pseudechis
pseudechis
About
- Username
- pseudechis
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Babz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3194811#Comment_3194811
Apologies if it came off like this - the reason I said the followers etc was to make it clear how much effort and time I had spent on things involving this game. I did also write this post when I was quite stressed and tired with the state of the game, perhaps why it comes off as 'melodramatic'.
I learned a long time ago never come to the forums if frustrated with a string of bad games. It just leads to a rant.
I’ve done it myself before.
But it’s it only a game in the end, the decision to stop playing really isn’t a major lifestyle choice.
Play something else for a bit and if they change dbd in a way you like then come back and play it some more. That’s all there is to it.
After thousands of hours in game it’s not really a revelation to think “hey I’m tired of this let’s try something else.”
-
@Veinslay said:
Maybe you should try playing killer and play in a survivor friendly way. You know, be the change you want to be
Stop right there buddy my fun is the responsibility of everyone else!
It’s one thing to say I’m not a fan of X I’m taking a break but an essay of melodrama phew.
Why do they always announce their hours played and/or followers as if it makes them important to the game?
It’s almost a weird type of quitters narcissism.
-
Probably no more than before, it’s typically the same people who hyper focus on this on the forums.
Also camping and tunnelling is the go to excuse for a huge number of streamers and general players when things don’t go their way.
It’s almost a cultural norm to blame it if you die in game as survivor.
If you broaden your definition enough anything in the game can be camping and tunnelling.
So I’d say no it’s probably no more prevalent than it always was.
-
It’s 4 mins.
I realise the instant gratification of smart devices and internet has all but obliterated people’s ability to wait for more than a nanosecond. But seriously sheesh.
-
@GrimoireWeiss said:
A single survivor progresses a gen 4 times faster than the killer can regress it. Just split your team so you aim for all 3 generators and it's a war of attrition the survivors eventually win.
Especially if the killer isn’t committing to hooking downed survivors as the OP stated, it’s attrition that favours the survivors in that scenario.
Providing they split up and pressure the gens separately.
-
@OpalescentHare said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3194638#Comment_3194638
Your money doesn't make sense when you read my post.
My problem isn't the tree gen. It is killers refusing to kill so that they can exclusively protect their three-gen. I want them to try and kill me, which is my point. I don't want to be in a hour long match or more with a killer who just hits survivors off the gens when we try doing them, let's us heal by not chasing, and going back to their gens.
I don't get why people think my issue is that I'm getting killed or with the 3 gen by itself. It's the problem of not having any way to progress the match
People have given you a way to progress the match, you gotta bait and focus on the gens separately.
You can distract the killer long enough that a gen will get completed.
Just don’t run straight out of the area when you get chased and you’ll be able to switch focus between distraction and gens.
It’s just takes some common sense and teamwork, that’s all.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191587#Comment_3191587
I want touch on your points of theme and the threat of elimination making the game interesting.
As a goal, that's absolutely true (I agree its something the game should shoot for). The problem is that DBD doesn't actually accomplish it that frequently and the kill rates are a bad indicator.
No horror movie would be interesting if at the 40 minutes mark all the heroes were dead. Horror grabs its excitement from the prospect that a character may or may not escape. Both have to remain true to keep the tension up. When a survivor is out before a gen is even done, a killer is just face camping a hook, or the survivors are just getting stomped, the mood isn't 'oh my god, we might get eliminated' like in a horror movie its 'yeah, this match is done'.
Part of the issue is that if this was mirroring the horror theme 4k and 4 escapes would both be rare events, with the middle being much more common. Except its usually 4k, 1k, or 0k. Now as a purely competitive game, having either side completely win or lose, with middling results being rare, is perfectly acceptable, but it doesn't actually match the theme.
You make a fair point.
I wouldn't want it to be a killer curb stomp every game either.
I also agree that overall kill rates are a rather poor statistic to base much on other than an interesting side note. Relative stats say more than blanket stats, but we don't really have those.
Even with this in mind, you'd probably still want to see a slight killer bias in outcome, as it demonstrates at least on a surface level that the games primary threat is real and has a tangible impact on games.
I'd say the sweet spot for DBD would be median range that lay within a 2K-2E to 3K-1E predicted outcome.
One death should be pretty typical, in fact almost expected, so the ever present threat of elimination is tangible but 1-2 escapes is not out of the realm of possibility, making escape a realistic outcome but also a high stakes reward that may pit the survivors against each other at some point too.
Like a real survival horror.
I guess the goal is to attenuate the snowball effect that happens, often very rapidly, when one side starts to overtake the other.
How they go about that... well I'm not sure, it all sounds good on paper but how to put it into practice??
Maybe progressive mechanics that change based on player objective i.e as gens get done killers gets stronger as the entity angers like a built in fire up, while as survivors die their team mates are emboldened to escape out of desperation, making faster gen repairs or maybe easier skill checks, shorter debuff durations etc. Maybe?
-
@TotemSeeker91 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3192361#Comment_3192361
Eh, when you're stuck in the grab from the locker exploit OP is talking about, it's very easy to hit flashy saves from what I've seen
Well yeah but that’s hardly comparable to regular flashy saves.
You’re stuck in animation and can’t move your head.
It’s basically an exploit of mechanics. Rather than savvy game play.
-
@HoodedWildKard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191101#Comment_3191101
Like I've said i dont expect to win every game, winning all the time is boring. But surviving a tiny percentage of my games is not a fun experience. Surviving less is fine, I'd be happy with a 30% survival rate, but my solo q survival rate is sub 10% and it's mostly 4ks.
I had what I guess could be a bad week as survivor, I don’t think I’ve escaped once but it’s been great.
The game have been thrilling most of the players pretty chill no matter what went down in game and I’ve enjoyed every minute of it.
You don’t have to want to win 100% of you games to value winning over playing.
Its nice to win but honestly it’s fun to play, winning is largely secondary whether it happens 1% of times or 100% of times.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3192389#Comment_3192389
They really were not. You could still get double BPs after tunneling out one person, which was a really bad design.
@Topic:
I hope they dont bring the extra BPs back. There is not really a reason to, the grind was reduced a lot. Arguing that you can now prestige until Level 100 is not really a good reason, nobody needs to do it, it is completely optional.
Bringing back double BPs to BBQ or WGLF would just make people run those Perks even if they dont really want to or need them, just because of the fear of missing out.
It wasn’t a solution to tunnelling it was an extra lil incentive to at least try for all 4 survivors.
You could still get your stacks whether you killed anyone or not.
-
Yeah I mean bbq stacks were a good incentive to go for the full four hooks.
Now the main incentive is to get those DH stacks for the Insta down and mori but totems often get cleansed so quickly that it doesn’t pay off as consistently as BBQ used to.
-
@Raccoon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191882#Comment_3191882
After reading the o/p I am getting 'distrobution' vibes on my end, coupled with some 'probably', 'likely', etc vibes while trying to make a direct statement/correlation based on personal assumptions.
🤣 .
-
@OrangeBear said:
survivor is just a lot rougher now. There's many situations where the game previously favoured the survivor but now it favours the killer. Like if you got downed in endgame after being unhooked. Before you would have DS so you would escape but now DS is disabled so you die. You have to endure more now.
Yeah but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The game was getting pretty bland steam rolling all but a few killers in the roster.
It feels like a bit of a reset and a refreshing change to have to flee from almost any killer not just the high tier ones.
-
@Marik1987 said:
Then do it.
Or you just do what I do: play the role you like in the moment you see the main menu.
Today, I played 1 killer (3K) and 11 survivor games (Escape-Rate: 34,88%) someday I play only killer etc.
Depends... and this is what makes the game fun for me.
You sir are a visionary.
All this “main” business usually just means biased player with in game tribalism issues.
I log in and I play the role I feel like in the moment. Keeps the game fresh.
-
It’s fun to play some perkless addonless killer.
Just base kit and that’s it makes for interesting games.
Also fun to do raw survivor, you’ve got your wits and wherever you can find in game to help. It’s great.
-
@TotemSeeker91 said:
Alright, who - outside of me - actually runs lightborn? And there's no "messing up the timing" it's SO EASY
Edit: I didn't see your last point, why wouldn't you camp with Leatherface when it's literally his strength, why go kill people when they come to you obliviously
I’m pretty lazy game wise and run lightborn a lot.
It’s not hard to avoid a flashy save but it’s easier to just ignore it outright.
-
@Cybil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3192335#Comment_3192335
I feel you with the hook smacking. I just think it's funny and sometimes in character. Unfortunately survivors tend to take it the wrong way. There is no room for killer to have fun sometimes.
Yeah I don’t expect other players to take it the way I do. Shame.
But I’d also hate to see the grittier thematic aspects of the game watered down simply because some players can’t leave their emotions at the door when playing and as a result always think the worst of their opponents.
Even obnoxious games can end with a GG and a laugh at the end.
I’m not the biggest fan of obnoxious play in general but it doesn’t make your opponent some terrible person out to ruin your fun. It’s just gameplay.
-
@JacobiusWick said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3192329#Comment_3192329
No. 400% wouldn't get me to touch solo q.
I don’t get why, the game is still fun to lay even solo. But each to their own.
-
There is no need to incentivise the majority role to play.
That’s not the point of the incentive.
-
Nobody considers a bit of bleed out or hitting on hook to be thematically appropriate?
Seriously bleed out has a 4 min timer it ends. That is the solution to being slugged indefinitely, any shorter of a timer would probably not be enough to keep you up if slugged continuously throughout the game.
As for hitting on hook it’s not like it makes your hook timer go down quicker or anything it’s akin to just camping.
People attach attach all these negative emotions to it but really it could be seen as thematic gameplay given the genre.
Obnoxious play exists on both sides and for the most part is just that obnoxious.
I can forgive a lot of obnoxious killer play because to torture your victim seems on par with the theme. Obnoxious survivor play feels a lil more out of place but if your goal is to taunt your opponent into chasing you it does work.
People are really sensitive about this game though which has always baffled me. Don’t project negative emotions onto your opponents simply because they engage in play that you don’t like.
Half the time if I give someone a couple of snacks on hook it’s to tip my hat to them for a good chase.
Don’t take it so personally and you’ll see your resilience to it increase in no time.
-
It emulates real life, your connection to others only goes so far when playing with strangers.
It goes further when playing with friends or family.
So it’s a team game in that it requires a team effort to orchestrate a group escape but at any point someone could switch up to self preservation over team preservation.
How likely someone is to do that, is usually based on familiarity with their team, just like a real life crisis situation.
It’s kinda cool in that sense.
-
Eh just kill everyone and move on.
-
Man people must be having a completely different solo queue experience to me.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191816#Comment_3191816
The only "articulate" reason you've given to why hatch breaks the game is this extreme case where survivors all play for the hatch and the game becomes some big standoff.
Again, a blatant lie. It would be convenient for your narrative if this were true, but it is not. Stop gaslighting me.
The irony here is out of this world.
The moment I provided you with an argument you didn't have an answer for you started acting self-righteous and lectured me about how "assuming is bad form," and that I shouldn't be drawing conclusions about Dwight's actions whilst you praised and supported said actions.
MEANWHILE, you drew your own conclusions about what happened in my game, how I felt about that game, what drove me to make the forum post in the first place, and why I want to see change. FURTHERMORE, you've made judgements about my character in a discussion regarding GAME DESIGN.
I have laid the facts down in front of you brick and mortar, yet still you choose to believe the fantasy in your own head, because the pill I fed you is too tough to swallow.
It's not that you can't be persuaded, it is that you refuse to even consider the possibility of having other opinions.
You've been close-minded through this entire discussion, and if you hadn't you would have pressed me on my critiques of the game as I brought them forth.
Instead of questioning the advantages & disadvantages of removing hatch, you questioned my motive for wanting to remove hatch.
Instead of questioning my experience with DBD, video games & design, you assumed all of my ideas were 'ragey and emotional.'
Instead of trying to form a cohesive understanding of my argument, you continued to boil it down to something it wasn't.
Instead of answering my questions when I pushed you on your reasoning, you sidestepped and deflected.
Don't waste your time responding to this, OR ANY, comment of mine until you've learned how to hold a discussion with someone of a differing opinion--I won't entertain you with a reply.
You must be confusing this thread with another you haven't really discussed advantages and disadvantages of the hatch here. With anyone in any real depth.
The most depth you've given is...
The point that having an alternate escape devalues the primary means of escape, ok sure whatever that means to you.
The other is that it creates a scenario where people play for the hatch screwing over their team. Outside of a rift challenge where you have to escape via the hatch there are probably very few people going into a game planning to hatch out from the get go. So its a pretty minor concern.
Lastly is a rather militant and literal interpretation of it what it means to be a team game. Which on the whole doesn't come off as very player friendly.
"I already established the fact that hatch is problematic" How?.. I don't see it. All you have is an opinion based on some very spurious ideas that don't really stack up, nothing about that is factual. Don't confuse your opinion with fact.
You've yet to provide any good answer to the question, get rid of the hatch why?
You also appear to be getting much more agitated. Which kinda plays into my are you sure this isn't just an emotional response rather than a rational one. Because your point seems kinda irrational. Based as it is on Dwight didn't contribute he shouldn't be allowed to escape.
-
nothing much changes in a meta set up.
Those that can adapt and make a new meta play as they always did and nothing much changes, those who relied on the meta to be viable drop down to where they belong, until someone else cooks up a new meta for them that's as easy to use and then they creep back.
Its why highly competitive games can be kinda stale.
DBD shines in the mid ranks as it always did, its just harder to know where you're at than it was before.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191531#Comment_3191531
And why shouldn’t they be allowed to well… feelings, it hurt your feelings that their selfish play got them out and not you.
This is so blatantly false.
I’ve articulated how and why hatch breaks the game.
My entire argument has been built upon the premise that survivors should succeed and fail as a team.
Edit: Drawing conclusions, and then cherry-picking facts to fit your narrative is not the proper way to formulate an opinion.
You need to test your conclusion against all available information.
You haven’t done that—you’re like a flat-earther.
The only "articulate" reason you've given to why hatch breaks the game is this extreme case where survivors all play for the hatch and the game becomes some big standoff. That's such a niche scenario that its probably why the devs are "indifferent to it" as you put it.
Survivors already do succeed and fail as a team, that has nothing to do with the hatch. Having a secondary avenue for escape when the team fails is a good thing.
I'm not cherry picking anything I've responded directly to your points I just think they are rather weak.
Even your original example of the kind of gameplay you are trying to stop has you making a bunch of assumptions about Dwight's gameplay and motivation.
My conclusion is you had a bad game, felt Dwight shouldn't have escaped, want changes that force players to play as a team or whatever you define as team play.
Your rationale for these changes is it ruins player experience when people play selfishly.
You say that it results in player animosity but the only one here displaying any animosity to their fellow players, is you. Maybe not direct animosity but its all very passive aggressive. Even the topic title is "riveting gameplay" a sarcastic passive aggressive dig at the game.
That is a conclusion weighed against all the points you have discussed in this thread with myself and others.
The earth isn't flat but if the evidence pointed to it being flat over the current evidence for it not (a physical impossibility by this point but lets pretend) then as a rational person I'd have to agree that the earth was flat, which it isn't.
If you offered any semblance of a rational mechanical reason to agree with you then I'd have to change my stance, you haven't though. You really haven't.
Your argument boils down to "waah its not fair we're supposed to be a team". While yeah you are and team work wins games, but I have the choice to abandon you if the situation calls for it and I'll take it if I have to. Which is fair.
-
@Wezil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191494#Comment_3191494
I don't know of any asymmetrical games where there are two different sets of human beings competing against each other that isn't fair and is successfully.
It's literally hardwired into peoples psychology that things should be fair. Every time you do something that is unfair, you are being negatively reinforced in your brain and when you do something that is fair, it's positively reinforced in your brain. Players who know that are being treated unfairly, aka the survivor-players, are getting hit with a negative association with the game every time they play it right now. This is literally how the human brain works.
Eventually those survivor-players will have enough negative reinforcement that they will quit, because the associate the game with negative feelings. It's basic Pavlovian response. It's why competitive games between 2 sets of humans don't work unless it's fair.
If you are interested, here's an article explaining how humans are hardwired for fairness...
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/are-humans-hardwired-for-fairness.html
The generalised points in the article aren’t that relevant here, because we are talking theme vs function. The psychology of fairness is a different discussion.
My point is that thematically dbd isn’t really meant to be fair. No one would watch a horror film if the monster was no threat to the characters. We have super hero films for that and they are bland as drywall from a story perspective.
While a 50/50 escape rate may seem fair it’s not that interesting of a game. DBD is pretty mechanically bland, the game play isn’t that engaging.
It’s the threat of elimination that makes it interesting. The greater that threat the more interesting the game.
Most games are stacked against the player and in the general sense the player here is the survivor role. But we need a monster to play against, they could have gone the GTFO route and made an AI, but direct competition is more visceral.
So we have a pvp experience where you can be the monster but it’s only really effective if the monster is a threat. So the monster should mechanically be the equivalent of 4x survivors.
Which will likely create a natural skew toward the killer in game outcome given a lot of interactions in game are 1v1 where survivors are kinda screwed.
So 50/50 being the goal of fairness in this scenario is a bit off. You’re probably looking more akin to 60/40 power of mechanics fixed, weighted against team coordination, highly variable.
That’s ok in an asymmetric setting where fairness is inevitably going to be skewed somewhat.
This is DBD not pong there a greater caveats to outcome beyond just the idea that everyone is on an equal playing field. Because they really aren’t and attempts to make them so water down the game experience thematically.
-
Camping and tunnelling aren’t really weapons to punish bad survivors they are just gameplay tools, same goes for the body blocks and saves again just gameplay tools to be used when needed.
It does kinda suck when people engage in really obnoxious play especially when they expect fair play in return.
If you’re gonna use every tool in your arsenal to deny an opponent’s objective then you can’t be upset when they do the same.
Players like this always make for bad games.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191016#Comment_3191016
It is astonishing that you haven’t moved an inch on this matter.
Pretty clear at this point that you drew your conclusions at the start of the conversation, and then formed all of your opinions to match that conclusion.
You’re bending over backwards to try and poke holes in my logic, but you can’t so you resort to calling me emotional.
EARLIER you made other irrelevant comments, to which I ignored, that tried to call my character and intelligence into question.
When your best argument is belittling the person you're debating, and trying to discredit them rather than disprove them, then you don’t have an argument at all.
What are you still doing here?
That’s how you make an argument. You formulate an opinion and then stack it up against reasonable facts.
I haven’t moved because you haven’t really provided any good rational to change my view.
Basically you want the hatch removed because it’s not fair that someone who may have contributed less to the team can get an escape.
Your example of this is a guy who clearly contributed to the team based on post game score but decided at some point his team wasn’t doing great and escaped out the hatch after hiding.
You want this removed over nothing more than a bunch of assumptions about how someone else played and being angry that it’s not fair to have an option for solo escape if the team is lost.
You go on to say that they made the right choice and you understand but then in the same sentence say they shouldn’t be allowed to do this.
And why shouldn’t they be allowed to well… feelings, it hurt your feelings that their selfish play got them out and not you.
They didn’t consider the negative impact their decision had on other team mates. Your words.
My take on this is that’s ridiculous. You are being ridiculous. I’m still here because I genuinely engaged trying to figure out where you were coming and it just kept getting more ridiculous.
So no my opinion on it hasn’t changed. You are making a bunch of assumptions about Dwight after being unhappy about the outcome of a game.
You did an ok job of framing that selfish play should get less rewards and I agree.
But the rest is so extreme I.e deleting hatch so no one can escape if the team fails, overall kill rates increasing leading to nothing but selfish solo play for hatch causing a terrible game experience for everyone. That’s just ridiculous.
Sometimes it’s fun to watch the ridiculous. But we are now going in circles so it’s come to a close.
Dwight made the right choice and you’ve completely failed to justify otherwise. I would have left you on hook too in that scenario and having the choice to do that is fine.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
I think the status effect should go away entirely or only prevent non-generator interactions. But it's a pretty unfun status effect as currently implemented
What about it is unfun?
There’s all kinds of effects on both sides that limit the ability to progress the objective.
It doesn’t stop you from evading the killer or escaping or hiding.
The more varied threats you have to face the more interesting the game is.
It would be interesting to see more ways to apply incapacitated but given it’s ability to stop progress on the survivor primary task (gens) it probably doesn’t need to be too prevalent in game.
Doc also applies a quasi form of incapacitated in tier3.
-
Why are competitive games expected to be a 50/50 win rate?
That’s often untrue of a lot of games especially asymmetric ones.
thematically you’d expect dbd to have a slight killer skew, the premise of the game is survivors try to flee from big monster in a nightmare realm.
That design requires an adequately threatening antagonist to be achieved.
Mechanically dbd is pretty bland it takes the threat of elimination to make the game interesting.
If the Killer was a really hard to beat AI people would relish the challenge but because it’s another player people can’t stand the thought of any imbalance that might make them lose.
Why because it’s not fair to lose to another player, but it’s not really meant to be fair in this case that’s the point.
It’s asymmetric survival horror this isn’t a setting where you’ll get 50/50 odds and that’s ok. Because it’s thematically appropriate for the game.
-
I don’t get all the hate for solo queue. Sure you survive less than in swf but that’s to be expected because an organised team will out for a pug group any day. The game itself is still fun.
Ask yourself do you value playing or value winning because one makes you enjoy playing games the other makes you hate playing games.
-
Yeah but your connection does...
should probably get that fixed before any more online gaming.
-
Kill rates are lumped together numbers that say very little at face value.
People read to much into them.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3190666#Comment_3190666
You are right. The former should know what they are signing up for, while the latter have not signed up for player abandonment.
I would consider player disconnection a risk we sign up for when playing online games, but we expect that risk to be relatively low--hence the recent outcry about it.
Either way, the behavior is symptomatic of problematic design, and it is the responsibility of the devs to address it.
BHVR should consider themselves fortunate that their players are making an effort to play the game, then quitting mid-match, instead of abandoning it all-together. People want to like the game, they're just struggling to, which is a much better problem to have than players deciding it's not worth their time.
Oh god don't go trying to romanticize the struggle of the poor DC'ers.
Yes any game comes with the potential for people breaking game rules and ruining it, DC, cheaters, abusive players. These things are not equivalent to basic in game mechanics.
I say again if you are regularly quitting over in game mechanics its a you problem, fix your attitude then play the game, it doesn't work the other way around.
No matter how fortunate BHVR feels to have these players trying their best to quit. 🤣
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3190626#Comment_3190626
Why are you misrepresenting my opinions in your response?
I already established the fact that hatch is problematic. You can't break down my argument by pointing to a mechanic that I don't believe should exist, and then try to frame me as a hypocrite whose argument is inconsistent.
I can't possibly agree with your premise of "there is nothing wrong with playing or the hatch" when I don't believe that hatch should exist in the first place!
Do I think Dwight made the right call, strategically? Yes. Do I think that strategy should be available to him? No.
Also, I said "we need them to increase OUR chance of survival." I said OUR, as in the team. Survivors should be playing a team game--everything they do should be to progress the objective of the team. Not everyone is going to survive, but everyone should be invested in one another's survival.
The stats that Peanits released today about kill rates is very concerning, given the strength of today's solo-escape builds.
The closer the kill rate gets to 75%, the less incentive survivors have to play for their team. If only one survivor is going to escape on average, than the optimal strategy for every survivor will be to run solo-escape builds and let their teammates die on first hook.
Does that sound like a version of DBD you want to be playing? Because it sounds very boring to me.
You stated that making team decisions is a strategy, I pointed out the making solo or selfish decisions is a strategy too.
Yeah its a team game and players are already forced to think as a team if they want a greater chance of success
The team as a whole is stronger than the sum of its parts, but parts will fail and when they do you may have to decide what's best for you rather than what's best for the team.
You agree that this is legitimate thinking yet somehow its still unacceptable?
Ugh those stats are pooled blanket numbers with very little context don't read to much into them.
Frankly I don't see a plague of people playing for the hatch because the kill rates go up, coordinated teams still have the best chance of escape, its only smart to play for the hatch when its already gone to pieces. Which it what ol Dwight way back at the beginning of this did and you accepted was the right move, but you don't like it because you feel it was unfair.
I'm sorry but you haven't made a very good argument, it stands purely on you feeling its unfun/unfair if someone doesn't contribute and because of that they shouldn't have the option to play that way, why? purely because you think its unfun.
So again I say 🤢🤮to that as a reason for changing game mechanics solely to serve your personal sense of fun.
If the idea of a solo player having license to make their own decisions about what to do in game and potentially be rewarded for them is to much for you then find a SWF to play with.
As I've said we've come full circle I haven't misrepresented anything you've said I've only responded directly with my opinions of what you've said. Usually responding directly.
Its very clear this isn't a rational argument to you its an emotional one because you don't like this part of the game and want it removed where I say this kind of variability makes games interesting fair or otherwise.
Learn to stop hyper focusing on your sense of fairness and just play the game. Sometimes its gonna be unfair and that's ok.
-
Sadly in a min max environment all you'd get is this survivor has the best whatever it is and every game would just be against 4x that one survivor.
Killers are the draw card of the game, survivor is a survival horror team game.
Its the same in all games like this try playing a random group in among us, you start with 15 and drop down to 8 when all the people who didn't get to be the monster quit at game start.
Friday the 13th used to have the same RNG killer assignment and the same thing would happen again.
Just be glad you can choose a role in DBD, queue times may suck but you get the game you are looking for.
-
Try not to get found first, it works really well.
-
@Jinxed said:
Well, setting aside any data, the game feels unbalanced and unfair right now for solo queue survivors. The stats are secondary to how the game actually feels to play.
I hate the way people blanket statement like this.
I'm a solo queue player and its really just fine.
And don't go by the forums, its a form of survivorship bias people are generally here to complain so you get more complaints.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3190215#Comment_3190215
I'm still not following your point, then. If you've moved away from the original discussion, and are just addressing the concept of "feeling like a victim" in-game, then I follow you.
But... It sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, the argument boils down to "it's not that serious."
This same logic could then also be applied to OP and those who share the sentiment about ragequitters.
All-in-all, I don't find it to be a very convincing argument, as it comes off as dismissive more than anything. Who are we to downplay the trials and tribulations other people? It doesn't matter if the struggles people have in DBD are insignificant to the struggles they will have in real life--the response we are seeing from players is matching the energy of the triggering event.
- A) It's not that serious that you're being tunneled.
- B) It's not that serious that your teammate disconnected because they were being tunneled.
Both parties, however, are unhappy. And for the sake of all parties involved, we should try to find a solution to this problem.
It just so happens that the solution to Party B's problem lies in solving Party A's problem.
Could BHVR solve Party B's problem by ostracizing Party A? Maybe. But why should they push out Party A when they are partially to blame for Party A's behavior? ESPECIALLY when keeping both parties happy is best for their bottom line.
Ah but that would mean that tunnelling was the equivalent of DC'ing. Which is BS.
Let me frame my point directly to what you just posted.
Being tunnelled is just gameplay within the defined rules of play, disconnecting is refusing to play.
These are two different things.
So tunnelling makes someone unhappy, but they sign up to the game with the understanding that its part of the game and may happen.
Unhappy person DC's because they are tunnelled, they encountered a valid game mechanic that they didn't like and rather than play it out they quit in a rage because they only want to play against mechanics they like.
Obnoxious gameplay can be played around and is part of the game like or hate it.
Rage quitting basically ends the game for all involved. It skews the survivors into a bad spot and if killers DC it just ends the game.
The rational for the DC is always the same "I don't like this type of play and I'm going to quit if it happens"
People dress it up as "its bullying, its unfair, its unfun" you know what it is... its rubbish is what it is. Its basically "I only want to play DBD my way!" and I'll quit if that doesn't happen.
There are solo player games for that, go play them and when ready to play like an adult the rage quitters can come back to the adult table and play.
When the trials and tribulations of a person equate to getting knocked out early of an elimination game, people should be welcome to dismiss them. If you can't dismiss your own loss in a game and move on to the next one then you shouldn't be playing, you are taking it too seriously and need to take a step back.
There's an old board game saying, if you rage over dice rolls you shouldn't play games with dice...
Well if you rage over elimination in an anything goes survival horror elimination game then you probably shouldn't play elimination games.
You may not find this a convincing argument and you are welcome to disagree, but its a far stronger point than, "Anything in game that makes people unhappy should be removed or changed" Well that only encompasses about 80-90% of gameplay.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3190187#Comment_3190187
No, that isn't my point.
It's not about altruism--not in the literal sense of the word.
These actions which the game labels as Altruism (healing, unhooking, protection hits, etc.) are not really altruistic actions. They can be, such as when you hook-trade with someone in EGC--that is a truly selfless act--but by-and-large these "altruistic" actions are nothing more than strategy.
We don't unhook other survivors because we're altruistic, we unhook other survivors because we need them to increase our chance of survival.
So the goal of saving others is predominately selfish and based on survival?
Meaning at some point if saving your team mate would result in both you and them dying then its not worth saving them and better to play for solo escape/hatch.
But playing for hatch should be punished because its selfish and reduces chances of the team escaping.. but so does unhooking in some circumstances... but you shouldn't play for hatch to escape its unfair.. but why play for a save if neither of you can escape... and round and round we go.
🤯
This is why what you are proposing is an inherently weak premise.
There is nothing wrong with playing for the hatch if the situation calls for it, that's another good strategy.
We've come full circle back to "it was the right play by Dwight"... you know the replies on the first page that you dismissed as off topic even when your counter point relies on the same argument i.e "altruistic" actions are nothing more than strategy". Selfish acts are also nothing more than strategy.
Rather than going around again, lets sum up...
Its not a great idea to punish the right play even if its not in the teams interest, all you can do is give greater rewards to players whom engage in team actions.
This they already do because team actions tend to garner the most BP's, pips and coordinated groups escape more often.
Someone playing selfish may escape when you don't and no matter how unfair you feel that is, its a possible game outcome and circumstance should dictate when to play "altruistically" and when to play "selfishly."
Making that choice can mean the difference between escaping and dying and that makes the game varied and exciting.
Hence what you are proposing, which is a "Dwight should be forced to try and save me rather than save himself" scenario, is just 🤮 from a gameplay perspective.
Dwight currently has the choice of whether to save you or not and the games circumstances will dictate which of those is the best choice to make just like a real survival horror.
I've saved the team plenty of times, I've saved my own butt plenty of times and both scenarios are valid.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3188149#Comment_3188149
It looks like the mods might find my parallel a bit too sensitive--potentially too confrontational--for the forums, so I won't belabor the topic.
I'll instead just point to ByeByeQ's latter comment, which I felt accurately clarified my message:
If I get unhooked (or worse, farmed) and the killer tunnels me hard off the hook and immediately hooks me again, I am definitely a victim. I certainly feel like a victim. I don't turn everyone else in the game into a victim should I choose to just let the Entity take me instead of struggling.
Plus it's a video game. No one is an actual victim here.
DBD is a great exercise in humility, but it can at times cross a line.
We're all here to have a good time. And as part of that, it is important that we're able to maintain agency--just like that Dwight you and I were talking about in another thread. Even in defeat, we as humans want to feel like we have control over the way we are defeated.
Unfortunately, there are times when we play this game that we encounter scenarios in which we feel completely helpless. The game can put us at such a disadvantage that we feel like a passenger watching our train run off the rails.
It's not really a matter of "taking the game too seriously."
It is the fact that we turn to this game to have a good time, and it hands us anything but that.
As I said in my previous comment, this game has redeeming qualities--it is filled with reasons why people don't outright abandon the game. But it has some wrinkles that need ironing out, and at the moment people are tired of seeing them.
You miss the point.
While the emotion attached to defeat comes from the same place it is in no way equivalent to genuine loss.
This is a game that emulates a slasher film scenario.
The survivors are already victims, they are victims before they get killed just by their very presence in the entity’s realm itself.
When you queue up to play survivor you are choosing to play victim with a chance to be hero.
A lot of players sign up as heroes and then complain they feel like victims.
If you feel victimised simply by the gameplay of DBD, then playing survivor in DBD may not be for you.
This rides the line between pvp and thematic game, if you want a balanced pvp experience where all is equal and everyone can be a hero then an asymmetric survival horror is probably not where you’ll get that experience.
Nor should it be.
On the topic of egregious parallels drawn from the real world, they don’t stack up because it is only a game.
It has a theme, that theme is confronting, the gameplay within that theme is confronting and if you can’t separate a fantasy game setting from real world pain… then a mature confronting game experience probably isn’t for you.
At least until you can make that separation.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3189760#Comment_3189760
No but you can't just auto kill people because they don't contribute.
Why not? Reap what you sow.
Mechanics like the hatch exists because previously...
I haven't played DBD since its release, but everything I find online suggests the hatch has always been in DBD. It wasn't designed with the intent of preventing standoffs until Patch 2.7.0 when they allowed killers to close the hatch and initiate EGC.
The hatch was made closeable because the game was seeing frequent standoffs in which the killer and survivor both stood over hatch waiting for the other to make a move, because at the time the killer could interupt and grab the survivor as they jumped in the hatch.
We are now entering a new version of that dilemma, in which multiple survivors can standoff against eachother AND the killer, prolonging the game so they can escape through hatch.
The common denominator here is hatch.
This is the extreme response I was talking about...
What about this response is extreme?
My entire argument here has been built upon observation and the conclusions I've drawn from those observations.
The only thing I feel right now is that you are very conservative, and my advocacy of radical design solutions makes you uncomfortable.
You don’t think it’s extreme to just have survivors die if they don’t live up to your standard of altruism?
-
It takes a lot of stalk to get to tier 3 tombstone.
if you are getting mori’ed early by tombstone then you’re whole team dropped the ball.
Tombstone piece could use a rework but full tombstone is fine.
You might see a few extra tombstone Myers when there is a “kill x survivors by your hand” task to do but otherwise it’s not that common.
Its also a lot of fun to play and play against.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187904#Comment_3187904
BP's pips and MMR are really the only 3 things that reward gameplay.
Do you mean to say that escaping (as survivor) and killing (as killer) are not rewards for good gameplay?
I think hatch is the wrong solution to the endgame problem.
I'm radical--I'd like to see other ideas explored, preferably ones that reinforce this idea that the survivors need eachother to survive.
I'm also practical--I think BHVR has invested too much time and money into the hatch to do away with it. So my best proposal atm for further change would be to institute a bloodpoint requirement to escape through hatch. "The entity wants to be pleased; it'll only let you out if you're deemed worthy of an escape."
No but you can't just auto kill people because they don't contribute.
Yes the survivor objective gets harder the less people contribute but that already lessens escapes for the team. So players have a choice when things go south to continue to be altruistic and help others or try and save them selves.
Just like a real survival horror experience. It may feel a lil unjust but its part of the game and makes it interesting and variable.
Mechanics like the hatch exists because previously you'd have long standoffs that dragged out forever, the hatch largely fixed that but really other than offering a limited but alternate means of escape (hatch) or just auto killing the last survivor there's not a lot of other mechanics that make sense.
Of those two options I'd prefer an alternate escape over just a you lost auto death move on to next game scenario.
The BP requirement is an interesting thought though but is it too punishing against new players, or even circumstances out of the survivors control. I got hooked and camped all game and can't even get a hatch escape because I don't have the BP's.
This is the extreme response I was talking about when I said take a step back and look at what you're asking, is it really rational or based on emotion because you feel the current system isn't fair.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3188168#Comment_3188168
Seriously crappy. Imagine playing your best and then as soon as two team mates are tunnelled to death, the game just ends. If something like that ever got implemented, I'd quit that day. I've been in matches where there's 2 of us left and one of us runs the killer for the entire time it takes the other to smash out the last couple gens. Sometimes it's enough, and sometimes it's not - but everyone went down fighting. This whole suggestion just feels like a way to punish the players who play correctly on behalf of the ones who don't.
It speaks volumes to the "have your cake and eat it to" entitled mentality of some players.
I only want to play the parts of the game I enjoy, anything else should auto end the game.
Why, because I don't like it which means nobody should like it. ugh.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3188168#Comment_3188168
Ok now be honest your the killer, the first 2 people you down kill themselves on hook 5 gens left, last 2 go stealth to play for hatch.
Would you really rather play out that match for 5 or 10 min, rather than just have it end get 15k bloodpoints and move on to the next one?
Persnally I'd rather not waste my time and move on to a new potentially better match.
How is playing the game a waste of time in this scenario? It just changes the playstyle.
A cat and mouse hunt for hiding survivors is just as valid a game as chasing active survivors.
As I said in my original post you are there to play the game, not just the bits that suit you.
I always love the "don't waste my time" argument... if your time is that valuable then stop playing games and get whatever important stuff you have to get done... done.
A game of DBD may involve some cat and mouse, it may make a game take extra time... if you don't have time to play then make time or don't play.
That's called responsible time management and it isn't BHVR's responsibility its yours.
-
no way.
Play it out to the end anything can happen.
You're there to play a full game of DBD not just the bits of the game that suit you.
So two people die and then the game ends for me anyway would be a really crappy outcome.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187915#Comment_3187915
Take a minute and think about it. It is worth your time.
Is there action hypocritical? Yeah, thats usually what happens when a victim creates victims of their own.
A school bully can be a victim. Perhaps they are a victim of their parents, but the kid their bullying doesn't see that. Doesn't make the bully any less of a victim.
You should listen to people's actions, not discredit them.
That's kind of a false equivalency though.
Nothing in a game of DBD is equal to real world bullying or even cyber bullying for that matter. If you truly think it is then you are taking this game way to seriously.
A bad game is just that a bad game, we all have them.
Some mechanics in this game are very zero sum, but zero sum mechanics have been around for a long time in a lot of games.
Two things tend to happen with zero sum mechanics..
- people play and work around them understanding they are part of the game, some more competitive players may try to exploit them but again its understood to be part of the game and you play around it.
- People take it personally, throw a tantrum and quit
Those that find themselves following the number 2 option more often should consider if DBD is the game for them.
Yes zero sum can be annoying and I find some things annoying from time to time but I sign up to play DBD accepting that they are part of the game.
Its a very adult and gritty theme that will involve some confronting gameplay and that's a good thing.
I'd hate to see it watered down because someone taking it to seriously is triggered by the gameplay, that would be bad.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3186604#Comment_3186604
Your game experience was negative because of a team mates in game choices. People shouldn't be rewarded if they make decisions that might impact the team negatively. Would you agree that this is a fair assessment of your point?
Yes, this is a fair assessment of my point.
Would you also agree that making a good choice for yourself can sometimes trump making a good choice for the team in terms of personal game experience and likelihood of escape?
Sometimes, yes. This frequently occurs in end-game when survivors do not have the resources to save someone on hook.
Scenarios where you take the selfish option should then be attenuated by lower BP's, MMR and pips. Making selfish actions less desirable over team oriented ones but still possible if the situation calls for it.
I would venture to say that lower bloodpoints is an insufficient punishment for poor performance. It is a superficial measurement of skill, and is not the main objective of the game.
If you cannot do what it takes to complete your objective, you have not earned the reward your objective is supposed to provide you.
I agree, but BP's pips and MMR are really the only 3 things that reward gameplay. (although some might argue that going up in MMR isn't a reward).
We can say delete the hatch but it exists to remove the endgame standoff that would happen when there was one survivor left. It gives an avenue for escape even when down to 1v1. So you can play for the hatch if you want and it does work to the survivor advantage to have it creating an avenue of escape if last one alive.
How exactly can the game punish people for playing for the hatch and not progressing the main objective outside of the 3 variables they have to reward people BP's, pips and MMR.
Hatch doesn't give MMR, I'd also say it shouldn't give as many escape BP's or emblem points as getting out through the gate. However if people play for the hatch as last survivor and get out then they should get something for it just not as much.