knell
knell
About
- Username
- knell
- Joined
- Visits
- 7,862
- Last Active
Comments
-
So how was the Q&A? Does anyone have a link to the video of the Q&A session? It doesn't seem to be on youtube yet.
Also, did any of my questions above get answered? I personally would especially like to have had my concern about DC-ed matches being included/excluded as part of the samples in 'Party size Survival Rate' and 'Highest and Lowest Kill Rates' answered. If I remember correctly, there was a time when the Data Team not only included matches with DCs as part of their samples, but had even counted Survivor DCs as 'kills,' which destroyed my confidence in the information provided back then. Does anyone know if that has been addressed and corrected this time around?
-
@thrawn3054 said:
@NoShinyPony Dodging is leading to longer que times. So yes it does hurt the game. Imbalance is hurting the game as well. But you can't use the one to excuse the other.
'Preventing Dodging' will burn out killers more quickly, which will lead them to simply playing Survivors more often. More Survivors and less killers. That will lead to longer queue time as well and will not fix the queue problem.
Fixing the imbalance, especially the problem of SWF, helps the overall game AND reduces the queue time. If you just deal with the symptoms, the disease will still remain. If you can cure the disease, you also eliminate the symptoms.
-
For any statistical information you are willing to share with us, can you make sure that it does NOT include any match that has DCs in it (unless the question pertains specifically to disconnects)? Especially for statistical information that involves survival rates and kill rates, disconnects at any point in the game tend to skew the results and makes those information irrelevant. Thanks!
As for the actual topic, I'd like to know the survivor population/killer population ratio on average at any given time, divided by the gaming platform, for active players. (If possible, please exclude people simply doing a Daily Ritual for survivor/killer.)
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/445359#Comment_445359
The context of that statement in the dev stream is that you already hit the Survivor with Feral Frenzy once. He's saying that you wouldn't want to hit them a second time with Feral Frenzy since that would give them a speed boost and also put you into fatigue, you would just want to catch back up and then cancel it.
Stemming from that, what I'm saying is that the power is not made to be cancelled and then allow you to instantly press M1 to do a regular attack and down the Survivor before they have the chance to run away, which is why there's a fatigue when you cancel it. Basically you can use Frenzy to cover the bulk of the distance, but if you're counting on the fatigue being short enough to quickly catch up, cancel it and then get a hit, it's not going to happen.
Thanks for the clarification, @Peanits
I do agree with m1_hero, in that if the extra add-ons can reduce the fatigue time to 2.5 seconds (allowing survivors 24.92 m to find a loop or window), it would be in a good place in my opinion.
Moreover, if the longer duration of 0.8 seconds to catch up to the survivor is, as you say, not that significant, then the shorter duration of 0.3 seconds (difference between the live build and if the Fatigue Time is 2.5 seconds) should be even less significant, but can be interpreted as a "buff" to The Legion players, something I feel like they've desperately been in need of. What do you think, is it still unreasonable?
For those who would like a spreadsheet of what m1_hero and Peanits were discussing: (hoping it's correct)
-
Thanks, @m1_hero !
That helps a lot. I guess I don't really understand what 'fatigue speed' is. Is that how many meters per second you can move while being stunned?
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/445260#Comment_445260
To clarify that previous post, there's not really a situation where that would make a difference before or after the update.
If you use it to injure a Survivor and then catch up, they would get a speed boost, the time you'd need to catch up, and then your fatigue time combined to get to the next loop.
If you use it just to catch up to an already injured Survivor, they would get the time it takes you to catch up and your fatigue time combined to catch up.
If you're already in a loop, you're a silly goose and using the power objectively wrong. This wouldn't have worked before or after the update, by design.
In any of those cases, the Survivor would have plenty of time to get to the next loop, even before the update. The Legion's power is not made to catch up with and then regular hit Survivors. You would essentially just have a far more powerful version of the old Frenzy if you could.
The Legion's power is not made to catch up with and then regular hit Survivors.
Wait, I feel like I've completely missed something. From what I understood from the most recent Dev Stream, this is exactly what The Legion is expected to do.
From the Dev Stream:
Ethan: "So what you should do, is cancel Frenzy. You should not hit them a second time because it only gives them the speed boost and since it doesn't remove time from the Deep Wound timer anymore, it's a really bad move to hit somebody a second time with it. You should use the Frenzy to catch up with them and use whatever you use to cancel Frenzy..."
not_Queen: "I'm going to play the Devil's Advocate here... but then you get a 4 second stun."
Ethan: "You do, but if you hit them you get a 4 second stun AND they get the movement boost."
I may just be having a difficult time following this conversation.
Can you possibly make a spreadsheet of the numbers and calculations you made in the original post (and what they represent), as well as the calculations that Peanits made for us? It's a little too difficult for me to follow, so I would appreciate it.
-
@MegsAreEvil said:
There are no infinites.
Then there are no problems. But if there are, then it can be reported to have them fixed since they are unintentional. And as we continue to have new maps, I'm sure there will be times when new ones crop up - it will be good to know what to do when they occur.
-
@drekin said:
The quitting survivor should fall in to an unconscious state from which they can't be healed or rescued from hooks. The killer can see their aura from any distance. This gives the option for the killer to hook or mori them (obviously they become conscious once hooked or when a mori has started).
I agree with you.
Although the Entity eating up disconnected players would *look* cool and very deserving, it would only be for a cosmetic purpose, and not a functional one. For example, a killer relying on hooking that survivor to use the BBQ aura reading would not benefit from it. So personally, I would prefer changes that would affect actual gameplays instead of its appearance.
-
If they are actual (double windows or not) infinites, and not long loops, it may help to record them on videos and post them in the Bugs section or email them directly to support. They've closed off infinites (and even announced them on Dev Streams) before so I think any real infinites are purely unintentional.
-
Sounds good. I'll ask about it again in a few months or so.
-
@powerbats said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/441915#Comment_441915
I've never denied it gives an advantage but for those that keep trying to whine it away by saying it's an exploit or cheating they need to grow up. If you have to facecamp them then that says more about you then them.
I mean it seems this isn't the game for you if you can't accept the fact that most of the playerbase is swf and most are just trying to enjoy themselves. By all means remove swf and then enjoy your 2+ hour lobby wait times as killer.
I mean it seems this isn't the game for you if you can't accept the fact that most of the playerbase is swf and most are just trying to enjoy themselves. By all means remove swf and then enjoy your 2+ hour lobby wait times as killer.
Where are you getting that most of the playerbase is swf?
-
@powerbats said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/441915#Comment_441915
I've never denied it gives an advantage but for those that keep trying to whine it away by saying it's an exploit or cheating they need to grow up. If you have to facecamp them then that says more about you then them.
I mean it seems this isn't the game for you if you can't accept the fact that most of the playerbase is swf and most are just trying to enjoy themselves. By all means remove swf and then enjoy your 2+ hour lobby wait times as killer.
I mean it seems this isn't the game for you if you can't accept the fact that most of the playerbase is swf and most are just trying to enjoy themselves. By all means remove swf and then enjoy your 2+ hour lobby wait times as killer.
Where are you getting that most of the playerbase is swf?
-
"More communication. How is the communication in the last few weeks? Let us know. Because we worked hard on this. (Yeah, we did.) Yeah, yay!" (Dev Stream, 4/25/19)
Just letting you know that I (and I'm sure most of us) really, really appreciate the effort that you guys have been putting into the numerous amount of communication for your community in the last few weeks, from the 3 Q&As to the several updates in the News section of the forum, as well as the seemingly more activity and involvement (coincidence?) by the moderators. I think that even though sometimes some parts of community may not agree with some of the game designing directions of Behaviour, it at least help us understand the reasons for them. I am sincerely hoping that this trend will be able to continue! Thank you!
PS - (If possible, it would be nice to have some generic Q&As on some occasions also, since I usually have questions that are unrelated to current hot DBD topics. But that's just a small request.)
-
It has happened to me fairly frequently, and there are many threads about it in the Bugs section of the forum.
Fortunately, in the 2.7.0 PTB patchnotes:
"Fixed an issue that could cause the Wiggle prompts to be active from the start of the match."
So hopefully it is fixed.
-
You don't refuse to fix a survivor's infinite because only a small percentage of the players use it. You fix it because it gives an overwhelming advantage to one side and breaks the balance of the game.
You don't refuse to fix a killer's moonwalking exploit because only a small percentage of the players use it. You fix it because it gives an overwhelming advantage to one side and breaks the balance of the game.
If coordinated SWF or Nurse with ultra-rare addons give an overwhelming advantage and breaks the balance of the game, "only a small number of people..." is a poor excuse to not fix the problem.
-
The impression I often have when looking at balance changes in Dead by Daylight (especially in this latest patch) is that developers see an immediate problem that needs to be addressed, and then they focus all of their efforts in fixing it, but because they didn't consider the effect that this particular way of fixing it may have on the rest of the game, the overall balance in the game worsens. Now I could be totally off the mark, but that's the impression I sometimes have - that the developers often focus too much on the details - the codes and programs, that they miss the bigger picture and overall game design falters. So my question is: do you have a game designer (not a programmer) who oversees and leads the overall balance for this game? Or do everyone just pitch in ideas and run with ideas that seem to work?
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/433052#Comment_433052
I honestly don't mind being dodged by a killer because I understand how broken SWF can be. Like you say, no one likes DCs because it prevents people from having a balanced game. On the other hand, dodging SWF is an attempt to prevent having an unbalanced game. One breaks the balance. The other brings balance back to the game. Because I understand that difference, I'm able to empathize with my opponents. It saddens me that most people can't.
Dodging doesn't just happen on SWF, it happens for any reason you can make up tbh. However, with that said, I understand how difficult SWF can be since communication breaks the fundamentals of DBD but regardless, you should try your best in these scenarios since being a quitter gives you a 0% chance of winning. I have more respect for survivors and killers who have perseverance, rather than just giving up at the sight of a challenge.
Then one can also argue that "when you first load up the game, both the killer and survivor should be prepared for anything, which includes killer choosing not to play against SWFs. If you are bothered by that, it basically says you aren't ready to play DBD and need a break." If you can make up your own rule like, "if you queue..." everyone else can make up their own rules also.
Specific Quote:
"Killer and survivor should be prepared for anything, which includes killer choosing not to play against SWFs."
Translation:
Killers don't have to be ready for a hard challenges but survivors have to be ready for hard challenges.
You're literally contradicting yourself when you said that. Survivors have to be ready for anything, but they can't be ready when the other side isn't ready.
However, with that said, I understand how difficult SWF can be since communication breaks the fundamentals of DBD but regardless, you should try your best in these scenarios since being a quitter gives you a 0% chance of winning. I have more respect for survivors and killers who have perseverance, rather than just giving up at the sight of a challenge.
Why should people try their best in an unfair scenerio that, as you say, breaks the fundamentals of the game? Even more importantly, why should people be forced to play such a game? Why can't people just be able to try their best in a fair game?
Specific Quote:
"Killer and survivor should be prepared for anything, which includes killer choosing not to play against SWFs."
Translation:
Killers don't have to be ready for a hard challenges but survivors have to be ready for hard challenges.
By equating the phrase, "killer choosing not to play against SWFs" with "killers don't have to be ready for a hard challenge" it seems as you are assuming couple of things:
1. SWFs are "challenge."
It's not a challenge; it's broken. As you yourself say, it breaks the fundamental of the game. For example, being forced to play a game of Scrabble against a person using a third party app like an anagram decoder isn't a challenge - its usage simply breaks the fundamentals of the game. A person refusing to play against a player using an anagram decoder shouldn't be condemned or criticized for just wanting a more fairly balanced game.
2. Game that contains only solo players cannot be a "challenge" for killers.
As someone who plays mostly solo, I believe that the game has finally come to a point where solos are pretty evenly matched against most killers. Now granted, I play on a console where Nurses are more difficult to play, but for the most part, solo players like me are in a good place - we win some, lose some. Same probably goes for killers. There are plenty of games where a number of good solo players attempting their best will be able to overcome the killer, and even moreso "challenge" the killer.
So perhaps the killer simply wants to play a challenging game against other solo players in a way that the game is meant to be played - a challenging game where it doesn't break its fundamentals. Why do you keep denouncing them for that?
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/432914#Comment_432914
Then DBD would be unplayable because no one likes being dodged, literally. Just like how no one likes DCs because it basically prevents you from having a balanced game.
Just imagine if survivors could see what killer you're playing as and you kept getting dodged until you played a killer that best suited their needs. It wouldn't be fun, wouldn't it?
When you queue, both the killer and survivor should be prepared for anything. Dodging and DC basically says you wasn't ready to play DBD and need a break (exception: Sudden real life events)
Then DBD would be unplayable because no one likes being dodged, literally. Just like how no one likes DCs because it basically prevents you from having a balanced game.
Just imagine if survivors could see what killer you're playing as and you kept getting dodged until you played a killer that best suited their needs. It wouldn't be fun, wouldn't it?
I honestly don't mind being dodged by a killer because I understand how broken SWF can be. Like you say, no one likes DCs because it prevents people from having a balanced game. On the other hand, dodging SWF is an attempt to prevent having an unbalanced game. One breaks the balance. The other brings balance back to the game. Because I understand that difference, I'm able to empathize with my opponents. It saddens me that most people can't.
When you queue, both the killer and survivor should be prepared for anything. Dodging and DC basically says you wasn't ready to play DBD and need a break (exception: Sudden real life events)
Then one can also argue that "when you first load up the game, both the killer and survivor should be prepared for anything, which includes killer choosing not to play against SWFs. If you are bothered by that, it basically says you aren't ready to play DBD and need a break." If you can make up your own rule like, "if you queue..." everyone else can make up their own rules also.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/432816#Comment_432816
That's the point, you don't even have to play DBD if it's unfun for you at time. Why queue for a game that you think might not be fun? If you queue for a game, you should be expecting the unexpected and don't get upset whenever you get something you dislike. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
If it's unfun being dodged because killers want to have a more balanced hidden information game, why don't the survivors who don't like being dodged go play something else?
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
With the new (lower) Movement Speed and the longer duration, Legion is able to travel further with his ability. So both combined are not a Nerf.
If Feral Frenzy requires a longer duration because their speed has been significantly decreased, it means it takes a longer time (and distance) to get to the same survivor. Since time has never been on killers' side, it can still be considered a nerf in my opinion.
-
@Tru3Lemon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/431859#Comment_431859
They wont separate swf and solo players since the 89 or 90% survivor play swf
Why do people make up random statistics?
-
What is your targeted percentage of survivors that is able to escape if 1. they are the last survivor, 2. don't have a skeleton key, and 3. killer activates the Endtime Collapse by closing the hatch?
-
Thank you so much for doing this! I (and I'm sure many others) really appreciate it!
-
The developers have often stated that they like to focus on the "fun" aspect of playing killers more than their competitive viability. What makes this new Legion design more fun for killer players than the previous Legion design? Do you think there will be an increase in players selecting Legion?
-
@not_Queen said:
Thanks for the feedback :)
We'll hold a live Q&A next week because we think that these upcoming changes (mid-chapter + Legion Update + End Game Collapse) will bring a lot of questions.
We will have designers that worked on the changes on the show to answer you!
Is it possible to also have a Q&A thread on the forum started at some point before that particular livestream, for those who will not be able to attend it?
-
Thank you, @Peanits !
-
This reminds me of the situation with the Wraith/Sloppy Butcher just recently.
I usually run Sloppy Butcher on most of my killers, Wraith being no exception. I didn't know about the blood surge problem until I encountered it as a survivor. THEN I found out about it on the forum (after searching about it.)
Pretty sure by then, I've probably screwed over at least some of the survivors' games playing the Wraith. If it had been bannable, I probably would have been banned, purely out of ignorance.
I didn't know about this Legion's addon issue either until the developers posted on top of the forum. Then I had to google how to do it to make sure I don't do it. Fortunately I usually just double up on the cool-down addons (Julie/Joey's mix tapes) so it isn't something that I had to worry about in the first place. But I can definitely see why someone would have picked out the broken addons without even knowing anything about it.
Hopefully the developers are giving people warnings before banning them.
What they should do is 1. Write it in the News (aka New Content) Section so that when people load up the game, this information is given out as the first thing they are forced to read, and 2. hotfix it as fast as possible, or at least make it unusable for now until they can get it fixed.
-
I think part of the idea was to get the killers quickly away from the hook to go kick a generator somewhere else. Token-based system would negate that part of the idea.
I would much prefer adding a temporary (4-5 seconds) generator-aura seeing ability to PGTW much like the Wraith's All Seeing add-on, where the repair progress of generators can be determined by the intensity of their auras. That way I don't have to waste time patrolling a generator that hasn't even started yet.
-
Thanks for the Developer Update, @not_Queen !
Although I do personally prefer the more candid and unpolished approach of livestreams where I can see human interactions, I also understand that many people would much more prefer the blog update that you have posted for us, which sounds more official and definite. Moreover, I'm sure most people appreciated the amount of content that is contained in this particular Developer Update, especially since they were all topics that seem to come up again and again by the community.
I do hope that these Developer Updates continues to be posted fairly frequently, even if they just contain small amount of information each time. Even tidbits like "Top 5 Bugs We are Working On" with what the developers have recently attempted and how they are planning to tackle these bugs would probably be very much appreciated.
Thanks for all the effort you are putting back into communicating with us!
-
Please watch this video before complaining about imbalances, it may be good for the health of the game. https://youtu.be/WXQzdXPTb2A
@NuclearBurrito and I had a discussion about the balance in this game a month or so ago that covered a lot of what your video mentioned. It's interesting that the ideas thrown around in that thread are pretty similar as the topics covered in that video.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/368491#Comment_368491
-
Sounds good. As so long as the "Disconnect" symbol remains at the bottom so that other survivors don't waste their time attempting to unhook them (if it was the first hook) or to revive them from the slugged state.
-
@Mat_Sella said:
May i ask what this bug entails? or is it some exploit that shouldn't be said
As soon as the match starts, you see the "Wiggle" prompt that usually is designated for attempting to wiggle off the killer when being carried.
This causes you to not be able to use your left stick (on console) to turn left or right because it causes you to pause and stop whenever you want to turn. So you are forced to always go straight, and use your right stick to change direction. It basically makes the game pretty much unplayable.
The last few days, majority of my games have had this bug. I'm curious to find out why some people have it, and others don't.
These instances are posted on the bugs section also, but not much word have come from the development team.
-
This is how I wiggle. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
-
@ClogWench said:
You gotta wiggle in real life or it won't go away
I've been doing that. I'm even doing it now as I type.
-
@not_Queen said:
We tried a different approach to communication for the last chapter and the feedback we got was that the Official release livestream and lore blogposts were really appreciated but the Community is missing the more casual livestreams and community activities.
Right now we are working on a strategy that will be in-between official communication and community focused communication. We want to bring back the Gameplay Q&As, Reddit Q&A, Mash it Up and the playsessions on Discord to start.
How and when we will be able to bring all of it back isn't yet locked down but we are going to slowly get the community focused activities back on the Communication roadmap.
This week we are planning a Mash It Up and, if everything goes according to plan, we will publish a Gameplay Q&A next week. It is not yet locked down so this plan might still change. We are also working on a communication about current issues in the game.
What is the difference between Gameplay Q&As and Reddit Q&As?
Also, can you give the community more opportunities to ask more generalized questions during the Q&As? For the past year or so, it feels as if the Q&As we were able to have were often restricted by a specific topic that the developers decided on. Although this allowed for more indepth discussion on the particular topic, it also prevented the community to ask questions that they may have felt were more important and weighed more on their minds. After all, what the developers feel important to address may be different from what the community wants to have answered.
I do really appreciate the opportunity for more Q&As though - please keep it up!
-
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.
-
1. Discard the whole idea of closing the hatch.
2. Give the killer the ability to Tombstone Myer Mori (instant grab kill) around the parameter of the hatch sound. (2b. Possibly increase the radius of the hatch sound.)
3. Give survivor 2-3 minutes before their aura automatically becomes visible to the killer.
4. For every extra second the survivor works on a generator, totem, or the Gate, the 2-3 minute timer pauses, and the amount of time increases by a second.
2. will eliminate any "hatch standoffs". 3. will eliminate any unnecessary prolonging of the game by the survivor. 4. will still give a chance for survivor to escape, especially against killers who are just going to camp the hatch.
-
*Clem hits The Nurse with a pallet
"The Nurse will remember that."
-
When the new matchmaking system (with the timer) went into effect, my queue time on PS4 went from several seconds (0-30 seconds) to several minutes (2-3 minutes). Despite having to wait much longer than what I am used to, I didn't mind the longer lobby times since I knew that many people previously has had even longer wait times, and that this small sacrifice on my part would even out everyone's lobby times for the better.
That's all that should have been done. Just the averaging of the lobby times.
But in addition to sacrificing the extremely quick queue time for some people like me (and few others on here), the new matchmaking also went ahead and sacrificed the matchmaking algorithm based on rank, making the game completely uninviting for new players, possibly cutting off most of the incoming population of future players.
Now, if the developers' intention is just that - that they are satisfied with the number of current players and has no desire to grow it more, then it's not much of a problem. They can just concentrate on appeasing the current player base so that they don't quit to just maintain the population. However, if they have any intention of growing the base, they MUST make the game as welcoming as possible to someone just picking it up. And given how complex the system has become over the last three years with each additional chapter and updates, from the days of just 3 killers and 4 survivors with just a few maps, this is only possible through a ranking system that would allow newcomers to face off against other newcomers so that they have the opportunity and time to learn the basics, and a much more evolved tutorial mode in which newcomers can have the freedom to play as any killer or survivor on any map as they see fit.
With the new matchmaking system with the timer, neither is available. In my opinion, Behaviour has taken the correct course of action to revisit it for now and reassess the algorithm so that most people are able to get a decent queue time (~5 minutes) without upsetting the entire rank system for newcomers.
-
@Kilmeran said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/387422#Comment_387422
To be honest, they should just scrap rank entirely. This is a game where in a team of four, someone can get scarified (either by three hooks or suicide on the hook), and move on to the next match, leaving the rest of the team potentially undermanned. In that regard, it's very similar to a battle royale situation: dead and gone, your squad is now undermanned.
Just drop rank already. Rank is best used in PvP games where the team is a team until the end of the match, unless someone DCs (which should invoke some sort of account penalty). Not in games like DbD or in a battle royale where you can die, leave the team, and queue for a new match.
Yes, I understand DbD is not a battle royale, but the death, leave the match and your team, find a new match mechanic is the same.
It's strange to hear someone who had issues with Apex Legends due to its lack of good matchmaking also advocating for a no-rank matchmaking system, and I quote:
"Being matched against teams with people with thousands of kills already, and getting mowed down and left for dead first fight, isn't a good way to learn. I suppose had I jumped into the game during launch week and played religiously, it might be a different story now.
But, I didn't. So trying to learn the game now is just an exercise in re-queuing frustration. "
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/385379#Comment_385379
I feel like that's exactly how many brand new players probably feel playing Dead by Daylight. Forget trying to figure out all the different effects of perks and add-ons for both your opponents and yourself - when people don't even understand the basic powers of the Killers (e.g. - Freddy being able to see sleeping survivors outside of terror radius, Legion being able to determine locations of survivors within terror radius, using flashlight on Hag's traps or crouching around it, how the Spirit phases etc.) or even how to kick a generator (which I recently saw with a Rank 19 Killer struggling to do) and are faced against veterans with hundreds of hours, they have no chance of winning - they won't even have a chance to learn anything. They'll just test it out, find it to be just too complicated or unfair for beginners, and quit. Which is how you seemed to have felt about Apex Legends.
-
I'll copy my post from the other thread here since it's relevant.
Matchmaking for me is a lot faster now also.
My previous survivor matchmaking times with the broken rank matchups (3/16/19):
2'51", 2'42", 2'21", 2'51"
Today's matchups for survivor:
27", 16", 25"
This is all with the rank difference being +/-1 or 2 at most.
Here's the thing. I didn't mind waiting few extra minutes so that other people can get faster lobbies. If my small sacrifice can get other people to get quicker matchmaking, then it is worth it.
But I DO NOT want to sacrifice new players into completely unfair games with veterans, nor do I want to force people into constant high ping lobbies. That's not the reason why I'm willing to spend few extra minutes for a lobby for.
Averaging out everyone's lobby wait times = ok.
New players repeatedly being stomped by veterans = NOT ok.
PS4, by the way.
-
Matchmaking for me is a lot faster now also.
My previous survivor matchmaking times with the broken rank matchups (3/16/19):
2'51", 2'42", 2'21", 2'51"
Today's matchups for survivor:
27", 16", 25"
This is all with the rank difference being +/-1 or 2 at most.
Here's the thing. I didn't mind waiting few extra minutes so that other people can get faster lobbies. If my small sacrifice can get other people to get quicker matchmaking, then it is worth it.
But I DO NOT want to sacrifice new players into completely unfair games with veterans, nor do I want to force people into constant high ping lobbies. That's not the reason why I'm willing to spend few extra minutes for a lobby for.
Averaging out everyone's lobby wait times = ok.
New players repeatedly being stomped by veterans = NOT ok.
-
Ah, sorry.
I think most PS4 players would agree with the PS4 Matchmaking status, in that there has always been shortage of killers (except sometimes during certain events).
Seems slightly strange for PC, since from what I read on the forums, there are usually a shortage of killers as well, but that could have been exaggerated from both sides. Or as Master has speculated, it could be due to the geolocation and time of the day as well. However, given how many people are complaining about being paired into a lobby from people all around the world (as well as the rank differences), I'm not sure that's very plausible either.
I wish the PC players on the forum would take the time to actually measure out the length of their wait times like I did above so we can get a broader idea of how accurate the developer's assessment of the situation is. After all, according to the developers, these are the maximum values, and not the average values of wait times.
It's also interesting to note that XboxOne seemed to have the most balanced group, but instead of 1 minute of wait for both sides, it's 3 minutes for both sides. Part of the reason is probably due to having less players overall, but I wonder how much the process of building 'a queue for killers and a queue for survivors' before the placement into the lobby takes.
-
My matchmaking times and rank range on PS4 (survivor)
Friday
1'59" (12/12/13/13 - 15) 1'46" (11/18/11/17 - 18) 2'21" (14/11/16/15 - 04) 1'29" (N/A - High Ping) 1'25" (10/11/09/14 - 14)
Saturday
2'51" (15/13/12/13 – 14) 2'42" (11/11/11/10 – 11) 2'21" (11/07/11/13 – 11) 2'51" (11/17/11/13 – 17)
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/368212#Comment_368212
What you have just described is the mathematical equivalent of a coin toss. Which I already established IS in fact balanced.
I wouldn't even consider such an example to be a problematic implication since the explanation would be that Group A is better than Group B at the game. If Group A is the norm then the Killers should be able to handle them and if Group A is not the norm then it might be ok if they can't.
Of course ideally both killer's and survivor's get better with skill at an equal rate. However that's beyond the scope of this thread.
Imagine a bucket full of coins for coin tosses. It just so happens that exactly half of the coins are weighted to always land on heads. But the other half are weighted to always land on tails.
Balance just asks the question of "how often did a coin picked from the bucket land on heads?". The answer is 50% so the bucket is balanced even if the coins are not.
That being said if you meant that the Killer only has 400% MS against Group B then that is still equivalent to something that actually happens. Here let me define a bunch of relevant terms:
Balance - An objects global winrate. This should be equal for all comparable objects ideally
Swing - The variation of an objects winrate given randomness throughout a single game. This should be as low as possible but usually not actually 0, having a killer get 400% MS against only half of the groups would be an example of this
Skill gap - The difference in winrate between the best and worst players (in terms of winrate) using an object. This should be fairly high but not as high as you might think because of how matchmaking works
Interactiveness - How much more likely is a random player to beat the worst opponents compared to the best opponents. Too high and winning is out of your hands. Too low and the game is eventually functionally singleplayer.
Freddy has a problem with balance
Pig has a problem with swing
Legion has a problem with Interactiveness and Skill gap
My hypothetical win button killer has a problem with Swing, Skill gap AND Interactiveness
I think you misunderstood me. In my example from the previous post, I meant that Group B Survivors always have 400% movement speed against the killer, and therefore the killer always have a win rate of 0%.
Maybe I should be less metaphoric in my examples. Let's say The Trapper has a 100% win rate against a group of Solo Survivors. Let's also say that The Trapper has a 0% win rate against a group of SWF Survivors. If The Trapper plays an equal amount of times against both groups, he would have have 50% win rate, and as your weighted coin example suggests, you can state that The Trapper is balanced against survivors. But does that mean no further balancing needs to be done?
I can bring up a similar example from the survivors point of view. Let's say SWF Survivors has a 50% Win Rate against The Hillbilly, therefore is balanced from the perspective of the SWF players.
But as in the previous example, SWF Survivors have a 100% Win Rate against The Trapper. So although you can state that SWF Survivors are balanced against The Hillbilly, you wouldn't be able to say that SWF survivors are balanced against killers in general - given the 75% Win Rate.
To fix this, now let's add The Nurse. Let's say that SWF Survivors have a 0% Win Rate against The Nurse. So now when you take the results from The Trapper, The Hillbilly, and The Nurse, SWF players have an overall win rate of 50% - balanced. But would The Trapper players with their 0% win rate against the SWF players be satisfied with that? Would the SWF players with their 0% win rate against The Nurse be satisfied with that?
Now let's go back to the Solo players, who have a 0% Win Rate against The Trapper. If the movement speed is the only variable, then they would also have a 0% Win Rate against The Hillbilly and The Nurse, which in itself would still bring about a question of balance.
So should we be balancing the general Survivors vs Killers, where specific types of survivors and killers don't matter?
Or should we be balancing specific types of survivors and killers individually, ignoring the overall win rate for general survivors and killers (and if that's the case, can we even do that if there is only one variable and whenever this variable makes Solo Survivor stronger, it also automatically makes the SWF even stronger as well.)
-
If every killer won every game 100% of the time then despite being completely consistent it would still be OP and a bit past the "get gud" argument. Same for a 0% winrate in reverse. Again there would be a hypothetical midpoint where this isn't a problem anymore and we call that point "balanced".
I don't know; keeping the equation to just one variable (movement speed in this case) seems like oversimplification to me.
Let's say for instance, there is a certain type of survivors (Group A) that a killer can win 100% of the time. But there is also another type of survivors (Group B) that this killer plays against with a win rate of 0% because they magically have a movement speed of 400%. If you play both types of groups equal amount of time, then by your definition, you would argue that the killer is balanced since it hits the arbitrary ideal 50% mark. But if you are strictly viewing from Group B's perspective, the killer is definitely not balanced. Nor is it from Group A's perspective, but from the other end of the spectrum.
Now let's say there is a killer that can get a 50% win rate against Group B, as well as 100% win-rate against Group A. From the perspective of Group B, the killer is balanced, but from Group A's view, the killer is not balanced (as in the previous example). From killer's perspective, it's a 75% win rate, so it also would not be viewed as balanced.
But is it the killer that's not balanced, or is it the survivors (Group A and B)?
-
Mathieu Cote from November of 2018:
"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."
It's never been a team game. It's always been a forced collaboration. You form an alliance until you feel like you're in a good position to win the game. The rest is up to you.
Many games are like that. Take Settlers of Catan, for example. Most of the times, you refuse to trade resources with the player that is most ahead in points, and trade/collaborate with other players so that you are able to catch up. DBD is kind of like that, except one of the players is already ahead of the others from the very beginning of the game. Because of that, you are forced to collaborate with the other Survivors. The longer you can keep them alive, the better chance YOU have of winning.
It's also part of the reason why SWF should have never been forced into the core gameplay, but only provided as an extra mode or expansion. It deceives people into thinking it's a team based game when it obviously is not.
You also see a lot of kingmaking in DBD, where a Survivor realizes that they have no chance of winning, but will attempt to influence the game in that they are able to choose who wins, whether it is the Killer or one of the other survivors. That's also part of the gameplay.
-
@Plooto said:
@knell I'm sure. Just saw it on twitch a couple hours ago. A viewer mentioned it and the Fog Whisperer replied with "I don't care" and then tried to justify deranking with long queue times. Which is no reason anymore since the new matchmaking is live. So you can imagine what's the real reason for deranking...
Well, if that's true, that's very unfortunate and sad.
But I don't think speculating on their motivations are good either, especially if they are still talking about 'long queue times.' They may just not know. Perhaps some of you who actually know these streamers/Fog Whisperers can inform them that now everyone has 2-3 minutes lobby times due to the new matchmaking system, and that deranking no longer serves their purpose because of that.
Now, if they actually admit that they do it for beating newer players, well, that's a totally different story. But the new matchmaking partially took care of that for them too, given how the red ranks are often paired with the brown/grey/yellow ranks now. So even if that was the case, they STILL don't have any reason to be deranking.
-
Are people in this thread sure that folks are still deranking since the new matchmaking? Or people making random accusations? This was implemented only three days ago.
From what I was told by a streamer (I don't think he is a Fog Whisperer) back in October 2018, the only reason they deranked was for faster lobby times. In fact, the exact quote was, "I don't know how many times I have to repeat the same sentence: I derank for faster queues. Before the emblem system, I never deranked because queues were faster. The end."
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/173201#Comment_173201
Now that the matchmaking is supposedly 2 to 3 minutes for everyone, there shouldn't be any reason for people to be deranking any more.
-
"I had fast matchmaking before now I've got slow."
I think that was the whole point of the new matchmaking system. When the new Matchmaking System was first mentioned by not_Queen, this is what she said:
"The objective of the new matchmaking system is to address the longer matchmaking edge cases and even out the waiting times."
By "even out," I'm sure she meant that those of us who had really quick lobby times (due to our geolocation) will end up having slower matchmaking overall.
I, too, had really fast matchmaking for a really long time. As in, probably 1-5 seconds on average. Maybe a little longer for survivor (maybe 10-20 seconds), but that was to be expected, given the lack of killers on PS4. But the last few months, although Killer lobbies were still relatively quick, the Survivor side was taking probably 5+ minutes.
Now with this new matchmaking system, the lobby wait times for me are between 2 minutes to 3 minutes on average - a lot longer than few seconds from before, sure, but given how much people used to complain about having to wait upwards of 20-30 minutes, it seems like a fair trade-off and a sacrifice well worth having.
What I don't appreciate are the inconsistencies in the Rank differences though. I really hope they will do something to improve it so that newer players and less skilled players will be matched with each other, and veterans and highly skilled players can play with each other. But the presence of SWF and people who deranked have always made that difficult to occur anyway so...