mizark3
mizark3
About
- Username
- mizark3
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,135
- Last Active
Comments
-
@VibranToucan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874875#Comment_3874875
The fact your are lying so much shows how your position is not based on actual evidence. I didn't say it was impossible to hook someone from a corner, just that most of the time there is only 1 hook available. And I don't have clips of it because I didn't expect people to ask me for evidence for normal game occurrences.
Also, unless you play Nurse or Blight or something getting a hit on skilled Survivors consistently every 20 seconds is pure fantasy. And if you also want evidence for that, just watch Otz's newt Xeno video. He plays a full game and while he has some chases that fall into the "20 second per health state" category, most take longer, while he was using a killer with an amazing chase power. And we also need to take into account the time to spot the Survivors, or the Chases that he drops early, or the Survivors getting a late start because they pushed through a gen or went for an unhook, or the Survivor that didn't mind taking a hit because they were just running to the gate. If we talking Survivors that don't have such downsides, and on a normal M1 killer, then consistently 20 seconds per hit is pure fantasy.
Strange, I have evidence of common nuisances and bugs. So either you are the one lying about 'only 1 hook available', or you don't know the maps well enough. Here is an example of a nuisance I took a screenshot of, and it was common on Thompson House at the time.
As far as the 20s/health state, I'm not talking about the context of an entire match. I'm talking about under a pallet, where you can block one side and have to risk the other side with a pallet or flashlight save. You can push them off, get a free hit, or get the free pickup within that timeframe. If a player can't do that, then it is either super bad map gen RNG (something like 4 pallets in a row, in which case getting the pallet destroyed is more valuable than the Survivor being unshouldered), or a skill issue.
Also who is talking about going against comp teams or 'skilled Survivors'? Standard DBD queue doesn't have 'skilled Survivors' (at least in comparison to how skilled you can be as a Killer), so this isn't relevant except for custom matches if that truly is your point. I just hit play and queue like everyone else, and this is never an issue to 'worry about slugging because they threatened a pallet save'. I can instapick in 99.95% of cases without even a risk of a save (pallet/flashlight/flashbang/etc.). I can simply use my brain in the remaining 0.05% of scenarios and come out on top. -
@VibranToucan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874232#Comment_3874232
- That is not true in the slightest, if a Survivor goes down in a corner, if the nearest hook is occupied or sabotaged, you usually cannot hook them.
- Dropping a Survivor is a good enough counter for sabotaging currently, because the Survivor on the ground remains a pressure point. Unless the Survivor wastes a perkslot, at least one other Survivor will need to stop whatever they are doing and go out of position to pick them up. With basekit unbreakable that won't be a thing anymore. Your story about sabotaging hooks only shows that you do not know how to pick what hook to sabotage and when to do it. You also need to realise that if unbrekable was basekit, Survivor would play harder to deny the hooks, because the reward would be greater and the risk would be lesser.
- Again, that is because currently Survivors get punished for failing. If the killer fakes the pick up they can often land an easy hit on you, but if you could just pick yourself up, injured Survivors could mindlessly come for saves and if you chase and down them, oh look at that the Survivor in the pallet stood up by themself and had a flashbang so now you need to down them again, whoops they went down but another Survivor with a flashbang came running so you down them but now the original pallet saver is back up and so on and so on.
- Then you obviously haven't played the game in the past 2 years, because that was fixed about that long ago. Even then, you can always safely drop into a slug, and have someone to chase. If you want to stick to this claim, I'd ask for 2 clips in the past 3 months of this happening (where it was impossible to hook from a corner, and not a personal misplay). It obviously is a glaring issue right? So you probably have at least 10 clips ready, right? Or if it is a complete fabrication then you probably have no recent clips.
- I would agree with 'basekit unbreakable', aka ~20s self-pickups being too far. I would hard disagree with the 60s self-pickups that was suggested. The loss of team efficiency will not match the time on the floor and slowdown granted, and would only stop abuses.
- Given the average estimate of ~20s for a hit, if you were pressured to prevent an insta-pick, you can still get 3 injury states before they could pick themselves up. Otherwise you could insta-pick and safely hook. Both scenarios lean heavily in favor of Killer, while still preventing abuse/BM. If Survs have to take 3 damage states to rescue/heal 1 back, then the math ain't mathing for this to be a bad idea (for Killer), and Killer will likely snowball into a quick victory afterwards.
-
@VibranToucan said:
Without way more generous hook spawns, and nerfs to sabotage and pallet saves and flashbang saves, this would definitely not be balanced.
Way more generous hook spawns - We already have 2-3 hooks available from every corner, how much more generous do you need?
Nerfs to sabotage - There is a built-in nerf to sabotage, it is the 'drop Survivor' keybind. You can also simply fake left then go right. I've had matches where I literally sabo'd 3 hooks, and the Killer still got a hook. As with all things in games, try it before you call to get it nerfed. I tried Supports in Marvel Rivals, and holy moly they need nerfs badly. A 12s effective invincibility circle? Really? No anti-heal in the game at all? Heal does more numbers than DPS, and they have generous auto-aim? Ludicrous. Compare that to sabo, where you have at minimum, 2 directions to choose from, giving the Survivor a 50-50 for sabo out the gate, being able to redirect if you see/hear a sabo, and finally dropping them if you carried them for less than ~13s safely, yeah sabo is super easy to counter.
Pallet saves - What? They are plenty easy to counter, especially with the bug that allows same frame swings to prevent a rescue. Plus 99% of the time if you instapick you are safe, so if 99% of the time there isn't a threat, I'd say it doesn't need any nerfs, and a buff if anything. Plus it isn't like pallets are infinite. I love it when they pallet rescue at shack, because that is a free godpallet down.
Flashbang saves - Only fair point, you shouldn't be able to be blinded while facing a wall (as in touching it, not just facing any direction and a wall exists 30m out), and the noises need to be fixed, not merely falsely claimed to be fixed.
Overall though 60s self-pickups would only allow for 3 self-pickups tops, and that is assuming they never crawled, which could even drop that to 2.
-
Lobby dodging ruins the match for 1-4 players. If a spot is empty, autofill ignores all matchmaking rules (or most relevant ones), thus you can get a god player in a baby lobby, or a baby player in a god lobby. If each player simply wants to win, then this basically ruins the match for all of one team as the autofilled player typically makes the match a 1-sided stomp.
Now with all that being said, is that unsportsmanlike? Yes and no. Colloquially, yes, obviously, you are ruining matches. People say declining an end of game handshake can be unsportsmanlike, so I think deliberately wasting 15-20 minutes of someone's life easily counts (again, colloquially). BHVR definition and ban use of unsportsmanlike though, nope, not at all. Check out the 'Information Center → Rules & Info → Game Rules' to see the actual exact phrasing. -
Complaining about Finesse and Resilience are the biggest self-reports for people abusing laggy connections. Finesse saves 0.0833s, and Resilience saves 0.0413s on a Fast vault, or 0.0743s on a Medium vault. This is pretty much only enough to make a difference to someone using a sketchy connection for the lagvantage.
If the timesave can't even reach 0.1s/100ms, it's a non-issue for legitimate players. Like a basic Great skillcheck on a heal saves 0.48s now, and a gen saves 0.9s. They clearly make a far greater impact both individually, and over time.
-
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3817852#Comment_3817852
As it were, things are changed because of bad actors. A few can ruin it for all.
An argument for Distortion being changed were RAT players, or those who hid all game and just wanted hatch, screwing their team, etc.
I didnt use it for that, but nevertheless, Im also punished. So it matters not if killers can pick up survivors 'within the time frame.'
This is a fun discussion!
Hopefully the bleedout Killer players 'ruin' the game into becoming better, and we get a basekit self-pickup lol.
-
The 45s self-PTB showed 0 actual problems. It was still possible for a snowballing Oni to pickup all 4 Survivors within the time frame. It was still possible to push Survivors off of would-be pallet/blind saves. The only drawback of that PTB was the forced auto kill into Mori. Sadly we got the wrong forced mechanic, but now we get even more (IME) bleedouts for the 4k, which was already a massive problem.
-
Similar to Rulebreaker's suggestion, I would have 2 separate, 95'd Survivors be able to pick each other up at the same time. That way, if a Killer is intentionally BMing and camping their corpses, the 2nd Surv at least gets the weapon wipe hit CD to run away.
-
Ehh its just as bad as old MfT, largely a non-issue that doesn't acknowledge the drawbacks/mutual exclusivity. I'd take both functioning simultaneously, or neither. Regardless, old MfT had it's time in the sun, might as well let Weave Attunement have it's own time. It is on the roadmap, so personally I don't care enough about it.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3815383#Comment_3815383
I think Blight and Spirit were just easier to stick in because they have relatively simple powers (Hillbilly dash, Wraith invisibility). They’re going to be difficult to deal with especially if they’re buffing Huntress but I think that’s also why BHVR tried giving survivors the new abilities (rebuilding broken pallets, etc). It’s what they did in lights out as well because survivors just wouldn’t play it.
Yeah I can see Killer object Killers like Plague/Singularity/Nemmy/Wesker being an issue, but I'm surprised they didn't throw Clown/Hag/Artist in (also if they are sticking to non-licensed). Although I can partially understand Doctor/Artist/Unknown/SM/(lesser Trickster) not being implemented if status effect tracks are too much. Kinda surprised that Legion wasn't there, but they could be OP or useless, depending on how they adjusted their power.
-
The only losses I had as Killer, were when a Killer was actively throwing. Either they were throwing because they were bad, trying goofy stuff to meme with their friend, or someone literally went AFK making it a 1v8.
It doesn't help that the new Killers include Blight and Spirit. That will make me even less inclined to play Survivor this time around, unless they bump the incentive up to 800%. I don't know why the least fun Killers are the ones they decided to add.
-
@drsoontm said:
Not an issue at all.
It's always because of a misplay from survivors.
- Keeping on gens together up to the last second.
- Keeping together, in general, to clumsily try to get a flashlight save.
- Playing aggressively against a dangerous killer.
- …
The only measure that could be taken would be to let them all die faster if all the remaining survivors in the trial are slugged.
The problem with "a misplay from survivors" is that the victim of the bleedout isn't the same Survivor making the misplay. The victim is ALWAYS a different Survivor. It's the bad kind of gameplay like Myers and Oni and Plague, where someone else's mistake results in you being punished. At least Myers and Plague are a little more possible to counter, even when someone else makes those mistakes, but Oni and bleedouts are just a 'too bad so sad'.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3813605#Comment_3813605
Competent Killers can't gain value from Wraith's ability in chase - I would hard disagree, not only do competent Killers make use of his power to help in chase, but only incompetent Killers don't.
you should watch dead dog saloon games vs wraith on competitive teams. Wraith nearly always loses if the team is strong. Hens i believe had a wraith player that dominated soloq with a build back when Eruption and Sloppy were better perks. He put his build up to the test on dead dog saloon and got demolished. Tru3ta1ent at one point also tested wraith to see if he was viable with hit & run when sloppy butcher+Thanatophobia were a thing. he got destroyed as well.
That's the thing about so-called 'low-tier Killers', they actually require more skill, more optimization, and more game knowledge to leverage wins.
That's entire problem. They don't actually require any skill because none of their skill matters. the only skill that matters is survivor being bad at the game. Middle of the road killers are controlled by survivor's inability to play the game.
Higher-tier killer potency varies by the killer's ability to play said killer and survivor's ability to make a competent player to make mistakes with said killer.
Killers complain because their gameplay is not being rewarded - I mean I don't know how you can be so objectively wrong. That's the only reward I get playing this game. Every act I take, is a choice, and the consequence is entirely a result of my decisions. That is the most agency possible.
What is if your choices don't matter and end result is always the same. 2-3 escapes every game at minimum?
As for the comp scene, I don't care, its utterly irrelevant to the actual game we all play. When I'm talking about Smash, I'm talking about all items, all characters, all maps, not 1/3 maps, 1/3 characters, 0 items. I only care about comp when people want to ruin the actual game to accommodate comp. Keep it contained as to not infect the rest of us.
I guess I don't understand this tonal whiplash. 'Low-tier Killers don't need any skill' followed by 'minimum 2-3 escapes every match' are logically inconsistent statements. You can't harbor both these views at the same time without them canceling each other out, or simply flat out lying.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3813500#Comment_3813500
no i think it is because some of the accessibility are direct conflict with game-values… such as… being attentive the game.
Wait… so you think a visual indicator, which requires someone to be paying attention to the game to notice, would make them NOT pay attention to the game?
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3813562#Comment_3813562
i don't care what the effort is to play a killer. they nerfed wraith for same reason they nerfed current skull merchant, whiny non-sense.
I'd get like 5 Wraiths back to back, it was so awful.
So what. i would face blight 24/7 before he was weakened. Now i face billy every other game. at the end of the day, i am not suppose to complain as survivor. My job is to defeat the killer for whoever I face.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3813568#Comment_3813568
That's why we get some Killer mains complaining about gen timers, because they are too incompetent to win without excessive slowdown. That's why we get some Survivor mains complaining about needing a Syringe every match, because they are too incompetent to win without 24s timesave
killer complain about that because their gameplay is not being rewarded. The margin for error on killer is extremely low vs competent teams. it is almost non-existent low.
This game is horrible to play when it is balanced around the top 0.00000000001% of players, because none of your soloq teammates will be that good for Survivor, and actual clock SWFs are a nightmare to deal with as Killer. Luckily for Killer, there are only 5% of matches that are 4-man SWF in the first place, and if we were generous, only 1% total players are calling clocks (although I suspect that number to be much lower).
It doesn't matter. the top killer player such as myself have to play against that. it in fact a relatively low % of matches. it seems to depend on region. i'd say i face like 2 man swf every 6 games. at least once. a survivor team doesn't need to be 4 man to put up a challenge in this game. It is not so black and white but 4 man SWF team that play optimally have higher degree of severity in being "impossible" to defeat.
The problem with killer powers that are weak is that competent killers cannot gain any value from wraith's ability in chase. it is artificial limiter in killer's skill-cieling. Like literally, if you wonder what add-on i run on wraith, it is shadow dance+serpent. His kit literally has no value beyond that at extremely high-level of play. wraith just isn't really fun so i don't really play him very much.
Killers complain because their gameplay is not being rewarded - I mean I don't know how you can be so objectively wrong. That's the only reward I get playing this game. Every act I take, is a choice, and the consequence is entirely a result of my decisions. That is the most agency possible. If someone is consistently winning as Killer, they made the right decisions for their success. If someone is consistently losing as Killer, it unironically is 'skill dif git gud'. You want to talk about gameplay not being rewarded, you need look no further than soloq. Teammates denying your perks through ignorance or malice, baby Killers falsely claiming you were a SWF when you win, and nearly never winning anyways. I'd say that far and above is the actual unrewarded gameplay.
All SWF combined are enough to be a threat. - I mean I suppose when the bar is as low as 60/40, yeah duos getting 41% escape rates is a 'serious threat'. Or we could be less alarmist and simply realize every other game is pretty much balanced around 50/50 or 51/49, and should take the ~70% winrate (ignoring draws) that is a natural consequence of a 60% killrate with grace.
Competent Killers can't gain value from Wraith's ability in chase - I would hard disagree, not only do competent Killers make use of his power to help in chase, but only incompetent Killers don't. Even then, chase isn't the only factor in the game, but even then, being able to use his stealth to maneuver chases in the direction most favorable is an excellent chase use of power. Not to mention the macro effects of increased mobility and the free hits/pallet drops stealth provides. All of these (and more detailed effects, such as mobility for cutting off a rescue, preventing a gen pop, negating a post-hit speedboost) combine to make a skilled Wraith perform significantly better than a variety Killer hopping over to Wraith for funsies. That's the thing about so-called 'low-tier Killers', they actually require more skill, more optimization, and more game knowledge to leverage wins. If someone is playing Killer for free wins, they would never explore the break-even point for a Bubba saw charges/Demo Lunge/# of Clown bottles/etc. for Mobility, or even how loops play out differently when you approach from odd angles with stealth, or any of the other depth that nearly all Killers provide, but too many take the easy way out with the easy to use, quick to learn 'free win' Killers.
-
@Gplays2000 said:
First and foremost I want to say that I play both roles so I understand the true struggles of this game.
I want to establish the power dynamics:
SWF is 10 billion kilometers in the air, then killer like 100 meters in the air and Solo Queue is in the pits of Tartarus.
This game has to have the WORST Solo Queue experience out of any game I have ever played in my entire life.
Without exaggerating every second to almost every game mates instantly unalive themselves on the hook, get tunneled out of the game at like 5-4 gens meaning the game is unwinnable realistically speaking for the remaining 3 survivors (if you know you know the solo queue classic experience) or you get slugged for no reason whatsoever at literally 3-5 gens….
I want to be honest with you guys I have absolutely no clue what changed. Just what caused this to happen? Solo Queue is in my opinion in its worst state it has ever been at and I have no clue how it happened. All I know is that this gaming experience is so unbelievably miserable that I couldn't take it anymore and just had to uninstall and I'm not going to give it another chance unless they truly address these issues…
The same happens to killers: Immediately seeing someone off themselves on hook early game is just not fun… You just know that this team lost because you play solo queue yourself and know how miserable the experience is… What is the solution. Hurry andd finish the game or f around with them. IDK.
SWF is just plain broken and I believe it always will stay this way. An approach I would recommend is a system that recognizes that people are playing together (2, 3 or 4 stack) and give only them an action debuff to everything they do: Repairing gens 5/10/15 percent slower, healing just everything slower. Let me know what you think about this take.
All in all I just want to make this game more enjoyable for everyone especially for the solo queue survivors, not only because I am a part of that group who just faces the misery head on basically every single game, but also because I feel like the solo survivors are really the backbone of this game and unless we make it more enjoyable for them too (Basekit things maybe idk many people are against the idea of basekit unbreakable) or maybe an action buff for every hook stage/kill the killer got or something. 2% faster repair speed for Solos per hook the killer got (12 hooks meaning 24% faster repair speed as the game is literally heading into the end game) or 5% flat action buff for every kill meaning if 2 are dead you make everything 10 percent faster or just something ffs.
I guess you can tell how miserable and cooked I truly am. I do believe that they will do absolutely nothing, just add more skins to the game and chill until the game eventually dies in 5+ years…truly a sad thing to witness the decline of this game. I also only created this post because I saw a lot of other people complaining about survivors GIVING UP but they never ask themselves just why they are giving up? I donÄt think that they do it to make the game more miserable for their mates. It's just a price the other 3 have to pay for something I guess….tunneling especially at 4-5 gens robs the jobs out of the game and IMO makes it totally understandable to just off yourself on the hook and go next. Just my opinion tho let me know about yours.
ANYWAYS this is enough ranting about this topic. I sure hope they do something…but don't get my hopes up too high tbh.
Well I wish y'all a lovely day and see ya…maybe eventually back in the fog :)
While I disagree with SWFs height placement, it doesn't change my point. Worrying this much about SWF is like being scared of last day of the month. It always does happen, but it is very rare overall. 4-SWF only accounts for ~5% of players. So even if it were a free win, 100% escape rate if you played SWF, that only gives 5% wins for free, 95% are still contested. On top of that, they aim for the 60-40 kill/escape rate, so that would mean soloq has even worse odds than 60-40, since 4-SWF is taking 5% of those wins.
SWF is a red herring issue.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3813551#Comment_3813551
he wasn't overpowered. in that same patch, they nerfed deathslinger and deathslinger still feels awful to play vs competent players. it doesn't seem that there is light on revert said poorly conceived changes.
The game is 90% incompetent players, for both sides. That's why we get some Killer mains complaining about gen timers, because they are too incompetent to win without excessive slowdown. That's why we get some Survivor mains complaining about needing a Syringe every match, because they are too incompetent to win without 24s timesaves.
This game is horrible to play when it is balanced around the top 0.00000000001% of players, because none of your soloq teammates will be that good for Survivor, and actual clock SWFs are a nightmare to deal with as Killer. Luckily for Killer, there are only 5% of matches that are 4-man SWF in the first place, and if we were generous, only 1% total players are calling clocks (although I suspect that number to be much lower).
Edit: The game isn't a competition of competence, it is a game of weaponizing the opponent's incompetence. Run faster than the person from the bear, and they get eaten instead of you.
-
I'm not 100% certain on my historical timeline, but weren't those nerfs in direct response to his kill rates skyrocketing to ~70-75% from the patch 4.5 and 4.6 buffs he got? Even with the buffs taken into account, combined with the 5.3 nerfs, he clearly is still net positive.
-
@MrMori said:
As long as you have P1 to P3 on all characters you own, BP isn't all that important.
They should still fix survivor BP gain though, 1250 for an entire gen is pitiful, and getting 300 from greats and only 50 for good skillchecks on gens only hurts new players. Also the "Survival" points being entirely tied to escaping and getting nothing for surviving for 1-5 gens is lame.
They should add an "At least it isn't me" Survival event for Hooks and Deaths. Give every other Survivor 500 Survival BP when a Survivor gets hooked, and a 1k bonus if the hook is also a death. Give an extra 5k Survival bonus to all other Survivors if the first death is before the 7th hook.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3812651#Comment_3812651
This is your opinion. Other people might think that t-bagging is sexually explicit and offensive. Many people don't care about either of these things at all. All of this is based on people's subjective feelings.
I personally have 0 problem with someone hitting a taunt button in games, and that's all a teabag/WSWS really is. People's own mental hangups can cause a wave to falsely seem like a casting a spell on them, but that's their own problem to get over. Plus this is a game where every second counts, if my opponent wasted time taunting me, that's time they lost running away, or hooking me sooner.
I do have a problem when someone holds the match hostage (in spirit) for any time I don't have (legal) agency. A full 4 minute bleedout is holding that person hostage for 4 minutes, with no agency for them to surrender/quit (outside of the 'illegal' quit without BP). An exit gate teabag at least gives me the chance to get an extra Kill if I'm say, Twins or Deathslinger, or at least the agency to force them out if I'm not on of those Killers.
-
Plague.
I certainly love boring Survivor gameplay getting more boring by deleting 25% of the mechanics (Altruism deleted). I certainly love teammates sitting AFK for 20-60s next to a puked on gen, with no mechanic to clean, even if it reveals what was cleaned. I certainly love when Plague starts openly proxycamping a hook, forcing 1 person to cleanse (while revealing the approach direction) just to be re-infected again, then everyone in endchat yells at the person who cleansed into the rescue, when the only alternative was let the Survivor die on hook. I certainly love the dynamic when either everyone or no one has to cleanse, and if a single person isn't of the same mindset, you lose. /s
Plague is the perfect example of how NOT to design a Killer.
- She makes soloq far, far, farrrrrrr worse
- Remove basegame mechanics, instead of adding to them (Oni and Dredge are good examples of getting a healing alteration/pressure mechanic right. Heck, even stealth Killers do this better with the threat of free 1st hits.)
- Encourage 3-gen styled defensive play with infection mechanics without an object cleaning interaction (I'd even be fine if they removed the clean button for the brown meme add-on, just so long as a mechanic exists.)
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3809624#Comment_3809624
However, I see this as a feature, not a flaw. Back then, you would know the next match very well might just be your 'free win', so you could afford to run the goofy builds and still win while having fun. It made the game less sweaty, and more enjoyable, at least for what I want out of the game.
That's fair, and a matter of preference of course. I just think the game has more and more embraced its competitiveness, and the matchmaking system should follow suit. Which it did, until it again didn't. I personally also prefer things to be competitive, to have more of an actual challenge more often, hard-fought matches. But I'm mostly concerned with the ridiculous extremes of players being able to have winstreaks in the hundreds and thousands, and generally winning 90+% of their matches decisively. That just shouldn't be a thing.
When they had the intense limitations, Dowsey had 2hr+ queues as Twins.
Dowsey's hours-long queue was a special case however, for multiple reasons. For one thing, it was a test run of their MMR system, so who knows what was really going on under the hood that may have caused the queue to be that long. My suspicion is that it was simply strict to the point of only ever giving someone a group if they had an exact MMR match, just for BHVR to see what really accurately matched trials based on the rating looked like in practice. But more importantly, they had had the rating system active in the background for weeks or months prior to actually running this test where the matchmaking was then based on those ratings. So in those weeks and months, Dowsey's rating increased into the absurd in the background because he won hundreds of matches. Had the matchmaking already been based on those ratings however, he would likely never have gotten to that point in the first place.
It's the big fish little pond issue.
There likely indeed aren't nearly enough high-level players (and even less so high-level SWFs) out there to give these winstreakers a challenge every match, but there is an entire world of improvement possible still between the current reality wherein people can win hundreds and even thousands of matches in a row without it even getting all that close even just once, and at least spending a few minutes trying to give these players an actual challenge every then and again. Like I mentioned, at the beginning when the MMR cap was higher, the matchmaker more strict and less people populated that capped bracket, meeting high-level players was actually a fairly common occurrence, with queue times being 2-4 minutes at the higher average. There was also an active EU crossplay off scene for a while, where a lot of highly skilled and experienced players gathered, and you had instant queues and competitive matches. The players are out there, they are just almost never meeting each other in the cesspool created by the MMR cap. And the players at the extreme end that have 90+% winrates and long winstreaks having to deal with, say, 10-minute long queues is nothing I think is too unreasonable. Plus, again, with a more strict system in place fewer and fewer players would even be able to get to that point in the first place.
I wasn't a fan of the ultra sweat-fest matches, so I didn't always play immediately after resets.
Generally under this system the game would only get sweatier and sweatier for a player if they actually manage to sweat themselves into these more and more exclusive high MMR brackets. If someone does not like that kind of sweaty gameplay, they can simply refrain from playing in those ways and they won't be able to end up having the ridiculous winrates/streaks required to get there. My concern most of all is with high-level players that currently almost or actually never lose. Adjusting the MMR for that realm specifically would affect almost no one, relatively speaking. But yes, there's also a lot of not-so-high-level players that are still winning some 70-80+% of their matches, particularly as killer, and I guarantee there's actually more than enough players out there capable of competing with them to make that a more reasonable 50-60%. Without prohibitively long queue times whatsoever, at that. And it wouldn't have to be tough matches every time either, since the matchmaker would still expand the MMR range it searches within after some time, and there'd definitely still be times where it can't find 5 players within the same, more strict bracket.
While I think that they could simply make these things more strict for the top MMR brackets and that it as a result wouldn't affect most players all that much (not even most streamers, who would presumably fall more so within the "3-5%" brackets than the "1-0.1%" ones), and that it could simply happen on a basis of at least looking for a few minutes before widening the MMR to match players among (e. g. 1 minute in the 5% bracket, and then an additional minute from there for every bracket above that, meaning that even if you reach the 1% bracket the game would at most look for 5 minutes for other 1% bracket players to pair you up with before widening the search), maybe an alternative really would be to have separate casual and competitive queues. BHVR has already talked about the possibility of having modifiers active year-round, so the idea of a separate casual mode queue with much more casual matchmaking (and perhaps even some gameplay adjustments to "casualify" the experience) isn't too far out there anymore.
Or again, they could at least implement special rules for the really egregiously extreme cases, of people that win 90+% of the time or have long streaks, making sure that if someone breaches certain thresholds the matchmaking will give them a special pool treatment. Won your last 10 matches in a row? You will now be matched with other players that also did, only returning to the normal queue pool if no match can be established after 1 minute. Won 20? 2 minutes in the special pool. And so on. (One reason why I suspect BHVR is not too keen on having strict high MMR brackets is that there's tons of cheaters in this game and this would lead to players in those brackets encountering them frequently, so part of the reason for the huge """high MMR""" pool created by the low cap is not unlikely to be that they want to obscure and mask the amount of cheating going on.)
So any nerf to SWF is flawed in its conception
My preferred SWF nerf would be to restrict their loadouts such that any perks/item/add-on/offering can only be present at most once between the members of a party. I don't actually think this would chase off many SWF players, and could if anything even be a welcome change of pace, having to decide who gets to use which perks, adopting "signature" perks within their respective groups, assuming "roles" of sorts for the team. And it would significantly increase the design space for perks (and items/add-ons/offerings), that then wouldn't have to be designed anymore with the concern in mind that multiple survivors can be abusing them in coordinated manners, therefore also allowing for individual perks(/items/add-ons/offerings) to be stronger, which benefits solo groups disproportionally since they as opposed to SWFs can still end up using multiple copies of those. I went into various considerations regarding this topic in another thread if you'd be interested (https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/304057/swf-loadout-restrictions). Of course, the idea here is to bring the SWF performance potential down alongside that of some of the strongest killers.
I agree in a sense that soloq is an entirely different experience, one where horror and suspense lies around every corner, but the problem is that the horror comes mostly from your soloq teammates.
The uncertainty, the things that are unknown, unpredictable, having to figure stuff out on your own and to try and play along and around random strangers - all of these aspects are "horror", "survival"-type gameplay elements already, it's not only about the suspense or scariness created through that, it's just the quality of gameplay this more so leads to. I obviously share your pain with regards to solo queue being messy and rough mostly due to awful teammates, although a stricter matchmaking that tries to pair players of more similar performance levels should also help with that, more so in my opinion than giving these bad players more and more info would. But I can definitely empathize with the desire to simply buff solo survivors, and I guess that is more realistic since BHVR has at least said they want to (not a whole lot happening in that regard however).
The game has more and more embraced its' competitiveness - Yeah this is the same issue I had with Smash Bros. The game isn't suited for it (such competitive gameplay), yet people created their own walled garden. Then the garden overgrew its containment zone, and poisoned the surroundings as a result. I find it more and more difficult to enjoy Smash/DBD matches, because there is too much sweat permeating out from every corner.
Dowsey's MMR only skyrocketed because MMR was accumulating without MMR being used - I mean we still have the same conceptual issue now. People can still get that ultra high MMR, and they would have to wait hours for an actual accurate MMR match.
Less likely to have win extremes with stricter matches - Maybe if the game was actually based on 50/50 kill/winrates. The problem is the game is designed around 60/40. You can never really properly maintain 60/40 and 'fair' matches, because the system is designed to be unfair from the onset.
Restrict SWF loadouts - This is poison to non-competitive gameplay. Now just because I played in a 3-SWF, I can't use both SB and Deliv at the same time, but if I played with only 1 friend I could? "Sorry Billy, you suck at the game, I'm just gunna play with Julie so I can still have fun with my perks." The strength of SWF is already counterbalanced by natural skill differentials in friend groups. Sweat squads, or people calling out clocks, are the ones who pre-select their 'friends' based on skill level, rather than enjoyment to be around. Plus if someone brings Invo Spiders or No Mither, it would have to delete all perk restrictions for everyone else. Then you can't change perks mid-lobby, because Jim unequipped No Mither, unequipping everyone's perks. It is only a good system if you have a separate 'ranked' gamemode (as opposed to the current forced ranked we all can't avoid), where everyone is knowing what they sign up for. As for now though, that is best kept in customs.
Soloq - My main complaint here was that there is 'fun' horror, and 'unfun' horror. Current soloq is 'unfun', because it is a roll of the dice of which way your game will be screwed over. Imagine playing Elden Ring, and randomly when you enter each new zone, a button is disabled. That's current soloq. Can't use your Flask this map, better die and go next. Can't use basic attacks, and the weapons I have aren't good with Heavy attacks, better go next. Soloq is 'forcing' people to go next, because the dice rolls are too heavily stacked against enjoyment. If that same Elden Ring instead had a random enemy that wasn't normally in that area, it would be a novel challenge, but still possible to win. We need soloq to be more like that, than the random button disables it currently feels like.
@DarKStaR350z said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3809624#Comment_3809624
SWF don’t have to clock call out to have an advantage, simply killer is chasing me do gens, don’t unhook I have Deliverance live, killer is by shack, Hex Totem main building bottom floor; give a massive advantage over solo players. And when it comes to MMR playing with friends in other games is ‘punished’ by having them matched with killers equal to the highest players rating, or even slightly higher as it factors the group into it because it’s accepted it makes a difference to a bunch of solos queuing.
You say your teammates troll you by bringing bad perks that deliberately put you at a disadvantage, but you can’t balance for that as it becomes unbalanced for those trying to play the game as intended. In that case your issue should be with your teammates who you say are trolling you and not crying ‘killer op’ and expecting the game to let you win in situations where you are being sabotaged by your team. You have to think about the killer experience as well and having the game balanced so you lose when people are playing bad or bringing perks to troll their team would just feel awful and unfair.I hate all this killer main survivor main stuff. Most people play both sides and want both to be fun. I see the solo queue struggles myself when my teammates are playing hide and seek instead of playing the objective; you get it in other games too where people would rather throw by all staying in spawn with snipers rather than actually capture the objective and it’s frustrating, but that should be directed at the team and not the enemy team as it’s not their fault. I also know how frustrating it is to play against a team playing well and efficiently and feeling like you just can’t keep up not matter how well you’re playing and how fast you are getting downs, and it’s not even always SWF but just solos playing the objective with decent game sense and perks, and it makes the game 100x more stressful as the big bad killer while the survivors are just able to chill as long as they are efficient and play as a team.
SWF advantage - Yes like I said buried in my reply above, SWF's advantage does exist. The issue is that it is most often counterbalanced by skill levels between friends being varied. It doesn't matter they could call it out, if the weakest person lasts half as long in chase as the strongest person. As for matchmaking, this game has been so bugged I don't even know which system they currently use. At one point, it used lobby-leader MMR, so you could have a newbie queue as the leader to get free wins. At one point, they used the highest MMR in the squad, which leads to easy stomps for Killer. Average MMR is the best solution, because it is the most fair for all involved.
Are you saying Invocation of Spiders isn't intended, and thus reportable! I would love that. Sadly that isn't reality. All perks are 'intended' no matter how much of a grief it is for them to be brought. Also this was a counterpoint to the idea of the advantages of SWF, since if they were truly so powerful simply by being in the same Discord lobby, then surely 1 perk wouldn't prevent us from winning. You post did nothing to disprove that notion. If anything, you are admitting that you expect everyone to only sweat.
Agreed, there is no main stuff here, Survivor currently just isn't fun. I currently am comparing negative extremes to determine my fun for both sides. As Killer, I win, so I have no issues. As Survivor I lose, so the game has to be fun in the moment, not in the result. When I get bledout or a teammate gets bledout for the 4K in ~1/4 of my matches, I'm not having fun. When Killer perks/add-ons aren't revealed when I die early in soloq, forcing me to be held hostage if I want to find out what they are, I'm not having fun. When someone teabags at the exit gate, I can force them out, or get a cheesy kill. My main issues with Killer, are 'skill dif git gud', I can learn, and improve, and make up for my mistakes. My main issues with Survivor, are 'my team is always 1 throw from a loss', which doesn't feel good. No matter what I do right, I can't make a better decision, and my loss is artificially forced. I don't mind when I lose because I made a judgement call to risk the heal under hook, because I thought the Killer was going to stop the final gen from popping, causing me to be facecamped in endgame, as I took the risk and lost. The problem is most losses are 'Feng randomly decided to open a chest without chest perks, fail a skillcheck on a gen, then hide in the corner', or 'Mikaela decided not to take the safe unhook, forced a trade, then took a hit without trading, forcing the person into 2nd stage anyways', or 'Sable was in the lobby and you didn't lobby dodge against your better judgement'.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3807023#Comment_3807023
Personally I really disliked the rank-based matchmaking (both the original one based on bloodpoints and the emblem one), it led to way too many "free" and boring matches as killer or in a full SWF due to awfully lacking opposition, and solo matches were a complete crapshoot. I mean, these were the matchmaking systems under which various killer winstreaks in the hundreds had already existed, despite the game having had a plethora of ridiculous stuff for survivors back then none of today's stuff comes close to.
I will say that duos back then were more enjoyable because you could actually more reliably carry two randoms against the regularly pretty subpar killers and it was sort of a welcome challenge, whereas these days it feels like even one random is often too much of a liability. And during the first week after rank reset, you would usually get a more consistent quality of players in the high ranks, although that was mostly only due to those people being the ones that played a ton, which tends to correlate with skill/sweat level. But at latest after week two red ranks were full of anyone that played a match or two every other day, win or lose.
I was elated when they first started implementing kill and escape-based MMR because it promised to lead to much more consistently competitive matches. Which it absolutely did at first and still at least more so than the old matchmaking systems does to this day despite having become more and more relaxed and with more and more players reaching the MMR cap. If they were to at least make the upper MMR brackets more strict it wouldn't impact most players, while helping where it's really needed, giving the top 1% (and the top 0.1%) of players an actual challenge more often than once in a blue moon. There's a ton of very experienced and skilled players out there being mixed into a huge pool of players that are just nowhere up to par. Raising/removing the MMR cap and changing the matchmaker algorithm such that it looks for closer rating matches beyond a certain MMR threshold is a no-brainer change in my mind. Especially these days where frequent modifiers promise respite for experienced/skilled players if the argument is that they would grow tired of having real competition in matches regularly. Players with 90+% winrates or long winstreaks should be meeting each other which they currently almost never are, and if it takes them 5-10 minutes to find each other so be it, that at least might change some of these players' minds about sweating hard for the win every time. Plus if they were to actually more regularly meet other such players, their winrates and streaks wouldn't even get to that point in the first place, meaning their MMR wouldn't keep increasing either to where they'd only meet other winstreakers. It's just absurd that someone can have won 1000+ matches in a row, and yet their queue still pops after <1 minute and gives them the next hopelessly lost group of randoms that barely manage to get 1 gen done before they're all dead. Hell, it would already be a major improvement if BHVR implemented special rules where players with an 80+% winrate over their last 100 matches or 20+-match winstreak would get put into special pools where the game first tries to find a match for them, pitting them then against other such players.
The balance shift between solo and SWF is definitely more subjective, it would of course benefit game balance to make solo more SWF-like since it makes the game overall easier to balance, just like getting the killers closer together does (which I also think should all fall within a range of what we currently know as B to A tier, nerfing S+ and buffing C- killers). But apart from the fact that you can also get SWF and solo closer together for balance purposes by nerfing SWF which I think is preferable route (specifically by implementing loadout restrictions for SWFs), I personally simply like that solo is essentially a different gamemode, where lacking all of that info is part of the appeal and point. And not necessarily in a horror sense of being afraid (although jumpscares and tension still exist in this game, and much more so in solo of course), but in the sense that many things are simply unknown to you at many given points, and navigating that state of being in the dark with strangers is the survival-type horror gameplay many people look for in DbD. While I much prefer to play in coordinated teams with voice comms and scrims and like that it becomes a much more strategical teamplay game in that environment, I still enjoy dabbling in solo, for that stark contrast in playing experience.
Yes, baseline changes to alleviate the issues of tunnelling could also be things that simply make the resulting 3v1 be less decisively skewed in the killer's favour, such as by increasing the gen repair speed of the remaining survivors, the amount depending on how many hook stages happened before that sacrifice. And yes, collision should absolutely be removed during those 10 seconds of unhook invincibility.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3807438#Comment_3807438
There would definitely be much fewer survivors than killers in such a more strict high MMR pool, simply because it takes a good/sweaty 3/4-player SWF to consistently escape, which are indeed vastly less common than good/sweaty killer players. But the idea is not to have the matchmaking be so strict here that it looks until it finds someone appropriate, but that it at least spends the first few minutes trying to look within a more limited pool. This would obviously escalate with just how ridiculous a respective player's winrate/streak is, having the matchmaker look for longer and longer times within more and more exclusive pools. I don't think it's ridiculous that someone that's won hundreds or thousands of matches in a row should expect for the game to spend 5-10 minutes seeing whether it can't give them at least a bit of a challenge rather than create the next non-match.
Certainly there is much room for improvement with the current matchmaking paradigm, which seems to be "make sure queue times coalesce around <1 minute, no matter what". And be it with some special rules such as I alluded to above, where it has nothing to do with MMR value but will simply be looking at the winrate of players and create pools for those with high rates and streaks that they're preferentially queued into before mixing them in with the general populace.
I understand most matches ended up being 'free', and it was just who got that roll of the dice. However, I see this as a feature, not a flaw. Back then, you would know the next match very well might just be your 'free win', so you could afford to run the goofy builds and still win while having fun. It made the game less sweaty, and more enjoyable, at least for what I want out of the game.
That's also why 'carrying as a duo' felt possible, you got the 'free win' that roll of the dice. Killer is different, since they are already designed to win 50%-100% (multiplicatively) more often than Survivor. I wasn't a fan of the ultra sweat-fest matches, so I didn't always play immediately after resets. The people who did, were still afforded that opportunity, as well as customs as always.
I can also understand the desire for an ultra-sweat environment, the problem is that this game ain't it. When they had the intense limitations, Dowsey had 2hr+ queues as Twins. The game was literally unplayable, because the playerbase isn't large enough. It's the big fish little pond issue. That's why I always encourage people who actually want to sweat to take it to DOTA, or SC, or CS, or customs on a Discord channel purpose built to sweat.
The largest problem with balancing for SWF, is you can't just punish people for playing with their friends. They will just hard quit the game, to find a place where they aren't punished for playing together. Heck, most SWFs aren't even sweating. Nearly no one is actually calling clocks, but that is the image in main-brain Killer players when they hear the term 'SWF'. Most of my SWF (half of which quit the game since it got so bad,) brings meme perks like Invocation of Spiders or trolls us with No Mither. So any nerf to SWF is flawed in its conception, without a counter-balance of a single bad perk negating everyone elses limitations.
I agree in a sense that soloq is an entirely different experience, one where horror and suspense lies around every corner, but the problem is that the horror comes mostly from your soloq teammates. "How are they going to throw this match" is the looming dread each time you hit the play button, not anything from the Killer. Heck, the most suspense you get from the Killer is "are they going to bleed us out or not". Every one of these is such a horrible experience, that it should never have had the potential to be real in the first place. Soloq is only a place to do tomes and dailies, fun is illegal there, because if you try, one of the other players WILL ruin your day. The only question is who. (It's Feng/Sable/Mikaela 90% of the time for Survivor, Blight/Plague/SM 90% of the time for Killer IME.)
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3807023#Comment_3807023
Yeah, needing all 4 Survivors to be as sweaty as the Killer means the Killer is always going to come out on top in normal cases. Since 4-SWF is only ~5% of matches, that makes the chances all the lower.I the 5% is actually deceptively higher than it is.
Most SWFs are groups of friends playing together. They are likely going to have difference in ability within the game, even if they've been pulled up to high MMR. They're playing together because they're friends.
A comp team has things like tryouts and tries to assemble the best 4 person (sometimes 5 person) team possible. Players are evaluated on their ability, not because of a prior social connection.
The chance of hitting a team like that in pub is vanishingly small. Not only are there not that many of them in the world, most of them practice just playing other comp teams. This is also why, while I think stricter matchmaking would be nice, I doubt it would solve the problem as there just aren't that many top teams to match against the players going all out on killer.
Yeah, that's why I often try to make the distinction between the basic idea of a 4-SWF, and a clock-SWF. Heck, a clock-duo is going to make you lose more often as Killer than the average 4-SWF.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3807023#Comment_3807023
I'm not entirely convinced the dead survivor bug was actually a bug. My guess is some test build code accidentally got merged to the production branch.
I partially agree, but remember, it wasn't specifically tied to Survivor death, but the Survivor leaving the lobby entirely (so you couldn't spectate). IMO if it was implemented in some way, it should be tied to death, not lobby existence. New players who get tunneled leave, since they have 0 reason to stick around. They also often falsely think the Killer is just a cheater since their perks are hidden. If they don't reveal the perks on death, then they should encourage sticking around so that Survivors don't mistake this unexplained mechanic of only revealing perks once the match is 100% over.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3806367#Comment_3806367
Even 100 is crazy in a 1on1 game, but it obviously depends on the matchmaking. In DbD, you have multiple killer streaks in the thousands. DbD both has way too lax matchmaking and is a 4v1 format that inherently favours the killer on the randomness of that matchmaking as they will only vanishingly rarely meet 4 different players each of which can match their build, skill, sweat, strats, etc. - and even if they would I'm convinced that in many of the constellations (killer, map, map generation, loadouts) the survivors are still at a notable disadvantage if they aren't coordinated, i. e. a 4-player SWF team on voice comms.
I think a killer-leaning balancing for the live matchmaking environment (be it based on killrate or winrate) is appropriate, the game generally feeling like an uphill battle for survivors fits for the type of playing experience being offered. Full SWFs performing equally as well on average as killers is also appropriate. But first we need a stricter matchmaking.
There is still a decent amount of balancing between killers to be done too, and there can also be balancing between full teams and solo/duo/trio groups. Although personally I would much rather they go the route of nerfing SWF (and accordingly nerfing overperforming killers) than buffing solo. While I agree that seeing other survivors' builds is sort of a no-brainer (certainly for BHVR who have claimed to want to bridge the info gap between solo and SWF), personally I don't want solo to become all too SWF-like. The chaos and lack of knowledge are part of the appeal and make solo something very distinct from SWF, and a unique challenge (including figuring out and playing around what perks fellow survivors are or could be using). It's much closer to that horror survival-type gameplay DbD is originally marketed as, because you find yourself in the dark with strangers and any coordination and teamwork has to happen organically.
That said, I do think solo has become bad enough to warrant some improvements. Showing builds to each other could certainly be one of them, not least because there are many perks now the value of which really depends on others playing around them. Another has always been to nerf camping and tunnelling, the generally strongest strategies that uncoordinated groups suffer against disproportionally (not only because it is difficult/impossible to effectively deal with them without coordination, but also because they exacerbate the issue that weak links pose for random groups, as ending up in a 3v1 too early on regularly spells defeat even if the 3 remaining survivors are as good as or even better than the killer). One no-brainer step to nerf camping would be to show the self-unhook meter to all survivors. It also shouldn't pause if another survivor is slugged around the hook. They could even implement status icons that show if a survivor is within 24m of a hooked survivor. For tunnelling, one really easy and good change would be to turn unhook Endurance into unhook invincibility, such that getting hit during this 10-second window does not put the survivor into the Deep Wound state. This would make tunnelling less attractive as the risk of having to deal with OTR, DH, Second Wind, Styptics, Syringes and so on is much increased, and you also can't two-tap the survivor through unhook Endurance anymore like you currently can on some killers. A more direct way to help with tunnelling could be to show the aura of the most-recently unhooked survivor to all others until they are healthy, enabling others to help and preventing them from accidentally leading the killer to them.
Yeah, needing all 4 Survivors to be as sweaty as the Killer means the Killer is always going to come out on top in normal cases. Since 4-SWF is only ~5% of matches, that makes the chances all the lower.
I'm not fully sold on stricter matchmaking. I think maybe looser matchmaking is better. During the climb of MMR, seen in the 'all MMR' stats, everything larger plays out as we'd hope. I think this is because we get more 1-sided stomps, so Survivor is actually getting more chances to win. When it is stricter, everyone is sweating for just one more kill/escape. The only 'evidence' I have for my opinion here is old Emblem based matchmaking. I personally preferred that, and it also encouraged everyone to 'play the game' in every facet. It was much more loose, because sometimes Iri matchmaking was against Purples (we'll just assume a free win), sometimes Iri was against fellow Iri's, but they were goofing off, and sometimes Iri was against fellow Iri's calling clocks.
I disagree on the directional balance shift for SWF/soloq, but agree on adjusting Killers on the extremes. I wouldn't go as far as to add voice comms in-game, but I do think info should be freely shared and Blindness buffed to cover up the Survivor HUD as well as auras (other than Health states and Hook states always being visible). I hate the Chaos, because it almost always means something bad. For Killer balance, I think we currently have S→D tier, and basically the top 5 are S and the bottom 5 are D. I would love to see no S or D tier, having the range be from A to C instead (if we use current power levels). Just occasionally buff the bottom 5 a tier or two, and nerf the top 5 a tier or two. This may just be me, but Horror can never exist with multiplayer. Even playing RE:Revelations 2 in co-op, all illusions of fear are shattered when you have a buddy by your side, or an opponent calling you slurs lol.
I know this might be utterly crazy, but that dead Survivor bug that caused multiple gens to pop might not be bad to basekit in some fashion. I would say if the Survivor died at 6 hooks or fewer, then their death causes gens to count as an extra one. I normally play to 2-hook everyone before killing them, so even if at least 1 rat hides, the death hook for the other 3 are at hook 7. This would naturally punish tunneling early, and if someone is tunneled late, it was largely because they ratted earlier in the match.
I do agree with the invulnerability alternative post-hook, as long as there is no collision off-hook (to prevent intentionally bodyblocking, either Killer to basement, or Survivor to protect fellow Survs).
-
@DarKStaR350z said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3806367#Comment_3806367
I can’t see any reason why survivors can’t see each other’s perks at the start of the match in the lobby, aside from lobby dodging maybe.
It really seems like a small change that would make a huge difference for solo survivor QoL by giving them information that SWF already have.
There really doesn’t seem to be any downside to adding this during the match as you suggest.Like you said, No Mither/Invocation Lobby Dodging if you tell people too early. That's why I understand the loading screen at the earliest is probably the best place. The pause menu in-game should have their perks next to their offerings.
-
@ChaosWam said:
The servers don't prioritize killers, not as often as you'd think.
Plenty of times I've had M1's robbed by autoaim, hitting a window as the survivor is less than halfway vaulting it, and hearing a hit at a pallet, getting stunned, yet the survivor took no damage. It does go both ways, and that's a symptom of online games.I get plenty of fake hits through pallets. The servers are so bad (at giving Killer priority), I know I'm better off swinging into most pallets, on the off chance they get lag hit. Heck, even when I get autoaimed, I statistically already got at least 2 fake pallet/window hits already. I'm not even VPNing or doing anything to artificially increase my lag, and the servers favor laggier Killers. Where I play, I get people frequently VPNing over an entire ocean, because they know the lagvantage is too great.
-
If you sweat to win, you will only win by sweating. If you play fun builds and lose, you will drop your MMR to 'fun perk and can still win' status. Sadly if you have already reached the topcap of MMR, that takes way more losses to drop MMR, so if you've already sweat too hard, you unknowingly created this problem for yourself.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3805922#Comment_3805922
Exactly, the randomness or "chaos" favours the killer in the matchmaked asymmetrical format in multiple ways, from the loadout stage, to their skill and sweat levels, the amount of impact their decisions have on a match, how well their gameplan translates into the match, and more, simply because the survivors are 4 random players without any coordination or cohesion, whereas the 1 player is obviously as cohesive a "unit" as it gets. I expanded on that concept in various posts, some of which in this thread: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/405382/new-stats-feb-15th-2024. Specifically:
Skill and sweat is much more impactful on the killer side. This is simply because on the survivor side you have 4 players, which have varying levels of skill and of trying to win, with weak links of subpar players that can doom an entire match even if the other 3 players are better than the killer player, and with people not playing in earnest (i. e. not trying to win, but to do funny or stupid things, or tome challenges, or at least not trying hard to win, or just playing for hatch). On the killer side, there is 1 player, their skill level therefore obviously determines 100% of their skill-based performance potential, their degree of "trying to win" 100% of how sweaty their side will be. Any survivor on the other hand can only determine 25% of their side's skill and sweat levels. There is the disparity in strategical game approach as well - again, with 4 players things can be very disconcerted and downright chaotic, whereas on the killer side, even if their approach to the game may not necessarily be good, at least their approach is as concerted as can be, the decisions they make translate into the game as well as the gameplay design allows for them to. The asymmetric nature of this game favours the killer player's skill, tryhardiness and decision-making to have a more notable impact on the outcome of matches. And this of course starts before the match has even begun, at the loadout screen (it is infinitely more common to have a killer that has the best thing equipped in every slot than an entire group of survivors doing the same, again simply because they are 4 players - when have you last seen even just 4 BNPs in a match?)
And:
Absolutely, and this is implicitly included in what I meant with the greater degree of disconcertedness among survivor groups as compared to the killer, for the simple and obvious reason that there will be much more randomness in the loadouts, mentalities, intentions, decisions, skills and so on of a random group of 4 players than in the 1 player. As long as the killer player doesn't have 4 personalities or is in 4 different minds about what and how to play, they will on average be about 4 times as concerted as the survivors, ha.
This sounds obvious at best and silly at worst, but to highlight in simple terms what this means using something you also brought up in the example of loadouts: just think of the fact that the killer's loadout consisting of the killer character, 4 perks, 2 add-ons, and an offering is the equivalent to the survivor group's loadout of 16 perks, 4 items, 8 add-ons and 4 offerings. How often will the killer player have a (more or less) perfectly concerted, synergistic loadout, where the character, perks, add-ons and offerings each and all make sense together, are well-rounded and can even serve very precise strategic intentions (e. g. Mirror Myers with a Lery's offering), and how often will the same be the case for the survivors' loadout? For killers, most matches. For survivors, outside of 4-player SWFs, basically never. As you said, some perks can be overrepresented, others underrepresented or not represented at all, all of which detrimentally so, there can be multiple conflicting offerings, and in any case, it will essentially never happen that all perks, items, add-ons and offerings will be perfectly synergistic and fine-tuned, let alone serving a preconceived strategy. In my SWFs we will sometimes use 4 luck offerings alongside 4 Up The Antes and 4 Slippery Meats. This allows us to unhook ourselves on the first hook every time. It's an incredibly strong loadout. How often do we think random groups have used this build in the history of this game, among billions of solo queue matches? 0 times, in all likeliness. Even having something like 4 BNPs in a solo group is vanishingly rare, and that despite the fact that everybody knows how good BNPs are, and they cost nothing to bring and are merely an add-on for an item. It's easy to understand from this that killer loadouts will most of the time be enormously more optimized than survivor loadouts, and from there the jump to understanding in what other ways killers benefit from their concerted approach, efforts and decisions as compared to the more disconcerted survivor groups is easier.
The consistency with which killers can win in DbD is unheard of in any comparably popular multiplayer PVP game, and being able to win thousands of times in a row flies in the face of anything that is a remotely competitively balanced game. It's simply insane and would be scandalous in most other games. Apart from the lax matchmaking, one of the major reasons for this absolutely is the asymmetrical, 1v4 format itself: the only constant in all of those matches is the 1 killer player; as survivor, unless you are playing in the same 4-SWF every single time, you can never have that consistency, in fact you will be a universe away from that consistency, every single match is a crapshoot.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3805933#Comment_3805933
I do think that contrary to common belief, the game is actually sort of well-balanced for the 4-player SWF team format, certainly well-balanced enough for the expression of that idea in the matchmaking gameplay reality where these SWFs aren't tournament-level teams (as the stats obviously also support). Of course, killers, maps and loadouts at play will always affect things greatly and there certainly are still things to be balanced out in those regards, but generally, through the skill range spectrum, the game is much closer to being competitively viable for the idea of a premade survivor team on comms than people assume. And average killer players on average having 2 survivors escape in those matches seems completely reasonable, unless of course they don't actually want a competitively well-balanced experience where their opponents can outplay and outperform them and instead want to win most of the time no matter what. And I do think a lot of players do adopt this mentality when they play killer, that they think they should be able to win every single match, and the game reinforces that idea because you actually can win most killer matches even if you aren't an outstanding player. Which leads to them then taking any loss (and especially if it's a decisive loss) as an affront and are quick to invoke game design as the reason for their loss, and this obviously is more likely to happen against the rare full SWF teams.
What people rarely consider when they think about "solo queue" and how bad it is, is that it is killer-favoured at a basic level. It's not merely that solo queue has people trolling, throwing, giving up, being bad, stupid, or whatnot, that causes it to be so rough, it's also simply that the game appears to be killer-favoured if the 4 survivor players are strangers with no cohesion, coordination and communication, knowledge about each other's builds and playstyles, gameplans, and so on. That is to say, even if every single one of those 4 players is equally as skilled and experienced as the killer player and trying equally as hard to win, from loadout to gameplan and gameplay, I'm still convinced that the killer has the base advantage in that scenario generally (again, it does depend on the killer, maps and specific loadouts at play too, but generally I guarantee this holds true). With most (around 80-90%) survivors being a mix of solo and duo players, average-and-above killer players are simply used to winning and being at an advantage, they are conditioned to expect to do well, and so whenever they don't they quickly feel like something is wrong with the game, that their opponents beat them "unfairly", and so on. The asymmetrical format also seems to make it really difficult for people to accept that skill and effort just like in other PVP games play a huge part in the outcome of matches, to conceive of the idea that a better player would have performed better in their stead, that the opponent can play better and outperform them. And that despite being a good player, not winning all the time is actually normal in balanced games because you are supposed to be facing other good players on an even playing field. That I can see really rather mediocrely skilled streamers lament day in and out, year after year, the oh-so survivor-sided terrible state of balance in this game despite winning some 80+% of their killer matches when literal world champion deities in other, much more competitive games such as Starcraft are barely hitting 70%, I feel like DbD is some insular kindergarten community where people expect things to go their way by design, and don't want to challenge themselves and others and work for their successes. I've been in a few competitive gaming communities, but this phenomenon is unique to DbD.
Yeah competitive 1on1 games shows how winstreaks really shouldn't happen in excess of 100 in a truly balanced game. As great as insert your favorite pro here is, they lost one of the tourney matches, even if they won the set.
Don't get me wrong, clock SWFs are a pain to deal with, but honestly they nearly never happen. They actually finish the game in ~4 minutes, so most of the complaints are about close 15-20 minute matches that the Killer lost due to a skill issue.
That's why I'm for balancing around a 60% winrate these days, rather than a 60% killrate. 60% killrate yields nearly 70% winrates, which is much too high. Like you said, 4-SWF at 48% escape is actually remotely fair for everyone playing.
One feature that really should be implemented, is Survivor loadouts visible to fellow Survivors during the match. Tap escape really quick and see the person has Unbreakable, so let them be slug camped. Hooked in basement? Check for Wicked or Deliv, and pump gens.
-
Just let slugged Survivors progress gens and exit gates, and have a 5s CD for slugs when they let go of an action. That way if the Killer has a grab denied into swing, they still have time to pick them up.
You could even lock this behind reaching 50% recovery progress first, that way we don't impact normal gameplay. However, if this is done, I'd recommend a 1% repair/gate open boost per second slugged, while also revealing the aura of Survivors at 50%+.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3793992#Comment_3793992
The crazy thing is that the below-50% escape rate for high-MMR full-SWF survivors excludes matches with disconnects and includes hatch escapes, so the number that would be more closely resembling the played reality is even lower. What additionally has to be considered is that for these stats, they look at the survivor players' MMR value, which means there are tons of matches in there where these high-MMR full-SWF survivors met non-high-MMR killers, because we all know the matchmaking isn't all that strict at all. And despite all of that, they still didn't get 2 out on average.
For the larger topic, well, it's an eternal "conflict" that will never be put to rest, it's the lifeblood of the forums and of the game in some respects. And these discussions are always tinged with a lot of anecdotes, emotions, personal opinions and experiences. With a lot of people I assume even unloading their frustrations from a match they had literally just gotten out of, their entire view blinded by that one experience and their emotions in that moment.
Most of the casual opinions that the game is totally survivor-sided are based on (or rather: uninformedly parroted from) a distant past when survivors legitimately had comically broken nonsense. Now mind you, killers also had hilariously broken stuff back then, but survivors had more, many of the killers we have now didn't exist and maps are a shadow of what they used to be for survivors. Thing is, even apart from the fact that all of that has changed drastically throughout the years of course, even back then competent killer players won more than they didn't, good killer players still basically always winning. For which there are various reasons. To begin with, the fact that survivors don't always use the strongest stuff, and in fact, it basically never happens that you actually get a group stacked with the strongest stuff times 4. When have you last seen even just 4 Syringes/Styptics or 4 BNPs in a match? And that's just add-ons, that everybody knows are the most impactful choices among them, and they don't even cost a perk slot. And yet you almost never see it. Killers using the strongest stuff in every slot however is much more common, because it is only 1 player having to make that decision. Next thing is that survivors are almost never full SWFs, let alone on voice comms. And believe it or not, the game is notably killer-favoured if the survivors have no communication and coordination, don't even know each other's builds and play patterns and such. And another major reason is the matchmaking that fails to give good players adequate opposition, let alone 4 adequate survivors. A good killer player will maybe face 1 adequate group of survivors every hundred matches? If that. Facing a really good 4-SWF on comms trying hard to win stacking the strongest stuff is a one-in-a-million occurrence.
The mythical "balance" of the game whatever it may be does not matter if you can win 99-100% of the matches that the game actually gives you, and it has been proven time and time again that you factually can (as killer anyway, or in a 4-player SWF on voice comms), with countless winstreaks of hundreds (and thousands) of matches in a row on just about any killer.
But yes, even the supposed base balance is a world removed from what people casually or ignorantly or deliberately falsely make it out to be. Killers win more in tournaments too, so the assumption that killers don't stand a chance if everybody is highly skilled and experienced is provably wrong, always has been. Of course tournaments employ perk and item/add-on restrictions, but they go for both roles and they also don't change the base game, so at most arguments would shift to say the game is loadout-sided, that it is only ever (potentially) survivor-sided if every survivor is using the strongest stuff in every slot. But not even that seems to hold true, given that in tournaments where everything was allowed, killers still outperformed survivors. Of course, there are different killers and some are clearly more lethal than others so balancing between those killers seems called-for, and there are things to be said about whether the game couldn't be balanced better for the idea of getting more hook stages rather than relying on camping and tunnelling to succeed. But all of that stops being relevant in public matches anyway, where we can see even perkless winstreaks on even the weakest of killers, even winstreaks where the players will actively refrain from camping and tunnelling.
The realization everyone should be glad to come away with if they look at the environment that actually matters for most of everyone (public matchmaking) is that high winrates and winstreaks prove that it is skill-sided, and as such, you can succeed (and even dominate) in the vast majority of your matches if you practice, improve and get good enough. Now, I suspect this precisely is a realization many are in denial of, because it means if they are struggling they would have to face the fact that they simply aren't good enough, that another player in their place would have done better, that it wasn't the game that made them lose, that they would have to put in more time, effort, work, thought. But for everyone that actually plays competitive multiplayer games to practice and improve their skills and for the competition, to put in that time, effort, work, thought, this realization should if anything be exhilarating, as few other multiplayer PVP games allow you to win as consistently and decisively as DbD does purely by leveraging one's skills. And this is all the more so true on the killer side, where your skill constitutes 100% of your side's skill and you aren't at the mercy of the matchmaking system, which more often than not throws together blatantly mismatched players. The skill-sidedness of DbD in its main mode (public matchmaking) favours killers, which is obvious both from global stats as well as from the way larger number of killer winstreaks, that have also achieved way higher records.
In fact, if I have a problem with the game in terms of its competitive viability, its "balance design" so to say, it's if anything that it's too easy to win as killer and in a full SWF team. I believe balance-wise the primary and major and for now really the only thing anybody that is even halfway decent at the game and not looking to constantly win more or less effortlessly (i. e. looking for an actual engaging and challenging multiplayer gaming experience) should be complaining about and annoyed by is the poor state of the matchmaking system, that allows one to win 80+% of the time handedly once above a certain skill/experience threshold, rarely getting a real challenge or competition, much of the time beating up on clearly subpar players. A higher MMR cap (or even its removal) and a more strict matchmaking algorithm are the first things people should be advocating for. If in that new environment actual balance grievances then arise, those can then be talked about. But until then, people bickering about the game's supposed balance when you have players out there winning 1000-2000 matches in a row is pretty asinine and futile and ridiculous. Even many of the players that constantly complain about how survivor-sided the game supposedly is win their killer matches most of the time, seemingly not wanting a challenge or engaging competitive gaming experience and to improve and grow as a player, but wanting to just win the remaining 5-10% of matches that they are currently not winning too.
This multiplayer stomp as Killer is so accurate. Back before engagement based matchmaking styled MMR was frequently used by every game, you could play social slayer on Halo and stomp newbies. Most the times you would only do that if you were playing with weaker friends though. Now, since the game is leveraged for Killer to have a greater win chance, if you sweat and your opponents sweat, they needed to pre-sweat more than you, in order to have a chance of winning, to bypass the default 60-40 killrate odds stacked against them.
That's probably why so many main-brained Killer players complain so much about SWF, it is the only people who have a 'fair' chance against them with 48% escape rates. It is almost a coinflip where the side with more skill exclusively prevails. They queued up for their free win, they didn't want to have to actually try to earn their win.
The rest of this post perfectly describes nearly every facet, but I just wanted to add on to the old vs new multiplayer differences on top of that.
-
@bjorksnas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3805914#Comment_3805914
Well my thoughts on it 3~4? years ago was 100% cooldown reduction on an attack on a CD like 60s to get a "double lunge"
Then they released the twins and coup de grace
I don't think they want to try and make another double lunge perk since its basically the same thing
While I understand, I think it would be different enough. Plus if you were to combo it with Coup, it has negative synergy, since you have to sacrifice 2 tokens per attempt. Also Unrelenting is a general Killer perk right? I think that would be a strong enough lesser/alternate Coup before they get the arguable better version. A double immediate lunge would be a problem, so 75% would probably be enough to prevent that specific usage better served by Coup.
-
@AhoyWolf said:
…on windows at least, it never saved me once on windows, I might have already vaulted one but for some reason the hitbox lingers on the vault like if I did a Medium Vault, not sure if that's a bug or just a skill issue…
However, it works really well on pallets, not sure how different in terms of code pallets are to vault, but the faster vault speed actually helps on those unlike windows.
But that might be just me, do you also encounter this?
It converts a 0.5s Fast vault to 0.4166s, or a 0.9s Medium vault to 0.75. It basically just negates lag. The Fast vault negates ~83 ping, and the Medium vault negates ~150 ping. The funny thing is that lag negating perks like this, and Resilience, are actually better when they Killer is in the 200-300 ping range. Sub 100 is roughly normal range, 200-300 helps against bad server matchups, or VPNing Killers for lagvantage, and 1000+ ping is unplayable regardless.
-
@CrossTheSholf said:
So it cannot be weaponized by toxic survivors
Protection hits aren't in the control of the Survivor. I can hit the rescuer en-route to hook, then hit the unhooked Survivor during the final frames of unhook animation delay, and that counts as a protection hit, even though they couldn't even move yet before getting hit and Deep Wounded.
-
@bjorksnas said:
You could change it to ~66% and even a killer swinging 24/7 will only move at a cumulative 4.0m/s (myers at 4.2m/s)
Ehh I think it would be good to keep the net speed for a permanent buff under 4.0. If it reaches 4.0 or above, then you could perma lunge on CD and only lose distance rounding corners.
Alternatively I think a 75-90% reduction with a 15-30s CD would be interesting. You could whiff one big one, and recover ultra quickly into an actual hit. You could also greed swing into pallets, and would have enough distance to get the hit before they reach the pallet on the next rotation.
-
You can check the wiki for Emblems.
Bronze is 1 point, Silver 4, Gold 8, and Iridescent is 10.
You get points for certain actions/thresholds reached.
You get 2 points per kill (non-bleedout kill specifically). That gives 8 max, or Gold with a 4K.
You get 1 point for 9 hooks total (camped hook states or early kill hook state advancement doesn't count as a hook).
You get 1 point for hooking each Surv at least once.
All that put together means you need a non bleedout 4K, 9 hook actions, and each Survivor hooked at least once.
Some examples of what some people might think are Iri, but aren't, follow. Using a Mori on the final unhooked Surv with 9 hooks from the other 3 would yield 9 points, thus gold (missing each Surv hooked point). Letting one person go through Hatch while getting 11 hook actions would lose the 2 points from a 4th kill, and yield 8 total points for gold again. Getting 11 Hooks after bleeding out the 3rd Survivor and finding the 4th also yields 8 points and a gold (bleedout give 0 points).
All that being said, sometimes emblems do get bugged between patches. One patch the first hook didn't count, so to get the hook 9 times point, you actually needed 10 hooks, and to get the hook each Surv point, you needed to hook each Surv 2 times (or technically the first one needs to be hooked twice).
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3805156#Comment_3805156
You'd have to prove that they are showing special attention to any particular player in an attempt to ruin their day. A Killer downing survivors in general is not showing special attention to a survivor, and the matchmaker giving you that same killer is ALSO not the killer showing you special attention when they would've done that very thing had they been matched up with any other survivor team.
All you need is a "yes" to the question "did you bleed me out last match" for a guaranteed ban (and you can still send the report with legitimate cause regardless). That is enough evidence for targeting the same person repeatedly, and also a clear flaw with the rules as currently written. Intentional bleedouts 100% should be bannable, especially since hooks were made to respawn to prevent that exact condition (and yet it still happens at the same rate before and after). I would love the game rules to be fixed, to prevent cheesy technical bans, while also clearly stating intentional bleedouts are also illegal.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3805051#Comment_3805051
That's still not reportable. The Blight was downing the entire team, not any particular survivor. He's not going to be punished for being matched up with those survivors again.
It is if you are streaming, because then you can claim they are stream sniping. You can phrase endgame chat in such a way it appears that their response would self-report ("did you bleed me out last match" "yes"). They are breaking the intentions of the rules (Intentional Gameplay Abuse would 100% fit this conceptually), and you can twist them into self-reporting to intentionally breaking rules they were unaware of/not intentionally breaking (specific targeting).
That's the flaw of the current ruleset. People breaking the spirit of the law are let off scott free, and people breaking the letter of the law (intentionally or not) are equally guilty. You have to twist the rules to apply an inaccurate 'letter' ban for accurate 'spirit' scenarios. They technically are still breaking the letter of the law, so it is a valid ban, but you wouldn't jump through those hoops against a normally 'guilty' party.
-
Sadly it isn't. The only positive side is that if they (the exact same Killer,) do(es) it multiple times against you in a row, it can qualify as targeted repeatedly (see picture).
That is how bizarre the game rules are. You are actually better off being bledout twice in a row, because now you have a case for targeted 'harassment'.
-
@doobiedo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3802975#Comment_3802975
I guess considering all the trouble the game already has with matchmaking I cant imagine that adding a new system that makes it way more complicated wouldn't cause problems.
As I stated in a previous post, if queues take 1 minute, and you have 20% bans, the worst it would do to the average is bump it to 1m15s. If this prevents a DC/ragequit, this saves 5-10m of a wasted match, or 20-40 matches alone breaks even. Not to mention the psychological benefits of never facing 'this Killer breaks your brain and makes you hate life'.
-
60/40 is a good metric for Killer and Survivor, but the problem is killrate is targeted, not winrate. When you ignore draws, a 60/40 killrate yields a ~70/30 winrate (with Draws is 50K/28D/22S). 60/40 should be the targeted winrates, not killrates. As a quick guess, 55/45 killrates would yield closer to 60/40 winrates, so 55/45 killrates (or whatever the actual number is) should be the goal in the future.
-
@doobiedo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3802753#Comment_3802753
The thing is basekit bt was very simple to implement. A ban list would cause so many problems with the matchmaking and such. And thats not even getting into the psychological effects. For example, if almost everyone bans a speciific killer then the people who bought that killer will get angry they cannot play as them. And that is just one very small example of the chaos it could cause.
Nearly every hero/champion/legend game has a ban function; it isn't too complicated, nor would it destroy people's ability to play their favorite character. Plus optional features aren't even used more often than a coinflip (50%). That means even if hypothetically there was a 100% banrate Killer, it would be a 50% banrate in reality at the worst. Hypothetically, if a Killer is so awful that someone who normally wouldn't use an optional feature starts using it against this specific Killer, that is obvious they would have ragequit any match with the Killer either by DCing or Kobes with no intention of winning.
-
The way that 4 map offerings guarantees the map should be leveraged. First, they should combine all map offerings and the Sacrificial Ward offering into a single offering. This clogs the Bloodweb with far fewer map offerings first off. Secondly, 1 map offering should simply add an extra roll of that realm into the pool of maps, 2 should add 2, 3 with 3, and 4 guarantees the map.
The Sacrificial Ward against 1 map offering reverses it, so that Sacrificial Ward prevents that map from occurring. If there are multiple of the same offering, then Sac Ward negates 1 instead. If there are multiple different map offerings against a Sac Ward, it picks one at random to be reversed (or negated if it picks the 2 from a 2 and 1). If there are 4 of the same map, it guarantees the map, unless Sac Ward is also offered, then it simply counts as 3 offered (since Sac Ward negates 1 of them).
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3802503#Comment_3802503
They do have the highest survival rate of all the categories, but thats not enough?
Do you just want killer to be a laughing stock vs. swfs?
( only~5% of matches are 4xSWF in the first place )
Source? Because that is not my experience.
~60% Killer winrate at 52% killrate
I dont unerstand this, can you explain to me why 2 kills are not 2 wins?
If one team had 100% winrate, the game would die, VHS is a good example.
How do you prove your opponents are SWF? Do you assume "I lost, must be a SWF"? The evidence is quite revealing if you think it is so common. Unskilled Killers are the laughing stock of Survivors regardless, just as unskilled Survivors are the laughing stock of Killers. Anyways, here is the official DBD infographic for SWF sizes.
~55% Solo, ~30% duo, ~10% trio, ~5% full 4-SWF.
'Can you explain winrate vs killrate' - Sure, when either side gets 3 (or more) results for them, their side 'wins' the match itself. 3K+ is a Killer win. 3E+ is a Survivor win. 2K+2E is a draw for the match. When you do the math with sets of 5 matches (with 12 kills and 8 escapes for the 60% killrate), you get a bunch of permutations/match results. On average, you get 22% Survivor winrate, 28% Draw rate, and 50% Killer win rate. If you split the draws evenly (even though it probably would be 40%S 60%K), you get +14% for each, or 36% Surv winrate, and 64% Killer winrate (so even doing the math in favor of the Killer's side still shows too high of winrate). If you discard draws, and only count times where one side clearly won the match, you get ~31% Survivor winrate, ~69% Killer winrate.
That math however is built upon every possible permutation being the same likelihood. If you take the most common real match result, (IME) mostly 3Ks, then you get 20% Survivor winrate, and 80% Killer winrate (with 1 4E, then 4 3Ks in a set of 5 matches). You can also use the most uncommon result being the most common, or 2K+2E (IME). If you use that subset, you get 4 draws and 1 4K for 0% Survivor winrate, 80% draw rate, and 20% Killer winrate. That's why I use the middle number of all possible permutations but skipping draws, since they nearly never happen (at least in my matches on both sides).
Technically Hatch escapes count as a null match, and I did a little bit of match accounting for Hatch later in the linked thread or post. I don't think it is relevant though, because it the Killer winrate is still far too high in comparison, and I've already made my point.
If the game had 100% winrate the game would die - Exactly, that's why Killer's shouldn't have such padded winrates. When one side, Survivor or Killer, has too much of a chance to win, the other side has no reason to play. I either get frustrated while playing impossible Survivor, or get frustrated because I win too easily with 0 gen regression as Killer. At this point, I think the game should be balanced around a 60% Killer winrate (discarding draws), not a 60% killrate. That would mean the killrate should be anywhere from 51-59%, but I'm not sure exactly where. SWF killrates is still within this safe margin, and soloq isn't.
@doobiedo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3802503#Comment_3802503
This whole idea of having a "ban list" is just a fantasy. It could never actually work for obvious reasons.
Basekit BT was just a fantasy, but they slowly improve the game over time. Hopefully one day they make this improvement among many others.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3801753#Comment_3801753
I also have went against killers, especially ones who utilize Knock Out (I can recall a Skull Merchant game off the top of my head who used the perk). Like I mentioned prior, I wouldn't be opposed to a surrender feature if all four survivors were slugged on the ground. However, I disagree with the notion that because a tunneled survivor has been killed that we can implement a surrender button for the second survivor that's downed. You would be surprised on the levels that a survivor would surrender and this type of surrender, quite frankly, sounds like an easy way to avoid the DC penalty. Again, I reiterate it's fine to implement when the killer is causing a 4 man bleed-out slug, but there are always ways to come back as I've mentioned in my Artist game. Additionally, like I said - the Artist would not have needed to hook me in that situation. It gives more power to the killer to decide to leave survivors on the floor to force a survivor to surrender. We have people who literally load into a match and DC because it's a Skull Merchant... Giving survivors the option to simply tab out of a game because of their first down after a tunnel would result in people choosing to leave out of frustration and cause a bot to take their place as you put it. I don't want to play with bots just because the Claudette didn't want to wait on the ground for me to go pick her up, at that rate I'd rather just go SWF because at least the team would be competent enough to NOT surrender.
How is it considered griefing to cleanse the totems if there's basekit NOED and a potential synergy with Pentimento? Like you said - doing these totems would be a priority that survivors need to think about when loading into a match. Totems are considered an optional objective unless absolutely necessary to cleanse them, such as a Devour Hope or even Face The Darkness (if against an Onyro or Pig). Requiring solo-queue survivors to go hunt down that pesky basekit NOED is a waste of time and if you want NOED, run NOED — it's that simple. Like you mentioned, this compacted slowdown would equal up to a sixth gen and this is not even touching the surface of how absolutely broken this would be on killers for them to be given pity kills in order to secure some tangible kill that could compound into even more kills, especially against a less coordinated solo-queue team.
I can understand accessibility issues regarding Spirit, sure. But as I've mentioned, this would directly affect killer queue times. We already see that quite evidentally on the forums that people complain about killer queue times, yet you want to put in another feature that can quite drastically affect queue times and cause people to actively give up playing their main to play a less Meta driven killer that they've invested thousands of hours into playing. You mentioned earlier that these killers who have less playtime could reflect how broken these killers are, but I completely disagree and it's moreso the onus on the survivor to learn to adapt against the killer that they were matched with. Even when I have terrible games, I still look at these games as a learning experience and see the positives of what's happening in the game. I have never in my life of this game dced because of me spawning in and seeing a killer or actively chosen to kill myself on hook just because I was found first. I simply play out the game and if for some reason I get into a situation where there's three gens up and myself and a rando are the only people alive, I will actively give myself up and allow the random a hatch chance and go next unlike other survivors who feel obligated to pick and choose who they want to avoid.
I genuinely don't understand the problem with Nurse unless you're actively going against a full aura reading Nurse, lol. I've had my fair share of matches against a Nurse and it's quite simple, at least from my experience to learn counterplay and for a person to be like — nope, not going against that indicates a lack of wanting to learn how to play against her, rather than the killer itself. I've went against speedrunning Nurses, if I die, I die - I still learned valuable information from playing against a highly skilled Nurse.
If a Killer could have won by slugging, they would, and do it now. This wouldn't add a new avenue. Non-issue.
Soloq isn't required to cleanse any totems, because someone is dying anyways. Non-issue.
Killer queue times aren't meaningfully going to be affected. When you say this, it makes it sound like 1m queues will take 5m instead, but with some math and the ban limit I suggested, it would be 20% of Killers, so 1m/(1-0.2 for 0.8), and yield 1m queues being pushed to 1m15s for the worse average increase. Non-issue if it is only moving the needle by 15s. The only time this actually could be an issue is when the game is near dead, or on isolated servers, where only 20 people are playing at the same time (4 matches, 4 Killers, 16 Survivors). If one person really wants to play the 'Survivors would rather tear their eyes out than play against me' Killer, and it is currently banned by all 16 Survivor players (because the Killer is such a bad experience that even the 50% who normally don't use optional features end up banning that specific Killer), then yeah they probably shouldn't get a match, or Survivors get an option to play against a banned Killer for 100% BP incentive. If the Killer player played any of the incentive'd Killers, then they know they can get a match though.
Personal preference. I don't understand people who like strawberry ice cream over say cookie dough/cookies and cream. I like going against Ghosty and Legion, but people seem to hate being instadowned (because they weren't paying attention) or Mending (which you only need to do after 15/20s to ensure no chain stabs). To each their own.
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3801653#Comment_3801653
We are talking about 1.7% difference in favor of the side that are dangerous killers chasing you, not a rival football team in high-school, so teams are not ment to be even. It should be scary
We are talking about aggregate, where people working together should be praised, not punished. We are also talking about High MMR having even higher kill rates than the normal population once you adjust for the frequency of SWFs in matches ( only~5% of matches are 4xSWF in the first place). We are also talking about a killrate, not a winrate, as a 60% killrate yields an average ~69K/~31S winrate once draws are thrown out. That still yields a ~60% Killer winrate at 52% killrate if they scale in a linear fashion with the 15% bonus win from kill rate established (although to be fair, it probably isn't linear, and likely is quadratic IIRC the correct term).
Also it could still be scary with 100% escape rates if done right. Look at how many people play single-player horror games, and those are designed around a 100% 'win' rate.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3801657#Comment_3801657
What horrible state is the game already in? I've been in a game where I was in a 2-3 minute chase with a Hillbilly where my teammates "gen-rushed" and I got hooked in the three gen as my teammates continued to crank out gens on the same side of the map. It's normal to have a couple gens pop during your first chase as survivors are strong as the game starts and their strength dissipates as the game continues forward as killer has LESS gens to monitor. In the same game of the Artist, the Sable died at 4 gens. She proceeded to kill herself on hook for absolutely no reason at all... I started my chase off where I popped the gen in front of the Artist's face injured while Sprint Bursting to a nearby jungle gym, while my teammates did two gens during my chase as a whole. If your changes were implemented, the Artist would dead ass keep me slugged and continually down me over and over again until I eventually bled out. 💀 Instead my chase, ALONG with my other teammates allowed 2 people to escape instead of the 4k that it could have been had my chase not have lasted that long. Killer would absolutely have zero incentive to pick up the second survivor they downed with your surrender ideas and instead buff killer as a whole.
Basekit NOED would be even worse as it would involve survivors (solo-queue as most people play this section of the game) having to generally waste time on dulls while strengthening the idea of a tunneled out survivor. Even if a survivor isn't tunneled out, imagine a killer bringing Hex: Pentimento??? That's 10 totems in general that a survivor would have to cleanse not only to avoid basekit NOED, 6+ gens, and Pentimento stacks. I hope you're prepared to see the death of Hex builds given that undoubtably Counterforce and Small Game would be perks that survivors run to combat this oppressive build that would ultimately result from your ideas.
I go against high tier killers, sure. You might consider me a sweaty survivor if you saw my chase gameplay, but my dedication to improve came from LEARNING counterplay to the killers that I go against. Each killer has similar counterplay to one another, so allowing survivors to outright ban killers like Nurse, Blight, and Hillbilly (all who have the same counterplay of simply breaking line of sight and not finding themselves zoned out) or banning Huntress, Trickster, and Deathslinger who share the same sentiment of crouching and avoiding being hit by their powers. If survivors cannot adapt to the killers that they face, their MMR will be adjusted accordingly just like my MMR is adjusted rightfully so as I typically can hold my own in a chase.
Your ideas would fundamentally and outright destroy Dead By Daylight in the simplest terms. Not only are you advocating for an easier way for survivors to give up (easier 4k), more gen regression when generators already have ten seconds more added to them, and outright gutting top tier killers because some people want to use this option to earn easier games — the removal of skill expression, people LEARNING, and making Dead By Daylight even more of a generator simulator for survivor as is.
I don't understand the first section. I currently do nothing and get bledout often by powertripping Killers, so that wouldn't be new, it is the current normal, hence my claim 'horrible state of the game'. I played a match with an AFK from the start, and the Killer bled all 3 playing Survivors out just because they could. A BMing Killer would have to hover over the body of your hypothetical, giving free gen progress. If the Killer is giving free gen progress, then the Survivor has no reason to surrender. Even then, the surrender would turn the Survivor into a bot, and simply not yield a DC penalty and give you earned BP up to that point. So the BMing Killer would still have to camp the slugged bot, it just wouldn't penalize someone for an ended match being drawn out artificially.
The Basekit NOED suggestion assumes players have a brain being used. To be fair, that is the greatest flaw about it. They wouldn't cleanse at 5 gens to prevent it, because of the high probability of Killers getting a kill regardless. Thus Penti wouldn't be a threat unless you had griefing teammates, and we already have griefing teammates single-handedly losing the game from their comical stupidity. It may add a new avenue for trolls, but not a greater chance of people being trolls IMO.
Yeah sure, people's MMR adjusts. But the thing is, if I have MMR from across all types of Killers, then Spirit is an instaloss for me due to my hearing damage, MMR isn't properly tracking placements. This would provide a soft mechanism to more accurately track Survivor's MMR against each Killer (by the ban list influencing their groupings), in addition to each player's unique Killer MMR. It would provide greater match quality over time. If I had bans, Nurse/Spirit/Plague/Oni would be my (near) permabans, and the others would be 'previous Killer' bans, or if I played against too many X Killer recently then I'd ban X with my remaining slots. That partly is my point, is that people have different preferences, and when their preferences are met more, they have a better time. It isn't high enough that someone can choose to say, only go against Stealth Killers with anti-stealth perks, or only go against Ranged Killers with map offerings against them, so they still are 'fed their vegetables' with the hypothetical 40 roster of 32 possible Killers and 8 banned ones.
An easier way for Survivors to give up isn't forcing more deaths, its allowing the human to escape 4 minute bleedouts. I gave multiple scenarios, and we could require 2/3 of those conditions to come true before allowing it (or come up with new ones), but for whatever reason you are falsely assuming only 1 condition could ever be used, without giving any thought to the other ones (or alternative ones). There isn't more gen regression, except totem slowdown when stomping a babyKiller (which would be the only time you would/should cleanse). It wouldn't gut the power of the highest strength Killers, as other games don't simply delete the banned characters, they adjust them to be fun if unfun, or fair if unfair. Plus if a Killer was gutted because of this, that is so obvious that they were a problem to begin with (given that they had a likely 95%+ ban rate across all groups), that the point against bans becomes nullified. Anyone playing a match against a would be 'gutted' Killer is being ragequit anyways. Plus, once again, half or more than half of players don't even use optional systems like a ban list. Skill expression isn't removed, learning is still required for 80% of the roster minimum, and nothing about this forces more gens.
-
@Predated said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3800803#Comment_3800803
Awakened Awareness wasnt nerfed for ages tho. And yeah, while Nurse is literally the 1 reason why perks are an issue, the problem isnt that those killers are the problem. Its that the perk is genuinely problematic. Because the killers the perk is problematic on, are also the killers you need to face swf with comms. Meaning that all other killers need a basekit buff, and giving all those killers a basekit buff, means that a lot more perks become problematic, and the problematic ones are in obvious need of a nerf.
Like, lets take Grim Embrace, an amazing tool for someone like Trapper, but its mostly used on a killer like Blight who doesnt need it in the first place.It was nerfed from the PTB to release from the sole cause of Nurse abusing it. So it was nerfed from its inception because it was such an obvious Nurse abuse case like Corrective Action potentially stacking (and to also work with Hyperfocus) in the proposed PTB if it is coded that way.
Killers don't need any high end Killer to face commed SWFs, they merely need enough skill piloting the Killer they pick. If I suck at Spirit because of my hearing damage, that isn't going to be the same free win that it is for most other players. At the same time I can maintain a 75%+ winrate with Ghosty and Myers and Trapper and Legion and Clown because I've played in that mudpit more than other players. I can leverage my skill and win even against SWFs on comms.
I wouldn't be opposed to gen perks being nerfed by 25-50% for Dash/top-tier Killers, however there is a different change I think would be more healthy for the game. I think a single gen perk being ran getting a 50% buff in effectiveness would be better for the game. So Grim Embrace would get its 10/40s timers buffed to 15/60s. Pop would be buffed back to 30% Current, and PR up to 30% Max, but only if those are the only gen perk ran. Some normal 'gen perks' like Call of Brine or Oppression might count as half a perk, so that way you could run CoB+Pop, and Pop would be the only perk to get the boost, but a 3rd gen perk (or 2nd half gen perk) like Oppression would negate the boost.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3800788#Comment_3800788
Yeah, I don't agree with the whole one survivor dead to allow a survivor to do the whole surrender mechanic. If anything, it would probably be best to do that in situations where a killer actively chooses to bleed out all survivors — this is what most people complain about and being left on the ground for four straight minutes. With your change, if a survivor dies early on due to a tunnel (common for my games), you'll have another survivor left on the ground as the killer knows of this strategy... This would allow again, unsavory tactics as now the person that's on the ground would feel the game is a complete loss and give up rather quickly. In my game against the Artist the other day (the one minute and 42 second chase I had) my Sable teammate proceeded to kill herself on hook. We had three gens left, my chase allowed two gens to pop causing one single gen left over. People will kobe regardless of the outcome and implementing a change that further gives the killer more power to do these tactics only rewards the killer more.
So, in your proposed NOED change — survivors would then have to go around cleansing dull totems to actively avoid it being procced? So, waste even more time to hunt down five totems to prevent a basekit NOED? You can further expand on the idea, but in my games -- I have more killers tunneling out my teammates at 4-5 gens than I have where a killer simply gets 0 kills at the end game. Rewarding killers simply for going to the end game with zero kills would be giving out pity kills, in my opinion. This situation is beyond niche and causing even more downtime where solo-queue survivors already have less downtime would shift the balance towards killer in the end game stage.
On the whole banning killers issue, banning based off a number that high would definitely impact killer queues. Even on the situation, players can actively avoid a Nurse, Blight, Hillbilly, or any killer that can potentially create a snowball. This only impacts the killer queue times for these specific characters that thrive on snowball potential and their high mobility. I don't think allowing survivors to handpick their opponents is the way to go and the survivor in question would never actively improve when going against the killers that they choose to ban.
The problem is we have to choose some scenario, or we get the current horrible state of the game. I think a kill is enough for the remaining Survivors to know if they want to continue the match or not. I mean, who is going to use this at 1 gen remaining? They would only use it at 5 gens remaining or similar 0-hope scenarios. Like your example, the game saboteurs will Kobe on hook in winnable games anyways, so what does it matter if they surrender as a bleedout after someone is already dead? At least waiting for someone to die (before allowing surrenders) is less abusable than the current climate.
The Survivors have the choice of pre-cleansing (aka effectively doing a 6th gen) if they are that far ahead. By that time, the Killer would have time to get enough hooks to feel like they actually played the game. Otherwise you can risk it assuming a random will die before (or to the NOED), in which case it is mostly a punishment for greed. I gave the basekit babyNOED as an example of a negative Killer extreme I also wish addressed, but most Survivor negative extremes are far more common and worse IMO. I think removing the anti-facecamp and anti-tunnel perks in endgame is also granting Killers free 'pity-kills' so I don't see anything different being introduced with a basekit babyNOED.
The sweatiest of Survivors want to face those Nurses and Blights though (to showcase their skill/game mastery), so I would see them more often banning simplistic or boring M1 Killers. Also, again, half the playerbase doesn't even use optional features, so the queue times would be minimally impacted. I feel the problem is largely self-correcting overall. If a Killer is literally banned by all skill levels and regions, then clearly the Killer itself is the problem with the game. Leaving it to fester and corrupt the player's enjoyment is far more detrimental for the game health than allowing people to become frustrated and sabotage matches or ragequit as a pure consequence of that Killer.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794307#Comment_3794307
48,30% is a lot, considering that it is killers chasing you, its not a rival football team in high-school, so teams are not ment to be even.
48.3% is a lot compared to 10%, it isn't a lot compared to losing 1/2 of all matches in comparison to 3/5ths of all matches.