pseudechis
pseudechis
About
- Username
- pseudechis
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634171#Comment_3634171
As harsh as it sounds, no game tutorial can fix someone’s perpetual self deprecating victimhood. That needs to be fixed outside of the game.You're making so many massive assumptions about people. In your first post you say:
I guess adversity, even minor adversity, really does reveal someone's true character."You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting".The idea that a video game is revealing people's character is absurd. DbD is a stressful game, more so because of the lack of a tutorial.
Now there is nothing wrong with enjoying a game because it is stressful, its one of the things I find appealing about the game. But there is nothing good about it either. It's just an entertainment choice, not a revealer of character.
All that happened is some new players lost at a game that's it.
To come back and say people having adversity in their lives shouldn't have to face it in a game is just grossly melodramatic. I tell you the overreaction of this community to game mechanics is far more off putting than any game mechanics could possibly be.
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634171#Comment_3634171
Holy lack of empathy.
Might be news to you, but people PLAY GAMES TO HAVE FUN!
There's no enjoyment in having a miserable experience whilst trying to learn a new game. There's no enjoyment in having agency removed.
If you can't see how that's massively unappealing to the average person, who likely already feels that way in their daily life, then open your eyes.
Its a game. Its not lacking empathy to understand that a game has no obligation to help someone with their personal problems.
What you are equating here to a miserable time is simply losing. If you can't have fun simply because you lose, then games in general aren't for you because guess what...
You are going to lose a lot.
Especially when starting out, but that's how we learn, or at least that's how those who improve and succeed learn.
I point this out and the counter point raised is "people have enough hardship in their lives so games shouldn't be hard." As if a game has an obligation to take your personal hardship into account. It doesn't... it really doesn't.
If life is so hard that even losing a game is too much to handle then that's not a game problem. The best thing to do there is stop playing games and make some changes to one's life so that games can be without personal hang ups ruining the fun.
You chime in to say I lack empathy for pointing this out, but the problem here is you're equating loss with misery.
The "average person" doesn't tend to equate loss with misery. In fact many people can play games without any sense of misery, loss or otherwise. These kind of players are the most fun to play with, be it computer games, boardgames or sports. The ones who can be cheerful even if its not going well, rather than those who are just miserable because its hard. Because in the end its only a game.
Can the game be hard for new players, sure, but that doesn't make it miserable. Its only miserable for those who get miserable over loss.
One of the harshest truths in life is if you never lose you never learn. Furthermore being unable to learn from loss breeds perpetual losers.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634070#Comment_3634070
Many people have enough adversity in their life that they also don't need it in the form of video games. There's no pride to be found in what types of entertainment you find appealing.
Oh for crying out loud, if a game is triggering to real life issues then you need to deal with your real life issues and play the game afterwards.
As harsh as it sounds, no game tutorial can fix someone’s perpetual self deprecating victimhood. That needs to be fixed outside of the game.
-
@OwlWithMustache said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634065#Comment_3634065
Its just a good perk that works on a lot of killers. There's really not any reason other than a lack of things to complain about so sloppy is next I guess after not being a problem for 7 years. Not to mention it is the only good free perk that killers have
What's actually boring and gross is people complaining about things that aren't a problem and making people feel bad for using the tools the game gives them
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634065#Comment_3634065
Most players just don't like going against stacked regression perks, even if the perks themselves aren't overpowered or unhealthy for the game.
I guarantee that if there was a chance to return to a meta which lacked most regression perks, almost everyone would take it.
I get some players dislike things but that’s not the point.
The go to complaint is “it's boring.” So it either renders every aspect of the game mute so that you can’t engage in anything exciting or “it’s boring” has just become another mantra of the perpetual complainer.
-
Why is loss (even a crushing one) something to be avoided at all costs or so jarring as to ruin the experience?
I guess adversity, even minor adversity, really does reveal someone's true character.
"You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting".
-
What about those perks that make it so boring or snooze fest, aren't you still chasing and engaging in all the interactive play of any other game of DBD?
-
@C3Tooth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3631014#Comment_3631014
why some people play so competitively when all that awaits you in high MMR is misery.
To brag about it...
- Wait until you are high MMR
- Wait until you play against good players
- Looks like you never play at high MMR
The most funny part is all of them dont know where their MMR are.
That's where the comedy sits.
"I have no idea what my MMR is but I've reached a point where games are hard and I keep getting beaten so I must be at high MMR, wow high MMR sucks"
Guess no one is willing to admit they hit their ceiling in mid MMR or even low MMR and are getting creamed by the average player.
"Are you at high MMR?"... "I don't know but my ego is" 🎉
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633426#Comment_3633426
Oh I don't think the elimination aspect is similar at all, but the nomenclature is correct. Trying to ascribe it specifically to only include survivors is colloquial usage at best. I also don't think killers are trying to dehumanize the impact tunneling has on a player when they use it, they're simply using it to state "my opponent is putting their objective before anything else" which is accurate in terms of its usage.
Again totally agree.
Just differentiating here between focusing on objective for killer vs survivor. The topic being "why are killers punished for trying to eliminate players quickly but survivors aren't punished for trying to finish gens quickly".
The simple answer is killers aren't. A player can "tunnel" another player out to their heart's content, in fact it often pays to do so.
Choosing not to because it may hurt the feelings of another player, whom doesn't understand that early elimination is a thing and they should do their best to avoid it, is just gimping oneself.
Sure there are some built in abilities now that make eliminating someone early a lil more difficult but they aren't game breaking and are designed purely to maximize a survivor's game potential even if targeted while still offering the killer choice on whom to eliminate. (I personally don't think base kit abilities are the answer and are kind of a lazy band aid but that's a different topic).
The day killers lose power to choose whom to eliminate is the day we can say they are punishing players for trying to complete their objective. That creates a scenario where survivors post hook are completely safe, which is bad because it eliminates threat from the killer rendering the game mute.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633376#Comment_3633376
"Tunneling" is derived from "tunnel vision," which has no differentiation regarding the sentience of the target.
Its literally just a term to mean "focusing on one thing and ignoring others." The pvp/pve difference in usage doesn't automatically make it a misnomer.
You are absolutely right, but the semantics of definitions and word use aside. Losing a gen or 2 in game is really not the equivalent of being eliminated.
Given the tendency for people to make simple equivalencies, generally without much thought involved, means using the term "gen tunneling" does kind of imply an equivalency to what players define as "tunneling" aka being chased again off hook. (I've used this term myself when it felt appropriate but in the context of this thread it seems off).
Frankly I think, like most "internet speak", "tunneling" is just ridiculous jargon and by giving the gameplay of being chased and hooked again a label, it simply created a generalized excuse that can be thrown around anytime anyone gets eliminated for any reason.
Failed to escape and died in game... well you must have been tunneled.
Its overuse as a negative trope in a series of subjective and ill defined circumstances results in it being almost as meaningless as the word toxic these days.
-
My dislike for a particular killer is typically universal. I don't play them and I don't like facing them. The list is small though.
There are killers that I don't play well but still really enjoy facing, not so much dislike them just wish I was better at them but am generally to apathetic to put the time in.
Nurse is a good example, I'm not as good with her as I'd like to be, but I really enjoy facing her.
Although with all that said maybe blight fits the bill. - I don't really play him because I find the "ping pong" (or should it be pin ball?) bouncing off walls kinda silly. But he is a threatening killer in the right hands and that makes him fun to play against.
Maybe Wesker to a similar degree, he was a good antagonist in the 1st RE but has gotten progressively more ridiculous as time goes by in the RE series, making him not really my fav killer in DBD but still pretty fun to face given his high threat potential.
-
@ratcoffee said:
i'm sorry i can't take any complaint about "gen tunneling" seriously. sure the most efficient survivor teams that spend every second on generators can be overwhelming but saying tunneling for that instead of "gen rushing" just feels like trying to create an equivalence between a killer making sure one player doesn't get to play the game and... survivors making sure a generator doesn't get to play the game?
Yeah the term "gen tunneling" is silly and there is no real equivalency between a gen being complete and a survivor being eliminated in terms of game outcome for a player. Losing a gen or two is not the same as being eliminated.
But the idea that being eliminated means you "don't get to play the game" has to change. Elimination is part of the game it may come early or it may come late but its part of the game.
Accepting that you may be eliminated early is a big part of DBD because the threat of elimination, especially early elimination, is what you are fleeing from. Its the whole point of playing survivor.
While giving people tools to better counter early elimination in its most egregious forms (face camping at game start, chasing the same survivor off hook) isn't a bad idea no matter how much people want to sell it as punishing killers for doing their objective. Under no circumstances should they remove the threat of early elimination from DBD.
Being eliminated early doesn't mean you "didn't get to play" it means you failed to evade/escape the killer and got the game you deserved as a result.
That intrinsic threat is one of the best parts of DBD and it will slip into eternal blandness the moment its no longer a reality of playing DBD.
-
Design is great, 3rd person view is unique and fresh, his size makes him tricky to spot and fun to play against. Hearing his footsteps but not seeing him is really unnerving its great.
Can't speak to much for his addons haven't really played them all, most are ok middle of the road.
As for his power, with his turns reduced he's in a good spot. Forces pallet drops not just pallet camping, can be juked and out-run. Still in a very strong position though.
The fact that players are asking for stuff that was changed back and others are complaining he's OP probably means you hit the sweet spot design wise and he shouldn't really change.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625003#Comment_3625003
Even in this situation...the bots exist to improve the player experience, not to escape.
It's neither here nor there what is the likely outcome, because the bots only care about their objective--which is to help real people enjoy the game. Better we debate HOW the bots are improving the player experience than whether or not they even are.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3624535#Comment_3624535
I take it you're leaving a bread crumb trail for Skynet to find once Judgement Day comes?
Yeah but the scenario they are meant to counter is someone quits and leaves the team short handed, here is an automaton to contribute to the objective in their place.
With that in mind, expecting the bot to simply do the objective is not a stretch.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625194#Comment_3625194
From my understanding of the lore, killers do not suffer unless they are unwilling to participate in the trials.
However, survivors are constantly tortured to death over and over again. Yes, they have an overall increased resistance to pain but every injury on a trial would still hurt and it would hurt a lot.
I sure wouldn't choose the option of endless torture.
True but you can't tell me the the Doctor's head doesn't just hurt on an ongoing basis or the chunks of metal through Trappers skin.
-
@GeneralV said:
I'm surprised everyone here came up with survivor perks. Because being a survivor means you have to endure an insane amount of pain every single trial (seriously, can you imagine how much it would hurt to be hooked? Chainsawed?).
I wouldn't want to go through that.
This poll had an interesting discussion about this topic:
You raise a very good point the OP doesn't state you wake up as a survivor.
But the question says "you" wake up in the entity's' realm, people tend to identify with the protagonist role moreso than the antagonist role thus come at the question from a survival perspective rather than a killer one.
It does speak to the general concept of humanity. Deep down the majority adhere to a general moral concept of good and a desire to be the hero of our own story rather than the villain.
An interesting thought that has me disappointed now that I never considered waking up as the killer lol, does that make me a decent person... dang it.
I don't know if the pain endurance is that different between the two though as most of the killer roster are a collection of mutilated and tortured souls.
-
Nurse
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623800#Comment_3623800
We can't be sure, but I definitely wouldn't bet against you on that LOL
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623648#Comment_3623648
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623650#Comment_3623650
I understand this perspective from a pseudo-realism approach to the game, but my experience has been that most players don't instantly leave. Insta-leaving is real in the sense of, "thats what I would do if I was in that situation in real life," but not an actual reflection of player behavior.
Additionally, from a game health POV, I struggle to see how this helps the game. These bots aren't paying customers, they don't need to be rewarded with an escape so that they keep playing the game.
From a purely game development stand-point, it seems like this programmed behavior only hurts player experience on behalf of "realism." We can appreciate their self-preservationism, sure... but we also know they're not cognitive beings, and therefore are incapable of appreciating their own freedom. If someone has to die in the end, it may as well be them.
Imagine the flip side though only you and the bot alive and the bot is programmed to try and save you over focusing on the exits. Either way you probably die.
Program it to 99 exit gates maybe but that means you know it gonna come for the save so just wait it out. If it comes down to you and a bot left and you are on hook then your goose is probably cooked.
-
Tighten my laces - If within killer terror radius with another survivor press the active ability button to push them over causing prone state for 3/5/8 secs. "I don't need to outrun them... just you"
Abject coward - When crouching you become undetectable but can't move or perform any other action. "I'm gonna just hide here and cry"
Questionable Morals - If only 2 survivors remaining, you can murder a downed survivor to gain a speed boost for 8/10/12 sec. "If its between you and me, you better believe it ain't gonna be me!"
Tighten my laces and questionable morals synergize really well in endgame.
-
I like that the BOTs have an "every man for themselves" mentality when it comes to the very end. Kinda real in that sense, there are very few true heroes.
-
As a survivor, what do you consider a win in the below list:
- You get out of the match alive. - Personal Win, even if only me the "last girl" gets out.
- Your teammate gets out alive. - if 3 or more than a win its a team game after all
- your teammate gets out alive thanks to your sacrifice so he could escape. - A good outcome and satisfying death, but only a "win" if 3 or more got out
- you and everyone get out alive. - Definite win all round
As a killer:
- You sacrifice all 4 survivors. - Win, nothing like a good massacre
- You sacrifice 3 of the 4 survivors.- Still a win Thematic "last girl" ending is good enough
- You sacrifice 2 of the 4 survivors. - Call it a draw
- You sacrifice 1 of the 4 survivors - Its a loss, but attenuated by the satisfaction of at least getting one kill. Sometimes you just go for the 1 kill, if on the back foot and gens are done then just pick someone and make sure they die. "Its not personal just business"
- 0 kills - definite loss. Take solace in the BP's earned and the number of hooks gained but the goal is to kill, lest the entity go hungry and bloodlusts go unfulfilled.
-
You had 10 games against 5 different killers and still didn't have fun. Maybe the problem isn't the killers you faced?
@TheSaltySaloon said:
Shortly after writing this I just got my 4th nurse game of the night! Me and the random Dwight I was playing with just gave up immediately.
I assume the Dwight also just had a long night of infinite nurses as well…
Why didn't you stop playing once you were already upset rather than ruin the experience for 3 other players by quitting?
Again none of this strikes me as a game problem.
-
@Chomperka said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3621986#Comment_3621986
And why do you think those survivors hiding? Hatch is a cause of hiding problem. There is NO reason for survivor to just stealth and not repairing anything if hatch removed.
Lol no reason?... sure there is. Krazzik pointed it out, below.
@Krazzik said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3622016#Comment_3622016
To be fair even without hatch, if there's only two survivors left and they know they can't fix the gens they'll just hide anyway. What else is there to do at that point?
Players will do just about anything to avoid being eliminated. I mean that's the game to avoid being eliminated.
So without hatch players tended to hide and with no avenue of escape beyond the gates, which can't be opened, then the last two survivors would hide until found or the killer got bored and DC'd. Hatch isn't the cause of this its the counter to it.
-
@Donkeybqlls said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3622008#Comment_3622008
If you'd introduce the nearby option, it'd be only fair to also introduce the possibility to hear survivors for the killer at the same range. But in that case you're giving away the position of hiding survivors, certainly if they have some background noise (such as the babymonitor which is active during most of my games playing white noise) :D
So nice theory but I don't see this working personaly
I think killer has enough power that they wouldn't need to overhear the survivors.
I'm not a proponent of built in voice chat anyway, I think chat tends to kill this game.
But if they do implement it some limitation would be good and the ability to mute others would be mandatory.
-
I was thinking about this the other day and in game voice chat would be cool but only if it worked when in earshot of each other.
Think about it, you could share information with a team mate but you'd have to be close enough to talk to them rather than just announcing over discord all the information other players need to coordinate.
So many things in game are hard countered simply by being on comms it almost ruins the fun for both sides.
Yeah the sad truth is relinquishing control over who has the ability to talk to you, coupled with the anonymity and the ability to engage in just plain disgusting behaviour anonymously. Means I often turn off most in game voice chat when playing in a PUG.
I like MWO's system where I can mute other players individually so that one guy who's screaming at everyone like an armchair general can just be silenced while still enabling me to hear the team.
I think built in chat would shine if it had an element of realism to it.
-
If players have a broad enough definition of camping and tunneling then you can see it everywhere no matter what mechanics get introduced.
I've hooked players at game start and only a second time at game end and still been accused of "tunneling". In many cases the terms have gone from being actual describable in game events to intangible concepts used to pad the ego against loss.
"We didn't lose, we got camped and tunneled, so I'm good and my opponent is bad and my being grumpy about that is justified" You see it in game, you see it post game, you see streamers do it all the time. Yes there is genuine camping and tunneling but you have plenty of tools to play around it.
As has been pointed out the "anti-camp" mechanic was simply to combat the most egregious type of face camping. It does this by offering the ability to escape without help and participate in more gameplay rather than just hang on hook for the whole game.
The onus is still on you the survivor to escape from that second chase, if chased again after a self unhook or if "proxy camped" and chased again. If "proxy camping" then its up to players to make smart saves.
If survivors don't let me walk more than 3 steps from the hook before they rush in to unhook, am I proxy camping or are players making bad decisions?
-
@woundcowboy said:
Nurse is fine. The root of the issue is that survivors here won’t be happy until they can dictate pallet mindgames against every killer.
Kaboom 💥
We come to the crux of the topic. Nurse can't be played around the same way other killers can be.
Like any killer power that undermines what many consider a "typical" or "normal" game of DBD. Its easier to call for nerfs than it is to adapt.
I feel like some players won't be happy till every killer can just be looped in the same way no matter what and they never have to worry about any additional mechanics or outcomes messing that standard up.
The great comedy surrounding this is the rationale for making the game less dynamic and more predictable is often that its boring to play the more dynamic and unpredictable parts.
"I want the same things to work against everyone, the gameplay to be standard across all games and not have to adapt or think about how I play, otherwise its boring" 🙄
-
If you think hide and seek is bad with hatch you should have tried the game without it. Oh boy that 4 mins bleed out timer will seem like a dream come true compared to the 30 min+ hostage situation of hiding survivors and no hatch.
Hatch and bleeding out are the mechanics that counter the very thing you are complaining about.
-
You still create the problem of people quitting at 5mins if the game isn't going their way. An average game of DBD can last longer than 5 mins. Having a hard time cap that allowed quitting would just mean a lot of game just end at 5mins as the team that either feels like it losing or isn't getting exactly what it wants from the game can just leave making for very underwhelming outcomes for all.
The only time I've been in a real stalemate is with the ol SM 3-gen. In which case I try my best to progress the objective or die trying.
People always come at me when I have this take saying "so you just quit and die then" but no what I mean is I try and repair and play around a gen getting in the killers face as much as possible in the hope my team can complete another gen and if I die while doing that, then at least I've tried my best and can move on satisfied with that.
As for being genuinely held hostage by a cheater with blind hacks and the old un-hookable power, that has been the only time I've tabbed out of the game and played something else/went and made a cup o tea/watched a movie. Helps to have a comp powerful enough that DBD can run in the back ground with little impact. Fortunately those cases are very rare.
-
Devour Hope is a mainstay on a lot of my builds.
I run NOED often too depending on killer. A jumpscare Myer's without NOED can be lacking teeth in the endgame, with it he can be really nasty.
-
@Stroggz said:
There should be no hatch. You are the last? Auto sacrifice. Your team lost. It is what it is.
Nah automatic outcomes that just cut games short and limit play are never great.
-
I think too many players have demonstrated their willingness to just quit if things aren't exactly as they want them.
Players should get a DC penalty and the accumulating lock out is relatively fair in my opinion.
As for bleeding out, its not holding the game hostage because there is a timer that's what bleeding out is the mechanic the prevents you from lying on the ground getting held hostage in game till you DC. You will eventually bleed out.
Frankly 4 mins isn't that long no matter how short attention spans and patience have become.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3620917#Comment_3620917
This is just an objective answer to the original question. It has never been truly accepted by players. No matter how far back you go, as long as tunneling as a concept has existed, there have been people who were unhappy with it. There was never a time where it was unanimously liked and there's a long line of discussions documenting it.
This is not an opinion of myself or the team - in fact I do my best to avoid saying anything opinionated because frankly that's not why I'm here
(and the fewer people I can have at my throat the better). My role here is to take feedback, read discussions, and clarify where I can. You're right that people look to us as representatives, but I would hate to see us avoid any difficult topics because of it. I would much rather see the forums as a place where developers and players can discuss things openly.There is always a chance that someone will read something we say and interpret it to mean something different, but we can't let that keep us from talking to y'all. To be perfectly clear, we do not speak in riddles. There is no hidden message between the lines. When we acknowledge that something has always been contentious, that's all there is to the message. That does not say whether or not we like it, whether or not it's here to stay, or whether or not we agree with it - it's simply acknowledging that disagreements about it have always existed.
Fair enough I was just curious overall about that one.
It wasn't my intention to appear at anyone's throat or to imply difficult topics were to be avoided (the fact that the mods and devs chime in even on the less popular topics is one of the strengths of the DBD forums).
Just curious about context in this specific case. As you put it, an acknowledgement of the contentiousness of the topic rather than any real subjective take on it's acceptability.
The rest of my post poses questions more generally to the topic at hand not specifically as a reply to your point. Cheers.
(Edited for spelling mistakes as I can't type to save myself).
-
@Peanits said:
Speaking objectively, it has never been accepted. As long as it has existed, there have been people who did not like it and people who disagreed with them.
I think you are treading a fine line with this one, forum users look to DEVs and Mods as the representatives of BHVR's view on things.
To state in totality that it has "never been accepted" is bold. There are plenty of players, myself included, who accept that tunneling is just part of the game and simply a result of killer having license over whom they choose to chase and eliminate.
I don't think you meant its never been accepted by BHVR, because it is accepted as part of the game given its not against any game rules to chase the same target twice. More that Its always been complained about and thus not fully accepted, correct me if I'm wrong.
I'd say complained about largely because players don't like getting eliminated early and the impact that has on the team. Early elimination results very commonly from camping and tunneling and is often at the core of complaints about it.
But objectively speaking early elimination i.e. "being tunneled out" is part of DBD and queuing up comes with the acceptance of that fact, regardless of whether players like or dislike it.
If we are talking the singular targeting and harassing of a player then that is absolutely unacceptable, but how do we tease that specific motivation apart from just the simple gameplay option of I can choose to chase any survivor?
Do we just assume a malicious intent and label all tunneling as problematic and all players who do it as toxic?
Do we remove that option essentially guaranteeing the safety of survivors for a large portion of the game?
Having tools and perks to help counter being chased in succession and thus eliminated early is a better option as least it doesn't undermine player choice or overall game concept, but should those tools be built in or not?
What effect do people think that will have on the excitement level of gameplay?
I think "tunneling" is just as acceptable now as it was in the past because the ability to choose who to chase hasn't really changed. That's all "tunneling" is and they haven't removed that yet.
-
Its not impossible to help a tunneled team mate it just requires a different approach to simply just body blocking. This is one of the problems with how people react to nurse. She undermines a lot of the established plays in DBD and while some think that its better if every game plays the same way, the fact that she mixes it up so much and that players struggle against her as a result is a good thing.
It means there is more to the game than just one established playstyle. How much of the "no counterplay" argument is the result of players simply refusing to adapt their gameplay.
We need more killers who break the rules, as these are the killers that make the game dynamic and interesting.
Disagree if you like but there are few killers as terrifying as a good nurse, she is really hard to get away from and we need more of that not less.
-
Eh It doesn't bother me either way if someone wants the 4k they have the power to go for it. Its on a timer so it'll end eventually.
Typically if slugged like this I try and crawl to a common hatch spawn location and hope for the best. Been lucky twice and actually crawled out hatch. I've also been in the scenario where the last gen got done and adrenalin saved my butt. So its not like every avenue to victory or continued gameplay is cut off in this scenario.
It ain't over till all the blood has been spilled.
I don't think providing auto death mechanics in this scenario really adds anything. Basically all that will happen is people with auto die to give the last player hatch or games will be cut short removing any chance for escape when down to 2 players if one gets slugged.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3620049#Comment_3620049
Since i am not missreading the stats, why are we even discussing?
That there is a killer bias in kill rate and game outcome, yes we know that.
No, the person i was talking to is completly denying exactly that, in multiple threads. Even arguing a draw is a loss. Why you join the conversation when you dont know whats going on? That was a bit random and went in a completly different direction, that nobody asked for. Sorry.
I'd say its a safe assumption that killers with high win rates have expected high kill rates but that's all we can see, what drives the result is not reported or measured here.
I never said anything like that and it is not even a discussion point.
To make the claim that the data proves some point and thus invalidates any discussion about how to balance kill rates is a gross overstep in interpreting what we actually have here in data form.
Quote me on where i discussed about how and why to balance kill rates please.
What do I mean by that? I mean to caution against over interpreting simple stats. A common misstep people make when reading stats. Particularly egregious when used to shut down discussion.
Same here.
All in all your argument (?) felt like a politican saying "Just because we know most of our people are poor and poverty is an issue, it does not have to mean anything. It could simly also mean that we dont have many millionairs. Dont missinterpretate those stats."
Well you may have read them out correctly but what you used them for here implies that you misinterpreted what they mean, those are two different things.
You posted them in reply to this
"A 50% kill rate would be pretty terrible. That would mean on average, killers aren't ever winning considering they need a 3K+ to win (75%+ in the match).
Bear in mind 60% is a target kill rate. A 60% kill rate is roughly 2.2 kills per match on average. Considering killers need 3K+ to win, this means that over a period of time, killers with a 60% kill rate should win "roughly" have of their matches (slightly under 50%). 60% kill rate is often misunderstood as a 60% win rate. There's definitely a difference. A 75% kill rate in a match is a win, but we clearly don't want a 75% kill rate in general since that'd just be killers on average always winning. For a true 50% win rate for killers, the kill rate would need to be 62.5%. If we really want a 60% win rate, then the kill rate would probably need to be more like the upper 60's."
While there is discussion about whether a draw is a loss or not its wasn't part of this chain of discussion, I read the whole thread. So again using these stats in the way you did wasn't great.
I know you never said anything about how kill and win rate interact but if you want to use the quoted data to counter the point here then its an essential part of it and needs to be discussed, I pointed it out precisely because it wasn't adequately addressed.
I'm not politicking anything, I saw data being misused and cautioned against that misuse. Because what is being said here is a fairly numerically sound way of balancing the game and the stats you posted to counter that actually in no way counter that point, even though you used them for that very purpose and claimed it as proof of your point. Such proof that, in your words, no further discussion was needed.
(Kinda funny because it generated a discussion about the misuse data in order to shut down discussion hehe Irony makes me chuckle). At any rate I can see this devolving into a tit-for-tat kind of scenario so just think about what I said.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3620007#Comment_3620007
What do you mean by that?
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/2IWD3GAC12IG/grafik.png
Please correct me if i am wrong. In 31,93% of his games, Myers had a 4K (4 Kills). In 20,39% Myers had a 3K. So in total, Myers won about 52% of his games. He had a draw in about 15% and in 33% Myers lost. At least this is what i read off this statistic.
That's what it says yes, but that's not how you used it... is it.
You used it as a proof to counter a point about kill rate %.
"Myers is at roughly 60% killrate. This means, as we can see, the killer wins 51% and only looses 33% of the time. 0 kills is an outcome in DBD, and you have to put this into account. In fact, winrate with a 60% killer is compared to looserate actually even much higher then lossrate.
60% killrate on plague translates into 54% winrate and only 34% lossrate. 0 kill is a loss, and 2k is a draw. You win significantly more games with her then you would loose.
No discussion needed, i only wanted to show some proof."
Proof of what exactly? That there is a killer bias in kill rate and game outcome, yes we know that. But to use that same data to say kill rate drives game outcome and is responsible for bias in the number of "wins". Well you don't have the data to say that here. What you have is a rough correlation but not Proof of a causal effect.
I'd say its a safe assumption that killers with high win rates have expected high kill rates but that's all we can see, what drives the result is not reported or measured here.
To make the claim that the data proves some point and thus invalidates any discussion about how to balance kill rates is a gross overstep in interpreting what we actually have here in data form.
What do I mean by that? I mean to caution against over interpreting simple stats. A common misstep people make when reading stats. Particularly egregious when used to shut down discussion.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618808#Comment_3618808
Oh no, not this again😥
Its because we have a draw outcome. And a 0k is a relevant variable. So is a draw neither a win or a loss. There we go:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/13YDOXFP0TH6/grafik.png
Myers is at roughly 60% killrate. This means, as we can see, the killer wins 51% and only looses 33% of the time. 0 kills is an outcome in DBD, and you have to put this into account. In fact, winrate with a 60% killer is compared to looserate actually even much higher then lossrate.
Another example:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/1ZYZ30AM7UHU/grafik.png
60% killrate on plague translates into 54% winrate and only 34% lossrate. 0 kill is a loss, and 2k is a draw. You win significantly more games with her then you would loose.
No discussion needed, i only wanted to show some proof.
Not really proof as you put it because you are conflating the two measures. (Be very careful using the term proof with respect to vague data).
Kill rate is inflated because it incorporates measure from 4 categories not just the wins - Every measure from 1 kill to 4 kills, which means so called losses are in the kill rate total along with draws and wins.
So you are drawing what could be interpreted as causal conclusions from only correlative results. So be very careful here its a very common mistake.
The 60% kill rate is probably not the main driving cause of the high 3-4K "win" rate. So if you are making arguments on that basis alone I'm afraid these numbers don't actually prove your point. All they show is what we already know that there is a killer bias in outcome.
They don't show that balancing around a 60% kill rate is the cause of inflated 4k outcomes.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3619188#Comment_3619188
I mean, that's the whole basis of all these horror films...survivors trying to win when the odds are not in their favor. Halloween would have never been a popular franchise if he was just some random dude with no power over the victims. Granted, Scream literally is a regular person, but that's just a fan favorite because of how silly it is.
@mecca said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3619192#Comment_3619192
If we really want to be real to the movies, the protagonist usually wins at the end. Speaking of Halloween, Laurie Strode didn't die no matter how much Michael Myers tried.
But this is a game and both sides should have a fair chance at winning.
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3619195#Comment_3619195
I’ve seen plenty of Horror and the protagonists don’t win as much as it would seem. Sometimes they do, but a lot of times they don’t. That’s kind of part of the horror genre, a sad ending where the bad guy wins.
"Wins" yes, if by that you mean typically everyone else is dead and the hero/heroine alone survives, not always but more commonly thought about. (Hence the term last girl).
What makes a good movie (at least a good horror movie) is a compelling and threatening antagonist, regardless of whether the protagonists win or not.
So while in a game setting there is a need to balance outcome, we are still trying to emulate the horror genre and to do that in any compelling way there has to be a tangible threat to survival. So a killer bias in outcome is acceptable in this case even if it means a reduced survivor "win" rate.
The balance comes from ensuring that killer bias isn't so large as to undermine survivor outcome entirely, there must always be a realistic chance of surviving.
The goal is to find the sweet spot between thematic appeal and mechanical fairness, I'd argue the sweet spot exists around the targeted 60-40 survival outcome.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618684#Comment_3618684
Did I escape/die
Did more of my team escape/die... even if I died.
- Wins can be defined in many ways: Some may think a pip is a win, some may think a lot of bloodpoints is enough to qualify for a win. And others may think winning is by escaping or 3/4king = Gaining MMR.
- The only two times "Did more of my team escape/die... even if I died." is a win condition is true when playingin a comp match or by making this rule for themself.
Point 1 is ingame reality. You gained something. Pip, MMR, Bloodpoints.
Point 2 is imaginative. You gain nothing by telling yourself you won the game because 3 of your teammates escaped.
So besides from playing comp and own ego boosting, "Did more of my team escape/die... even if I died." is not really a true win condition. UNLESS bhvr changes MMR to a Group-MMR. Which would make a lot of sense, but so far it is not reality.
I defined "win" condition for the point I made and already largely stated that a win is highly subjective that's why death/escape is the measurable outcome.
If you are a player who chooses to play selfishly and focus solely on own wins over team wins sure play that way that's fine but it doesn't change my point. I've seen plenty of players tout a 3 escape as a win even when they die. So it's not an invalid way to measure a "win."
Measuring outcome i.e. Death/Escape is better than "win/loss" due to that intangible subjectivity. The median for those raw numbers sits between 50-50 and 75-25 so about 60-40. So again I think its an OK place to balance around and it looks like BHVR is trying to do just that, which is good.
-
I agree with the points you bring up here.
I'm cautious about terms like "power role" because people have different perceptions of what the power role looks like. A clearer or at least more tangible definable concept would be "killer bias in outcome" as that's measurable.
- Do killers get more kills than survivors get escapes?
- If yes, is it ok that they do?
- How much bias is too much that it undermines the game experience?
You've posed the million dollar question. Lets try and answer it.
Its a balancing act between a team of survivors being able to outplay a killer without a solo survivor being the equivalent of a killer.
To clarify people have different conditions on what they define as a "win" but in terms of measurable game outcome you could safely consider death/escape as a binary measure of outcome and hence "win" condition.
With that in mind there is solo killer with one measurable outcome or "win" condition... did you kill more survivors than escaped?
Survivor gets a lil greyer because considering death/escape as the measure for outcome, a survivor has two win conditions.
- Did I escape/die
- Did more of my team escape/die... even if I died.
To the argument of why bias for one player over four... because we bias the four players already by providing two win conditions vs one.
For example... if you die but the rest of the team escapes who won?
In the most simple terms, you lost because dead, killer lost because more escape than dead, and the other 3 survivors won. I died but that loss is somewhat attenuated because my team won. So I can still win as survivor even though I lost/died.
That's the inherent bias that survivor outcome enjoys, Its a team game I can lose but still win. Its counter matched in solo killer by the inherent bias killer has vs a survivor 1v1.
So when survivors play as a team they can beat the killer, when they play solo they likely die.
We see this manifest in a killer bias in overall death/escape outcome, as you'd expect even a positive survivor team outcome, or win, likely to include at least 1 death. Also not every survivor is playing as a team member. Many are playing for their own selfish success which is if I escape I've won nothing less, which we see manifest as the disparity between survival rate when comparing SWF vs solo survivor.
Killer kills survivor 1v1, loses to survivor 4v1 and needs to be equivalent of at least 3v1 (if not 4) in power to be a tangible game threat. That's balance, but its balance that will likely measurably manifest itself in a killer bias in kill rate.
So is a killer bias in outcome acceptable? Well if a killer is the equivalent of 3-4x survivor and as such "balanced" then we'd expect to see a killer bias in outcome. So the game is actually more balanced than people give it credit for when we consider the measured outcome. Is it acceptable, that's subjective. I'm ok with it because it adequately represents the horror survival theme that the game is built around.
Which leads to the all important question how much killer bias is too much? I think anything that results in a median between 2D-2E and 3D-1E as outcome would be a sweet spot, given that survivor has two win conditions both team and personal vs the killer's one.
Which is pretty well close to a 60-40 spread in kill rate. Somewhere between 50-50 and 75-25 given the asymmetry of the game design and the disparity between the 1 and 2 win/loss conditions for either side. This is mechanically sound even when ignoring the thematic aspects of the game and considering competitive outcome alone.
So a 60-40 killer bias in D/E outcome is both competitively appropriate and thematically appropriate. Making it an acceptable average game outcome.
Tying it back to the OP, I guess this would make killer the "power role" if one was inclined to define it in such a way.
-
I'm not sure what this is trying to say.
It seems like there are roughly two categories, those that "have to chase" (whatever that means) and those that are "unfun or OP"
Chases aren't the only thing in DBD and killer powers that switch up the gameplay from the same type of looping chases are what the game needs more of not less of. The game needs more Nurse, old Spirit, old Billy, new Bubba (his kit was vast improvement), scratched mirror Myers, Infinite Mori Myers, Hag, but with better addons. Dynamic mechanics you know "Stuff that mixes it up."
Hit and run, stealth, hook and gen defence, guesswork, unpredictability, high threats and stakes and unique mind games, all these aspects of gameplay have taken serious hits over the last few years. Typically in the name of "fairness" or "Balance" but often more for "consistency" also known as "blandness".
Don't get me wrong the game is still good, even with the efforts of the killjoys. But even though there is more content than ever before the "sameness" of that content, coupled with the "sanitizing" (for lack of a better word) of prior content, feels like the game actually has less in it now.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618498#Comment_3618498
Lets do something crazy lets share the stuff we like about the game for once.
I would if I could, but everything I liked about this game was either removed, reworked or altered in some way.
What do I have left?
Backwater Swamp. Nothing but Swamp.
Bummer. Yeah there is plenty of stuff I miss from old DBD too.
Look on the bright side as for Backwater Swamp, a mud bath is meant to be very good for the skin... but then again look at the Hag... hmm.
-
She requires good trap set up to be really effective and is lacking in any pressure beyond that. She plays a strong defensive game but that is generally frowned upon and has been hit heavily by a lot of the more recent changes.
Even a bad trap with Trapper costs a health state if it catches someone, but bad trap position with hag just gets you closer to the survivor into a rather underwhelming chase.
If you set up well she shines and can be really fun. A lot of players struggle against her too as you said probably because of the low exposure to her. She was a lot more common before a lot of the hex totem and hook defense changes. I mean there are killers with more engaging powers now that can't be as hard countered as she can.
Also while some of her addons change up her power, it really just changes it so she is now an M1 only chaser with no overt pressure beyond that, aside from the hindrance effect, which isn't much. Having high cost addons that change your power into just general gameplay with no real power isn't great.
Myer's addons take him from M1 chaser to either see through walls stealth jump scare monster or if you take his more expensive ones then yeah he still chases but can project power further by insta-downs and auto moris. What do hag's addons do? She can no longer teleport but can now chase like any other M1 killer without a power. Wow sign me up for that!
She's a fun killer just lacking in tools to project any power beyond a good trap setup. I still have a soft spot for her though, the first killer I ever got a 4K with.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617980#Comment_3617980
We are comparing the top % winstreaks on both sides. We are not cherry picking,because we compare. If i can use this as an arugment that killers are the "power role", sure it can, but only in combinition with all the other data we have. And every information we have is pointing in the same direction, anless you have an ace in the hole we dont know yet.
We know for a fact, that survivors can not pull that off, but killers can. Would it change your opinion if we presentate hundreds of killer winstreaks above the 200 win streak on survivor? Because they exist.
I know your argument about why its fine that killers should have the advantage tho. I think there is no way anybody can convince you since it is your opinion on the game, and it is true, nobody unless a really strong argument comes up will convince me, that fairness is more important than the horror aspect.
It has already been said a few times: Tension has nothing to do with more powerful killers. You think it has, because you believe in that, i think it does not because the game was at its peak of its player base when the game was ballanced the most. Of course you will say "but that has nothing to do with the playerbase" - and completly forgeting that it was you making an arugment that fairness would ruin the game. We had that already. We had fairness. Was the game ruined? No, it was at its peak!
The problem is that a debate is hard at this point, at least for me. Its facts and numbers vs feelings. And since i believe in facts and numbers more then in feelings, we can only agree to disagree. Which is completly fine, every opinion counts no matter if we are on the same boat this time or not.
That's why I pose the question that keeps getting ignored... how much of a killer bias is too much?
Given the mechanics and the nature of survivor teams vs solo killers, a killer bias is almost inevitable unless you really undermine some of the game's stronger points.
"We know for a fact, that survivors can not pull that off, but killers can." We don't know that because survivor teams have posted win streaks. You claim a respect for data and numbers but grossly misuse them and state it as established fact, which is the complete opposite of a respect for data and numbers. (I appreciate good irony though).
The trend or assumed trend, while matching the concept you are proposing (i.e a killer bias exists), is not equivalent to the extreme you are using to make the point, that's the misuse of data here. You aren't really making a good comparison.
Because it fails to ask how much of that extreme drives the trend? Is it enough as to undermine it's validity as a general concept and not just an extreme one. This is why outliers matter in data with respect to trends. We can't make general conclusions based on results driven by extremes, that's a data interpretation no no. (did you really want to talk data manipulation or was it just a smoke screen?).
Furthermore what data? You have a win streak video and a general assumption/opinion you claim as fact. The only data that's been shared was that steam chart in which the numbers also didn't match your assumptions. That respect for data is getting weaker by the minute. (I'm imagining a comedy scenario where a CEO is making a news report about how much the company gives to charity, while in the background his company is bulldozing an orphanage that kind of comedic irony).
Back to the concept of outcome trends though. A trend in killer bias not only an anticipated one, but in my opinion an acceptable one given what the game is about. At what point it becomes unacceptable is where we find real thematic balance. I think DBD has hit a sweet spot with the 60-40 outcome ratio that tends to be hinted at. (how much of that is based on accurate numbers is up for debate).
At no point have my feelings been challenged, good discussion/dialogue attacks and defends and this has been an interesting discussion. We don't have to agree for it to be interesting discussion, in fact most interesting discussion is born of disagreement.
The point here with respect to "balance" is to challenge the concept that a balanced game of DBD has a 50/50 outcome as the accepted norm and that a killer bias is a bad thing. I would postulate that its been thoroughly challenged and the counter points don't stack up well enough to fully undermine that challenge.
-
Yeah and that's it in a nutshell really.
You notice how complaint posts typically resort to (for lack of a better term) a collective absolutism to make their point, "EVERYBODY hates this" "NOBODY wants this" "This is UNIVERSALLY despised"
"How can I be wrong if everyone agrees with me" Its a very self reassuring standpoint to have and plays a big part in why people seek out echo chambers over real discussions.
I like to be positive about games I enjoy, in fact I've come to really appreciate some of the more negatively viewed and complained about aspects of DBD for what they really bring to the game.
DBD can be hard, and sometimes downright nasty, but boy does that ever make it a good horror game.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617858#Comment_3617858
Its debateable if it is appropriate that killers can win thousends of games in a row, while solo survivors dream of a 50 escape streak. All you write is "i am a big scary monster, so the ballance is secondary priority".
And sure, survivors have the tools to win, but clearly not as much as killer. And when we look at the winstreaks, it becomes even more apparent which side the better tools has, especially when one side is willing to poop on fair play.
But if you are only looking at the top % of win streaks its cherry picking the most convenient piece of data to make the most convenient of points.
That is a very weak way to make a point.
So to sum up again as simply as possible.. we see a killer bias in general game outcome and that's not necessarily a bad thing given what the game is based upon.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
Thats friendly, not fair. While it would be nice if people had some empathy for the opponents, everything bar what the devs explicitly disallow (ex: cheating) is fair play.
Sure we can chat. Tell us, who needs to actually coordinate and rely on others to achieve their objective? Its defiantly not the killer thats for damn sure. Lets put it this way, the killer is the one whos alone, but stronger than each individual survivor. If the killer really wants to, they can focus down a single survivor and all that survivor can do is run and pray that their team will finish the gens and open a door for them. They rely on their skills and abit of RNG for map, nothing else. For that individual to survive that they need to both be much better than the killer and have a team be efficient as a machine. For a survivor win streak of 3+ escapes (This is more a SWF win streak btw) each and every survivor must meet that minimum. We want you to look at specifically which is harder.
Now a thought probably entered peoples heads about "The best players should be matched with each other". First: what if said killer is still better than the best survivors? Second: Matchmaking prioritizes both accuracy and speed, meaning theres not going to be exact matches where the best face off with the best because the matchmaking doesn't want people waiting hours (cant blame them on that personally). Unless they're coordinating matches together (with would make it less of a normal match but thats us nit picking) its not gona happen often. And we'd like to point again, because we're stubbern like that, that just because it has not been done yet does not make it impossible.
👍️
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617858#Comment_3617858
Survivors beat killers if they work as a team
Evidently they do not, otherwise we wouldn't have these colossal win streaks!
Unless you want to argue that in multiple hundreds of matches, they never met survivors that worked as a team.
I never said you can't have good horror with balance just that I've never seen people make good suggestions with respect to the topic of balance for DBD.
Is that, by any chance, because these suggestions nerf killers in some way?
They hate any kind of loss of agency or early elimination and their idea of balance is removing those aspects so they can remain in game longer which isn't "balance" at all.
That's a 'yes', then.
"Twiddle their thumbs" in there lies the problem. That loss of agency that you despise, that makes you twiddle your thumbs... that's the threat you are trying to avoid as survivor. There are two primary threats in DBD as survivor loss of agency and elimination.
No one has a problem with going down, or getting hooked. Everyone has a problem with killers doing everything in their power to completely lock at least one player out of the game, possibly multiple, as quickly as possible, or for as long as possible.
I don't know if you've realised this, but slugging, camping and tunnelling do not create tension. They create frustration, which is anathema to tension. Your entire argument here is to maintain these godawful strategies to maintain tension when they are very obviously a detriment to that.
This is my issue with your argument, it feels backwards. It feels like the killer bias came first, and then the tension argument was developed to try and support it, as opposed to the tension argument coming first, and the killer bias coming in as a conclusion of that.
No, I already said the 1% aren't good representatives of balance and for the average game teamwork can and often does beat killers, the disparity of win/loss ratios comparing SWF to solo is evidence of that.
No, killer NERfs where appropriate can be just as good for the game as survivor nerfs, nothing I have said implies otherwise. Just because I am willing to tolerate a killer bias in outcome on the basis that its thematically appropriate does not mean I think killers/survivors need nerfs or buffs.
So no... see previous answer. But you assume what you like if it helps you rationalize your point.
Trying to avoid the negative aspects of gameplay i.e. non-participation and elimination, is the core of the game as they are the very threats you are fleeing from. Why try to escape at all without them, just to farm BP's and Pips?
If you find those threats frustrating then maybe you are playing the wrong game, as they are part of the survivor role. Attempts to create mechanics to attenuate or remove them as tangible threats is what I'm here to challenge. Because I appreciate that they are tangible threats. It makes DBD a visceral and high stakes game experience and emulates horror slasher flicks well... two positive game elements.
Lastly, nope the argument is as its always been, if they are trying to emulate a horror survival setting, i.e group of survivors flee big scary monster, you'd expect a killer bias in outcome and that's what we see. My point is this isn't necessarily a bad thing over all.
I don't see how the "your argument is backwards" really makes any sense as the concept is very straight forward.
- The goal as survivor is to escape from the monster
- For that experience to be exciting the monster needs to represent a tangible threat
- We see that tangible threat demonstrated in a killer bias in outcome
- Ergo the killer bias in outcome is acceptable in this scenario
- The real question is how much of a killer bias is too much?
You may disagree with it that's fine, but its right there and hasn't changed. It answers the killer win streaks why?.. discuss... which is the topic.
If the best you can muster is well "I don't like it, it frustrates me" as a counter point which is basically the whole premise of the counter points here... Well then... tough, I hope you learn to like it or find a game you do like. I also hope they never change it because visceral game experience its one of the best aspects of DBD.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617589#Comment_3617589
We don’t need to buff killer. There is a 60-40 split on game outcome that favours killer. Killer is in a sweet spot right now.
Well, let me reword it: It's more clamouring to keep the game unfairly balanced in favour of killers.
You don’t have to alienate competitive players in order to keep to theme. That’s another just as weak a shot.
Yes, you kind of do. If you make the game inherently imbalanced and push that constantly, it's going to remove competitive players. They're not going to play a game where their chance to win is arbitrarily kept low.
I don’t need to play another horror game I like dbd.
But if you're playing primarily for the horror element, you'd like TCM more, so why aren't you going there?
If balance means watering down the threat to survival and making the game more generically mechanical rather than thematically thrilling, then yeah people are trying to make it sunshine and lollipops in the name of balance.
That is, again, a huge leap. You have yet to prove you physically cannot have a good execution of the horror theme with a balanced game.
I also feel it's important to point out that some of the biggest outliers in terms of winrate, which, by your logic, should have the best thematic results, are three killers that specifically kill all the tension by making players twiddle their thumbs. They're more apt at making survivors bore themselves to death.
Nurse and Blight aren't much better, generally considered some of the most oppressive killers, and people don't like going up against them because it removes their agency.
But you know, if you want to have this tension argument, let me hop on that: Remove aura reading for killers, and remove scratch marks. Stealth play is by far the best way to add tension in the game for survivors, so let's buff the crap out of it for thematic reasons.
What you call unfairly balanced I call appropriately balanced. Survivors beat killers if they work as a team, you talk like its impossible to beat a killer. Survivors have all the tools they need to beat a killer, but one on one they are in trouble because big scary monster. It works and it works well.
Plenty of competitive players still play DBD and the player numbers are pretty stable so we aren't seeing this mass exodus of players due to "poor balance" people keep touting. I'd say DBD is at greater risk of alienating horror fans by making the game too tame than they are alienating PvP fans who want the horror to just be a veneer rather than a tangible threat.
Again I enjoy DBD that's reason enough, I'll keep playing while I enjoy it and I'll enjoy it as long as the temper tantrum folk don't ruin the gameplay with terrible suggestions in the name of "balance".
I never said you can't have good horror with balance just that I've never seen people make good suggestions with respect to the topic of balance for DBD. Because most balance suggestions are made by players who want this game to be played one way and one way only. They hate any kind of loss of agency or early elimination and their idea of balance is removing those aspects so they can remain in game longer which isn't "balance" at all.
Balance in of itself isn't a bad thing, but often what people define as "balance" on this forum is. Because they want the balance to bypass or ignore the tangible core threats of the game.
"Twiddle their thumbs" in there lies the problem. That loss of agency that you despise, that makes you twiddle your thumbs... that's the threat you are trying to avoid as survivor. There are two primary threats in DBD as survivor loss of agency and elimination.
If you remove loss of agency the only threat is elimination which means you are safe until last hook. Basically gutting all threat from the primary mechanic of fleeing from chases until elimination. That doesn't sound "balanced" to me, but most "balance" suggestions made for DBD often revolve around removing the primary threats to survivor till essentially game end.
There is another thread right now with suggestions about fixing "tunneling" by making survivors immune to being hooked or hit till another player is downed. Just bad suggestions that remove tangible threat in the name of balance.
So yeah I comment when I see bad suggestions to water down the tangible threat that makes playing DBD interesting.
-
@Raconteurminator said:
What is tunnelling? I mean, fundamentally. It's a player choosing who to chase and when; it's basic player agency. To "gut" this "toxic" play-style as some have suggested would ultimately come down to either punishing people for exercising a choice or simply removing that choice by making it for them. I don't like the sound of either.
And we get to the crux of the topic.
What is tunneling really and what do people mean by nerf it? Players usually can't answer that very well when pressed other then the most generic "toxic and nerf it" response. Basically removing the choice of who to chase sets the game on a very predictable and repetitive track and I'm yet to see any suggestion that would change this outcome.
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617684#Comment_3617684
As long as there is only one at a time, they don't have collision, can't drop pallets or use flashlights during that time, I am fine with that suggestion. Also, this should have a max time limit. Otherwise you'd have 1 survivor that doesn't do anything and just waits for their guaranteed hatch escape.
We don't need an invincible survivor running after the killer and making it completely impossible for them to progress. Much less multiple survivors like that.
This is an often floated suggestion... basically make players immune to game consequences until some other scenario has been fulfilled again leading to shockingly exploitable mechanics and highly predictable repetitive gameplay.
Its just not a good suggestion, nothing in game (especially base mechanics) should make survivors unkillable. It just defeats the purpose of the game in general.
Its either game breaking or such a minor note that it becomes little more than a side nuisance that players adapt to play around, like built in BT.
Since built in BT became a thing I have more reason to tunnel than ever before. Simply because people use it to body block allowing their rescuer to escape and making themselves the best target for a follow up chase. It keeps happening yet somehow the choice to target and eliminate them is a result of my "toxic attitude" not direct result of their actions to leverage BT aggressively.
If going down the invulnerability route why not just go the whole hog, remove elimination altogether and make survivors just respawn and the game tally points at the end to see who won. No risk, no threat, no excitement, no early elimination, its just a points farm. Would that make the complainers happy I wonder.
People love the mantra that "tunneling is boring/unfun" but really the suggestions to change it result in more bland and generic play than the risk of being targeted and eliminated early.
Honestly I actually enjoy that risk, it makes me play cautiously at game start and think about how I'm going to escape if targeted. The concept is actually an incredibly healthy one for the game but people have decided its "toxic" because they don't like being eliminated early in an elimination game.