Yes I'm sure I know how to play this game optimally as possible in solo. Yes I'm sure that it's possible to smoke SWF as a solo surv because of game knowledge alone. I may have to figure out information on my own but that's okay because it's not difficult to do. Let me tell you something I tell a lot of people in game. It doesn't take using your full cognitive ability to play this game somewhat decent. Most of this stuff becomes second nature and I do a lot of this automatically as I'm playing the game. I'm not sweating it out trying to remember pallet locations or where killer/survivors have been because it's not difficult to just keep all that info on tab ready to go. Solo is not difficult. I will reinforce this. It's just not.
Most matches on average last maybe 6 minutes.
All of your solo matches last 6 minutes on average? I see. Would definitely like to see a continuous stream of that.
So no it's definitely not a minute wasted to wait 20 seconds if not less to save someone or let someone else save.
...you do realize that you are the one that said, "The time lost either way is maybe a minute. I like longer matches anyway," right?
I mentioned that as the map goes on I keep a mental map in my head where it is highly likely pallets are still in play or have been used.
Yeah, like I was saying, you assuming that pallets have been used just because a chase has been done in an area means that you are restricted to other parts of the map that may not be as favorable. You can choose to believe that it was the best course of action - it may not be true though. Only if there was a way for you to know...
You don't need SWF to do that. Most times in solo 2 people do that anyways.
Which 2 solos? The one that you can't see? Or the other one that you can't see? Perhaps it's the other other one you can't see? Does that include you or no?
You seem to be really about the whole optimized no time wasted perfect games but it hardly ever works out that way even with a team man.
I don't know - maybe you just have a bad team?
Solo is not difficult. I will reinforce this. It's just not.
I'm not saying that Solo is difficult. I'm saying that SWF with voice communication makes winning incredibly easy if they want it to be.
-
@Eninya said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/494166#Comment_494166
This isn't a game that can linearly translate player skill, especially given the variance between killers, their effectiveness, and the perk and addon setups people choose. Hell, people can be doing dailies, or slugging a 4K, or farming, or not trying too hard, or testing an off build.
You can't have a "fair" system against SWF like this because such a concept would be based on the idea that players being on voice chat and together can be linearly scaled and related to a bonus to the killer player.
I've been accused of being a SWF while solo, and I've been smashed like random newbies in a 4 man SWF. Player skill is not equal for everyone.
I've been accused of being a SWF while solo, and I've been smashed like random newbies in a 4 man SWF. Player skill is not equal for everyone.
And that's why having a separate queue would help in those cases - to gather specific data just for solo players and just for SWF players. The problem has always been not knowing how to balance the killers when they are mixed in with both solo players and SWF players. If the two are separated, they can be properly balanced at the top for both solo queues and SWF queues, and then scaled downwards. No more confusion like the one you are facing.
-
@Chaemeleon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/494263#Comment_494263
No I'm usually the type of person to stick it till the last possible second. I'm not one to waste time in the real world I certainly don't do it here.
I usually wait 20 seconds unless someone gets hit before then. Either way after that person gets saved I heal them and have them follow me to my gen. The time lost either way is maybe a minute. I like longer matches anyway.
I don't really care about other survivors path throughout the game. If the killer has been chasing someone in an area it's already safe to assume the pallet has been used. Why would I need to know if a survivor has been there if I know the killer has been there. It's not difficult to surmise where safe pallets are. I make a mental note as I go around places of where I've seen pallets for an escape plan.
Yes as a usual solo I have to check them on my own. That's what solo is. It's kind of just how it goes that more than one person will check for totems. I don't bother cleansing every totem I see. THAT is a waste of time. Getting caught by NoED is my fault because that means I didn't leave fast enough.
I'm not the type of player to be immersed and hide from heart beats. THAT is a waste of time. I'm not a time waster. It's not implausible to figure out who's who and what's what in a match while playing solo dude. Despite popular opinion solo isn't that rough unless people DC or you get an absolute ape of a teammate but that happens.
No I'm usually the type of person to stick it till the last possible second. I'm not one to waste time in the real world I certainly don't do it here.
Well, hopefully you don't get grabbed by a Michael or Pig from around the corner just because you assumed that 'don't hear a heartbeat = someone else is being chased.' That would have wasted a lot of time that could have been used for a chase.
I usually wait 20 seconds unless someone gets hit before then. Either way after that person gets saved I heal them and have them follow me to my gen. The time lost either way is maybe a minute. I like longer matches anyway.
For someone who doesn't like to waste time, you don't mind losing an entire minute of a match that usually lasts around 10 minutes on average? Ok.
I don't really care about other survivors path throughout the game. If the killer has been chasing someone in an area it's already safe to assume the pallet has been used. Why would I need to know if a survivor has been there if I know the killer has been there. It's not difficult to surmise where safe pallets are. I make a mental note as I go around places of where I've seen pallets for an escape plan.
Not knowing where safe pallets often means a faster down. Knowing where pallets are that other survivors had purposely avoided using could have saved some time. But ok.
Yes as a usual solo I have to check them on my own. That's what solo is. It's kind of just how it goes that more than one person will check for totems.
Yup, time wasted that could have gone towards generators. Of course, SWF could split the work, where two survivors could search for totems on opposite sides of the map, and two survivors push through the generators and continue to put pressure on the killer - but whatevs, right? It's almost the same thing.
I'm not a time waster.
You sure?
-
@Chaemeleon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/494134#Comment_494134
Honestly my man, playing solo, it's easy enough to figure out this information on your own. Killer busy chasing someone: Do I have a heartbeat Yes - killer is about to find and chase me. No - Killer is more than likely chasing someone else. Should I go for save? Yes - It's been approximately 20 seconds and I can safely go for the save. No - I am currently being chased or can see the killer close to the hook from where I'm at. To caveat off the whole chasing someone else thing, noticing when someone's been hit is a very clear indicator to everyone else that they are safe for the time being and needn't worry about being chased. Keeping track in the back of my mind the killer's pathing throughout the match is pretty simple especially if you know the maps really well. Outside a certain distance it becomes a non issue where the killer is anyways. If there's a hex that's easy too, check all the usual spots and cleanse at the next opportune time. Playing with a group with voice changes my play style very little. It just makes me troll my teammates more. By the time people are relaying any info to me I've either figured that was the case or was gonna find out in the next 10 seconds.
Killer busy chasing someone: Do I have a heartbeat Yes - killer is about to find and chase me. No - Killer is more than likely chasing someone else.
Are you the type of player that gets off a generator and waste time hiding around every time you hear a heartbeat, despite the possibility that the killer is chasing someone else close by where you can't see them? Ok.
Should I go for save? Yes - It's been approximately 20 seconds and I can safely go for the save. No - I am currently being chased or can see the killer close to the hook from where I'm at. To caveat off the whole chasing someone else thing, noticing when someone's been hit is a very clear indicator to everyone else that they are safe for the time being and needn't worry about being chased.
Do you wait 20 seconds every time before going for a save if you can't see the killer, despite the possibility that the killer could have left the area as soon as he hooked the person and kicked a generator that was near there? That would mean even more time was wasted which that hooked person could have been working on a generator / the generator could have stopped regressing earlier. But ok. Do you wait until someone else has been hit until you confirm your safety and either do generator or make a safe unhook? Ok.
Keeping track in the back of my mind the killer's pathing throughout the match is pretty simple especially if you know the maps really well.
Sure, keeping track of the killer's pathing is simple - how about other survivors paths from previous chases? Do you immediately know which areas are still safe with unused pallets? Or perhaps you waste time looking around first yourself to make sure the pallets are still there.
If there's a hex that's easy too, check all the usual spots and cleanse at the next opportune time.
Do you check "all the usual spots" on your own around the whole entire map? How do you know all the other randoms are not doing the same thing, wasting 3 generators worth of time as every single one of you are looking at the same places all around the map?
By the time people are relaying any info to me I've either figured that was the case or was gonna find out in the next 10 seconds.
Sure.
-
@Eninya said:
The problem with this idea is that not every SWF is SEAL Team Six. Hell, I frequently play with friends, but none of them are as good as me. Sure, we can coordinate to some degree, but they're not better players. They're worse at skill checks, jukes, reading the killer, minding their locations for escapes, etc. We're maybe better than some green-ranked randoms, but that's it. A random set of purple ranks with 300+ hours each would easily dumpster in effectiveness.
Something like this wouldn't work without a strong ranking system behind it in some way. SWFs just won't ever measure as equally as killer mains think it will, especially given that it doesn't necessarily mean a 4-man team.
You say that your friends are worse at skill checks, jukes, reading the killer, minding their locations for escapes, etc.
If they are playing solo, it certainly sounds like they are the type of players that would be eliminated pretty quickly (though that would also depend on how bad the killer is.)
Do you think they deserve to have a different outcome just because they are playing SWF? If you do, do you think that is fair to the killer?
I do agree with you that it would need a stronger, revised ranking (and matchmaking) system though for it to work.
-
@Arroz said:
Just stop with this, swf is less than 5% (full group) and you guys still complain with this.
SWF just make the game more interesing, because THEY KNOW how to play, they are not braindead survivor that heal in a corner.
Part of the core mechanics of DBD revolves around not knowing exactly how other survivors are acting in each given condition. You rely solely on your memory, wit, instinct, and experience to try to deduce not only what the killer is doing, but also other survivors. That's the main part of what makes DBD interesting. Should I go for the save, or is someone else already in position? Is the killer camping, or chasing someone who went for the save? If I don't go for the save right now, would the person on hook suicide, or would he hold on? All of these questions should be going through the survivor players' minds. People who rely on voice communication for shared information are taking away from all of that, just so that they can "win." It's pretty much like people who use anagram decoder app (or any third party apps) to get information outside of their own knowledge when playing Words With Friends or Scrabble - they take away the main enjoyment of the game for "a win."
-
@Seanzu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/494099#Comment_494099
I like how we're just making stuff up like "SWF was supposed to be seperate" I mean, ok? lol
McLean:
"The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes, before release. And we chose Kill Your Friends."
-
@Seanzu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/494096#Comment_494096
Because people LIKE swf against a killer, and at least from the way the forum reacts no killers would queue against SWFs because obviously it's impossible to compete against it.
Killers don't want to queue against SWF because it's not balanced for it. Balance the Killers specifically against SWF, and they shouldn't mind going against them at all.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/493996#Comment_493996
Honestly, there's only one way to properly settle the SWF issue; that being a separate queue. However, preferably the separate queue should be a team based mode where it's SWF v SWF with both groups having their own killer to kill the other SWF team. We would need cross platform capability tho, because queues would skyrocket tbh.
I absolutely agree with @NMCKE
Even with the much increased time in queue, I would much rather have a separate mode for SWF, as it was always intended to have. My personal waiting-time for a match pales in comparison in importance to the integrity of what the game is supposed to be.
I put forth this idea before:
A. Give SWF their own mode. (Whether this is a specialized mode with new mechanics and win conditions or not is up to Behaviour). Vastly strengthen Killers in this mode to be comparable to SWF with shared information.
B. Change the new Solo Mode so that lobby is individualized - so in this new lobby, the killer can't see the survivors (or their usernames) and survivors can't see the killer or 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.
C. To help shorten the waiting times for each mode, add something akin to the Daily Ritual, except it is added on an hourly basis, and only for the Side/Mode that is most lacking in players. For example, if not enough killers are playing in Solo Mode, the 'Hourly Ritual' will give extra bloodpoints for doing something as a Killer in the Solo Mode. The amount of bloodpoints will depend on how lacking it is in that moment for that Side/Mode - the more people that is needed, the more bloodpoint rewards will be.
-
The problem is perceiving 'pipping' or 'not pipping' as winning or losing, instead of simply 'surviving' 'not surviving' / 'killing 3-4' 'killing only 0-2.' All of this frustration would cease to exist if the Emblem system / Ranking are made invisible to the players.
-
Will you be able to find the data for the questions that I asked above? In case you missed it:
Can you give us further information on The Legion's new performance data?
1a. What is the current survival rate for Survivors in Rank 1-4, [excluding all matches that include any disconnects]** against The Legion? (To clarify, not asking for The Legion's kill rate, but for Rank 1-4 Survivors' survival rate against The Legion)
**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.
1b. Can you give us the same information as above, except divided by Consoles vs PCs?
2. What percentage increase or decrease is there for the number of people using Legion, excluding any games that were used to complete the Legion's Daily
Will you be able to answer it here? Thanks!
-
Separation of SWF Mode and Solo Mode
A. Give SWF their own mode. (Whether this is a specialized mode with new mechanics and win conditions or not is up to Behaviour). Vastly strengthen Killers in this mode to be comparable to SWF with shared information.
B. Change the new Solo Mode so that lobby is individualized - so in this new lobby, the killer can't see the survivors (or their usernames) and survivors can't see the killer or 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.
C. To help shorten the waiting times for each mode, add something akin to the Daily Ritual, except it is added on an hourly basis, and only for the Side/Mode that is most lacking in players. For example, if not enough killers are playing in Solo Mode, the 'Hourly Ritual' will give extra bloodpoints for doing something as a Killer in the Solo Mode. The amount of bloodpoints will depend on how lacking it is in that moment for that Side/Mode - the more people that is needed, the more bloodpoint rewards will be.
-
@Almo said:
Hi!
Just a note about Legion's performance: I've checked some data on it, and their performance hasn't changed much since the update.
This doesn't mean we're 100% done with Legion, but at the moment nothing is sticking out, either.
Can you give us further information on The Legion's new performance data?
1a. What is the current survival rate for Survivors in Rank 1-4, [excluding all matches that include any disconnects]** against The Legion? (To clarify, not asking for The Legion's kill rate, but for Rank 1-4 Survivors' survival rate against The Legion)
**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.
1b. Can you give us the same information as above, except divided by Consoles vs PCs?
2. What percentage increase or decrease is there for the number of people using Legion, excluding any games that were used to complete the Legion's Daily?
-
I think lots of Japanese folks got a good chuckle out of the "First Cut" trailer for The Spirit also, not just for the really awkward translation, but the very evident foreign intonation as well. I still wonder if they weren't able to find one native speaker for it.
-
@Victory said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/480476#Comment_480476
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/51684/q-a-on-chapter-11-march-14th-2019#latest
What was the reason for the DS Stun to not be effected by Enduring?
HORVATH - GAME DESIGNER | ANSWER
Decisive Strike’s stun time was aimed to be the same as the Wiggle Free/ Grasp Escape times which is 3 seconds. Decisive Strike and Head On will now be affected by Enduring.
@Victory Thanks, I'll make the correction. I also noticed that there was also a thread made in March 20th about it also, so I'll link to that also.
-
@Victory said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/480311#Comment_480311
It did, and it always has except for the PTB. You forgot about the QnA they had after the ptb where he explicity stated "Enduring should not properly effect head on and DS." They put that on the patch notes with the 5s buff so killers wouldn't lose their ######### that ds is as strong as it used to be.
I wonder why they wrote "The Enduring perk now affects Decisive Strike's stun" in the 2.6.3 Patch Notes if it had already worked in 2.6.0. Or was there a PTB between 2.6.0 and 2.6.3? Can you link to the quote where he (who?) said, "Enduring should not properly effect head on and DS." I'll correct my post to add it if you can provide it.
-
Just a brief summary on the interaction between the new Decisive Strike and Enduring for anyone interested:
2/22/19: Decisive Strike Q&A
QUESTION: HAVE YOU CONSIDERED MAKING IT SO ENDURING DOESN'T APPLY TO DS STUN, NOW THAT THE STUN LASTS 3 SECONDS?
Horvath: There has been a lot of feedback regarding the 3 second stun for Decisive Strike, previously the stun has been 4 seconds for a long time, once upon a time it used to be 5 seconds. We are currently revising and investigating what we will do regarding enduring and the Decisive Strike timer, it may end up being 4 seconds, but I believe we will try 3 seconds in the PTB. I look forward to your feedback
3/14/19: Chapter 11 Q&A
QUESTION FROM BONGBINGBING
What was the reason for the DS Stun to not be effected by Enduring?
HORVATH - GAME DESIGNER | ANSWER
Decisive Strike’s stun time was aimed to be the same as the Wiggle Free/ Grasp Escape times which is 3 seconds. Decisive Strike and Head On will now be affected by Enduring.
3/19/19: 2.6.0 Patch notes
Decisive Strike: After being unhooked by another player or yourself, Decisive Strike becomes active for 60 seconds. If you are grabbed by the Killer while the perk is active, succeeding a skill check to cause an automatic escape and stun the Killer for 3 seconds. Succeeding or failing the skill check will disable the perk for the rest of the trial. Succeeding the skill check (and thus stunning the Killer) will result in you becoming the Obsession.
4/2/19: 2.6.3 Patch notes
BALANCE: Changed the Decisive Strike stun time to 5 seconds, with the Survivor being free to move after 1 second.
The Enduring perk now affects Decisive Strike's stun.
With feedback from the PTB and Live, we have changed the Decisive Strike stun time to 5 seconds, with the Survivor being free to move after 1 second. This should allow for the survivor to have ~ 4 seconds at a base to try and escape the killer after the stun is successful. When Enduring is used, the stun will be reduced to ~2.8 seconds. Of those 2.8 seconds the survivor will get a head start of ~ 2.28 seconds which makes escaping possible but much harder.
From what I can gather, when the stun time was 3 seconds during 2.6.0, Enduring Perk did not work with Decisive Strike.*
*Edit: I may have been wrong about Enduring not working with Decisive Strike in 2.6.0. Although I'm still unsure as to why 2.6.3 Patch Notes stated, "Enduring perk now affects Decisive Strike's stun" when it already did in 2.6.0, but there is a thread from March 20th (after 2.6.0) that had a title, "Enduring should not affect new decisive strike," which must mean that it did affect DS at the time. Sorry for any possible confusion. Thanks to @Victory for the correction.
-
The most common reply I see from Killer mains on these forums to the clearly killer-biased EGC is to communicate better with your team and adapt.
The most common reply I see from Killer mains on these forums to the clearly killer-biased EGC is to communicate better with your team
I've never read anyone write out that the survivors' solution to the EGC is to communicate better with other survivors. Since you say it's common, can you give three or so examples of someone saying that?
These are developers' quotes below:
Mathieu on 11/12/18: 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.
The magic of Dead by Daylight is that at its core it's about playing hide and seek, everybody can play hide and seek. But then we have so many layers with perks (which is a nightmare for us to test), it also means that every game you play there’s uncertainty. That was always at the core of the design, that’s the reason we did procedural map generations and that’s the reason why you don’t know what killer you're up against, why we don’t have communications in the game. All these things are to reinforce that when you start a game, you're not exactly sure what you’re up against, what's going to happen in the game.
McLean on 10/26/18: 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.
___
Dead by Daylight was never meant for voice communication. It is first and foremost a hidden information/time management game. The only reason voice communication has never been blacklisted is because the developers don't want to spend the time to develop a method to circumvent it - it's not at all integral to the gameplay. In fact, it's hindrance to the overall health of the game; because developers can't make the decision on whether to balance the killer for Solo players or SWF players with voice communications, the game is perpetually kept in imbalance due to it.
Sure, giving Solo survivors a voice communication tool may help bring them up to SWF level, but killers will never benefit from it. For killers who depend heavily on sound, having survivors making loud distracting noises or continually feeding false information would have a negative impact on the killer, nevermind all the potential toxicity that would probably result from it. And if the survivors really don't want killers to hear them, SWF will continue to use third party voice communication tools that they are currently using.
-
You may be right and I may just be confusing things. No problem then.
-
@TerminatorGuy said:
He looks like a modded RPG character in that outfit, not the OG Ghostface we all know and love.
-
@ClogWench said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/465836#Comment_465836
The number should be extremely small. The gate shouldn't be an easy escape if you've lost the entire game thus far. If a large number of 1v1 survivors are getting out through the gate, THAT'S a problem.
The number should be extremely small. The gate shouldn't be an easy escape if you've lost the entire game thus far. If a large number of 1v1 survivors are getting out through the gate, THAT'S a problem.
You don't need to convince me. You should try to convince that to the developers who pulled back from implementing the initial 'hatch-closing' mechanism in the PTB for that exact reason.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/465256#Comment_465256
Between 4/29/19 and 5/7/19, at rank 1, ~61.31%.
Out of curiosity, does this percentage include matches with DCs, or without?
And if it includes matches with DCs, how are DCs counted?
Is the Rank determined after the match (like in the Data Sheets) or prior to it?
I'm assuming that ~61.31% is for Rank 1 Clown's Kill Rate. What is Rank 1 Survivors' Escape Rate against Clowns for the same time period?
Wish we had statistics for all of the killers like this!
-
I do think that there is a possibility that the End Game Collapse are eventually going to be changed. I think it's going to depend on the percentage of Escapes through the Gate on all 1vs1 situations (after the hatch has been closed). After few months of collecting data, if the developers find that the number is extremely small, then my guess is that they are going to modify the concept again. After all, isn't that the reason why the original 'hatch-closing' idea never became implemented after the PTB?
I think the timer works well, in that it forces the survivor to take action, but I'm not really a fan of the 'closing-the-hatch' mechanism. I much rather have all killers gain the ability to Tombstone Myer Mori (instant grab kill) once the End Game Collapse activates. This would eliminate any hatch standoffs, and also would give survivors slightly more chance by having another escape route. I feel like this would also create more mindgame potential, instead of just having the killer patrol the two gates until 1. survivor is found or 2. the timer ends.
That said, I haven't yet been on either end of the current End Game Collapse, so this is all conjecture - the current End Game Collapse may be totally fine.
Just out of curiosity, are there any killers who felt that the EGC was unfair in their match? As in, feeling totally helpless because the gates were too far apart to do anything about it?
-
@Peanits said:
It's not quite that simple. If you just add a punishment to anyone playing in Survive With Friends, there would be nothing stopping people from queuing up at the same time and leaving the lobby if they don't get matched with their friends. Doing that, they would be able to completely avoid the penalty. On top of that, not all SWF groups are great. The vast majority are just a couple friends playing together and chatting in the background. Punishing them the same as a group that's trying as hard as possible wouldn't really make sense.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/460136#Comment_460136
Although it's not quite a haiku, it was a noble attempt and I do approve.
On top of that, not all SWF groups are great. The vast majority are just a couple friends playing together and chatting in the background. Punishing them the same as a group that's trying as hard as possible wouldn't really make sense.
I hear this ("friends that are just having fun") argument often, and it never sits well with me. For any other game, if I am playing against an opponent of equal skill and he/she is trying their best to beat me with their focus 100% on the game, and I am on my phone casually talking with a friend about things that are completely unrelated to the game "for fun", my expectation would be for my opponent to beat me every time. If people are purposely playing in a way that distracts them from the core basis of the game, why should they have a chance of winning against opponents who are putting in their all? Why should any game be balanced for the players who don't appreciate the game mechanics enough to put all of their effort into their gameplay, but instead are making their "own fun?"
If majority of the killer-players suddenly started farming with survivors because they find it more "fun", and the Escape Rate goes up the roof, should Behaviour determine that killers are too weak and rebalance the game for it?
-
Thanks for the quick response!
For Question #2, I'd think that removing matches where people DCs in a situation where they are about to die anyway from the sample size shouldn't affect the statistical results much if there are enough trials. People disconnecting when things are not going their way, however, WOULD affect the results, since it would have made these matches much harder for all the other survivors (an automatic 3 vs 1 situation), skewing the stats in favor of killers, making it seems as if the killers are more powerful than they actually are.
The idea I'm getting at is that you wouldn't want to balance a game based on a data where people are disconnecting, but rather, should be balanced on what you describe as being "a perfect scenario." Isn't that why you are removing 3 vs 1 matches in the latest patch - because the game isn't balanced around those scenarios?
So if the matches that include DCs were part of the sample... I'm afraid to ask, what were survivor DCs counted as? (Please don't say 'kills.' Please don't say 'kills.' PLEEEEEEASE don't say 'kills.')
PS - Yeah, I don't know what Discord is. Wish I could have seen it though! Is there anywhere I can get the info that was shared during that time, or is it one of those, 'you had to be there' type of situations?