ratcoffee
ratcoffee
About
- Username
- ratcoffee
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
Lithe can be real annoying yeah. I recommend Fearmonger so people can't freelyrecharge their lithe while working on a gen, but even with that it can be frustrating
-
We're getting the standard "if you win a lot as killer it must be because you're bad at the game & have low mmr" that you see whenever a killer says they have an easy time of playing the game; but I do find it interesting that we're also seeing of the same people who regularly say "god forbid killers try to win" when survivors complain about annoying strategies, now trying to invalidate OP's point because he uses a strategy survivors might consider annoying.
-
imo not really honestly. being able to erase traps with flashlights is stronger than having to crouch up to them, and the best way of removing traps in 90% of scenarios is setting them off anyway.
-
@Royval said:
how do you know they’re saying that doesn’t it blur it out 🤔
the filter is inconsistent and you can sneak a bunch of stuff through if you use creative phrasing. I've only ever used creative phrasing to bypass words that were erroneously censored (telling a teammate not to "tee back" instead of "tea bag" etc) but I'm sure you could sneak more nefarious messages through too
-
he's posted this before but he wants BNP and other "charges-to-complete-gen" perks like invocation and the new Lara perk reworked so that killers can remove them.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758499#Comment_3758499
Infamous for a reason, because the game isn't like hokey. Also to clarify the misinformation further, they never directly said DBD was like hokey, they used hokey as an example for why they don't want to use hooks as an indicator of wins or skill with the "shots" being "hooks". The problem the community had with that at the time was DBD is nothing like hokey or a sport so the comparison didn't make sense. Hence the overwhelming general understanding of the game being not the sports formula.
Idk what picture you're trying to paint with that lower part but I didn't say that killers win as much as survivors or that it's 50% if that's what you're getting at.
I mean, sure, fair enough. Glad we're in agreement that the game favors killers.
Kind of curious why you're able to correctly parse that DBD is not like Hockey, Specifically, due to the mechanics of hockey being entirely unlike those of DBD, but you're unwilling to see the ways in which DBD is like sports in the general sense: they're both competitions in which individuals or teams engage in direct competition against each other, attempting to use strategies to advance their own objectives while hampering the opponent's objective. Obviously you're not arguing against the fact the game is killer-slanted, so why the selective application of your reading comprehension and critical analysis skills?
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758147#Comment_3758147
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/YA0NAWLUFQ0Z/capture-png.png
The devs HAVE defined a win. That's where the whole "a 3K is a win for the killer in the system" came from. I believe it was in their MMR live stream iirc.
That's why a win is defined in the wiki as a 3-4K as I posted earlier.
DBD is not sports.
I haven't seen the devs say they consider a draw "half a win" but if there's any clear clarification on that aspect I would like to see it. The vast majority of the community considers a 3K+ a win based on what the devs have stated. If that was incorrect I would expect they would have said something by now.
Is there any reason that we should NOT use that formula other than it makes your argument worse?
The only reason it says it's a sports term is for most of human history sports were the only thing you could reasonably track winrate for, so it was a formula invented for that. Why shouldn't we use it?
You say BHVR haven't said a draw is considered half a win, but possibly the most infamous thing BHVR have said was to compare DBD to hockey. Surely if we're going by what BHVR have said, we would then reasonably be able to use the sports formula for the thing they said is like a sport.
Not that any of that matters. Even if we look at nightlight stats, any way of looking at the numbers puts killers on top
(Taken from nightlight, 12 July 2024)
Killers win 55.5% of their games, lose 32.2%, and tie the remaining 12.4%, while maintaining a 60.4% kill rate. By any metric, the killer win rate eclipses the survivor win rate.
Using the commonly accepted method, killer winrate is (12.3/2) + 55.5% = 61.65%.
If you want to ignore draws, that still means the killer has a 55.5% win rate compared to the survivor team's 32.2%
Even if you want to include survivor team draws as losses for the killer AND wins for the survivor (for some reason) that STILL puts the killer winrare above the survivor "non-loss" rate
Also, if you compare the survivor individual win (escape) rate of 39.6% to the killer win rate, there's a gulf of difference there. (However, that winrate also includes hatch escapes in 3ks, which individually count as a draw, so that's still actually a survivor "non-loss" rate instead of a winrate proper.)
Also, Nightlight is usually not 100% accurate, but whenever official stats drop they've always been slightly more killer sided so if there are any complaints about these numbers the reality is probably even more killer sided.
So yeah that's basically it. There's no good reason not to use that formula, but even if you don't use it any reasonable metric you could choose to use paints a similar picture.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757813#Comment_3757813
8 vigil+Sprint burst = 10 second sprint burst cooldown.
A killer strategy that might be common is 1 killer camping hook/hooking, 1 killer chasing. Given that only first 5 killers are available, you'll see Billy get played every match+Huntress who proxy camps and face-camps hooks. Machine guns anyone who tries to save.
When they allow you to use all killers, you'll probably see Legion+Oni every game Or Mori killers like Sadako+Myer's.
Vigil doesn't stack
...does it? I'm second guessing myself now
-
@Neaxolotl said:
Since emblems matter too, you must also fix the 4k requirement for emblems
Yeah, that too. I've seen it proposed enough times where I thought it went without saying, but in hindsight probably good to bring up regardless.
While they're at it, change all challenges that require 4 sacrifices, too.
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757607#Comment_3757607
Heh. Well. That would be nice, wouldn't it. Would also be nice if people only tunneled because they went up against comp SWF every match and ran quad slowdown because every game was 4x BNP.
The bloodpoints claim is particularly dubious because at the point where you're spending several minutes to hunt down a hiding survivor… unless your game has 5 cakes, you'd be making more bloodpoints if you moved onto a new game with fresh score events and way less downtime.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757599#Comment_3757599
Hatch is there because the game is balanced against survivors a la 60% kill rates and killers are the power role. When you're looking at survivors as a gestalt it might always seem that one slips away, but individually survivors die in most of their games, even in games the survivor team won - where the killer, win or lose, always plays out the entire match. It's a concession for fairness, not in the match itself but the compared experience of the roles, the fact that a single survivor will never be able to progress their objective, and also a carrot on a stick for survivors to continue fighting when they're losing the game.
Without hatch, survivors have little reason to keep playing a game that's 'lost' early on, eg tunneled teammate at 5 gens or Sable killing herself on first hook, and they have even less when it gets down to 2-man games and completing gens becomes impossible. Remove it and you can expect a lot more hook suicides and people running up to die, because now there's no point in drawing out the inevitable.
One survivor getting away when the both of you know the killer won the game really is not an issue unless it robbed you of an achievement or a challenge.
At the very least, it would be good to remove one potential excuse for that behavior, so when people engage in it we Know we know (instead of just being pretty darn sure we know) why they engage in it
-
@Laluzi said:
I like this idea and support it, killers shouldn't be punished for unavoidable RNG, but I don't think it would change very much. I imagine most people who slug for the 4k are either doing it because they don't feel satisfied with anything less than a 4k by their own win conditions, bloodpoints immaterial, or - less commonly but more importantly - because they have a challenge or achievement that demands a 4k. Especially when it's a complicated one like Rightful Owner or Six Feet Under or Evil Incarnate where 'just try again next match' isn't really an option.
This would be a step towards disincentivizing slugging for the 4k, but I'm less confident that bloodpoints are the presiding factor in why people do it.
Basically every time slugging for the 4k comes up, a Lot of people come to the forums saying they only slug for the 4k because of BP. I assume they're telling the truth, so I came up with a solution that should keep everyone who does it for that reason happy.
@Royval said:
just remove the trap door. I don’t understand why survivors get 2 chances to escape when they lost the match. It’s extremely pity.
The hatch is artificially deflating kill rates, so if they remove that mechanic they'll have to nerf killers across the board in order to compensate (going by nightlight.gg data, kill rates would go up to 65%, well above the stated goal of 60%) I'm all in favor of anything that forces BHVR to give killers massive nerfs, so absolutely they should remove hatch.
-
@Turkopolo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757385#Comment_3757385
^^^ WE GOT A WINNER!!! Delete the absurd topic now.
Killers win 55.4% of games and only lose 32.3% with the rest being draws so no it's still a fair point
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3756419#Comment_3756419
So let me see if I can sum up the forums here generally. Tunneling is:
- A "strategy", that you can't touch without severely reducing, if not completely removing any "play style options" for the killer.
- The most efficient and effective way to remove one player from the game, and may actually be the most effective way to outright win the game as killer.
- Completely mandatory in "high MMR" or against any SWF.
- The "only way to win" in some cases: just look at competitive DBD!
- Tunneling has been meta since the game came out.
- Removing tunneling would require insanely heavy killer buffs, or gen speeds would need to be severely nerfed for killers to "keep up".
But somehow, it's "rare" and "nobody ever tunnels" despite these being the responses in nearly every thread on these forums?
Come on.
It's definitely weird to see this really obvious contradiction in the popular narrative go unaddressed. Like, surely you can't hold both positions at once, right?
-
Now they added invocation and that Lara Croft gen perk, I'm predicting they'll give the BNP treatment to Yun Jin's Fast Track.
-
@VomitMommy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3756733#Comment_3756733
I would love to see that.
Never understood cooldown behind thrilling tremors...
I think the idea is if you're using TT twice in that short a period of time, you don't need it twice in that short a period of time. I agree with you though it could do with a No CD buff
-
@WolfyWood said:
Personally I've been opening this forum less and less because it feels so killer sided to the point where no one can voice survivor related problems anymore.
Seems like unless a post is sanitized to be killer friendly the same people jump in to 'debunk' it.
It's gotten to the point where it just feels like a giant on-going circular argument and it's gotten so predictable you can basically tell what someone is going to post just by reading the name.
Yeah, I basically had someone say survivors can't complain about [thing that effects survivors] because some survivor players do [thing that effects killers that is arguably related]
When I asked if I was allowed to complain if I didn't do [that thing that affects killers] they said "it doesn't matter because most survivors do [the thing]".
I'm aware there are people who do the same thing from the survivor perspective (I've seen dbd tiktok comments) and this isn't a one-sided issue, but the fact that it's happening at all and that it seems to be particularly slanted towards one side, on the forums that are meant to be a prime avenue of feedback for the developers, is disheartening to say the least.
-
Putting Billy in the same tier as Nurse and above Blight is bold, but honestly I can't even say I disagree
-
So can we agree that Killers don't need to tunnel in order to win, since the numbers show that most killers don't tunnel and killers still win 55.4% of games and lose only 32.2%, with 12.4% of games being draws? That something we can all come to a consensus as being an inaccurate talking point?
-
How are people ending with so many cakes? I had like 400 by the end and I feel like I played way more than I wanted to or was reasonable
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3754940#Comment_3754940
Have to agree. Don’t understand why people are pretending this is a bad perk. It’s some of the best information in the whole game for killer.
Oh, I have a pretty good idea why people are doing that
-
A reminder that "If you're not having fun, consider taking a break" in the lobby screen. If even 10% of the people who saw it actually listened there would be so many fewer complaints because people would say "[other side] did [toxic behavior] to me? Guess games are gonna be bad today, might give it a rest" instead of "I'm gonna do [toxic behavior] to the [other side] in the next 20 games (against players who were not involved in my horrible experience) as revenge"
-
@JPLongstreet said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753977#Comment_3753977
This is likely what prevents players from getting Gold or higher in that emblem. One hooking everyone and bleed-outs are not sufficient suffering for the Entity, although the survs won't enjoy either of those things happening to them.
As the the resident Toxic Survivor Defender™️ even I have to grudgingly admit that survivors giving up probably has something to do with it. If a survivor gives up on their first hook, you have to basically perfectly spread hooks on all the rest of the survivors to have a chance at the point for 9 hook events
-
@SunaIIanu said:
As far as I understand, If you only kill three people you need to have hooked everybody once and have 9 Hooks collectively, if you kill all 4 survivors (Not with a bleedout!) it should be enough to get a gold emblem.
Iridescent would be all 4 dead, every survivor hooked once and 9 hooks in total.
So survivors can deny you the iridescent emblem with not unhooking, but not the gold one.
I used the wiki, it's not official, but usually pretty accurate:
https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Emblems
It needs to be 9 hook actions, not just 9 hook states. Just for clarification
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753027#Comment_3753027
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753185#Comment_3753185
Yup, I had a similar experience with that poster. They added things in I didn't say and were hearing/assuming what they wanted to instead of reading what was actually said. Hence the reply(s) not making much sense. Basically mental gymnastics going on imo.
I would very much appreciate if you didn't act like I'm not Literally Right Here. This whole "I had an interaction with This User (who, by the way, happens to be the last person to have replied to this thread) " thing is devolving into catty middle school gossip tier drama
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753190#Comment_3753190
It doesn't seem like they directly answered that question.
Anyway, you originally asked, "Please explain to me what other possible interpretation there is here?" which was in response to them saying, "Please try to actually read the post, your reply doesn't make any sense, at all." And the post they were referring to was:
It's quite weird some people believe slugging prolong the game, but the fact is, survivors do and absolutely will camp in the hatch for 10 minutes
Most of the time, going for 4k ends up faster
So, going directly by the words used and the posts quoted, you were asking for how else that specific post could be interpreted. And I told you how I interpreted it. The rest of the exchange between you two isn't even part of this. You're complicating it. I'm not going to put words in Neaxolotl's mouth or try to interpret the deeper meaning or sentiment of what they said.
You asked how else those two sentences could be interpreted. I responded. You've added new stipulations. I should have said as much when you added "I'm talking about the interpretation of the entire exchange," because that was when you expanded on the question you asked to include more than originally expressed.
I didn't interpret what they meant the same way you interpreted it. So it can be interpreted differently. How exactly Neaxolotl meant it, only they can say. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying I personally interpreted what they said differently.
I mean, I guess that's technically another interpretation? However, I do have some objections to some things you've said.
First, to clarify, when Neaxolotl said "survivors… camp in the hatch for 10 minutes" I thought they meant "survivors will camp/hide to get hatch for 10 minutes." I can see where that would actually be a pretty niche interpretation of what they said, but honestly that isn't really pertinent to anything else we're discussing.
Now, on to my objections to your post.
it doesn't seem like they directly answered that question
So I guess it's possible that you could see their post and think they were not addressing that part of my post, but the first sentence of their reply is:
- phrased as if it were the reply to a question
- directly references verbiage in the part of my post that I was talking about
See below:
I find it extraordinarily hard to imagine a scenario in which someone sees those two posts next to each other, and does not draw a connection between the sentence in which I use myself as a hypothetical example, and the sentence in which Neaxolotl discusses my hypothetical behavior.
You asked how else those two sentences could be interpreted. I responded. You've added new stipulations.
I'm sorry, but I feel I was fairly clear I was asking about from the start. Here's a map of the first four posts in this interaction, up to and including the first time I ask for an alternative to my interpretation of what Neaxolotl was saying. You'll notice that I stated my initial problem (that I can't find an alternative interpretation), I listed the entirety of what I felt was relevant within the interaction to that point, and then I further explained why I found it frustrating that I couldn't come up with an alternative way of looking at what they'd said.
I thought that when I described in full the scenario I was asking for clarification about, that people would read all the words I said and assume that they were all relevant to the question I was asking.
For those particular reasons, it's really hard for me to find your interpretation compelling. It's kind of demotivating when the alternative interpretation of what was said is premised on missing what I felt were fairly basic and obvious choices of sentence construction, which I would have expected someone acting in good faith with nearly 7,000 posts on this forum would have been able to pick up on.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753173#Comment_3753173
uh, jeez. That's a lot to process when, to me, what they said seemed a lot simpler.
Neaxolotl said that the final living survivor will waste time for no reason, which wastes the killer's time. If the killer's going to lose time and points, then the killer's better off going for the option where they lose time but earn points (in other words, going for the 4k).
You in return gave a very long response to what they said which seemed to have little to nothing to do with their original statement. So Neaxolotl said "Please try to actually read the post, your reply doesn't make any sense, at all"
I also didn't see them say anything that suggested survivors aren't allowed to have an opinion. What they said is "You may be different, doesn't matter when majority is not." All that means is that, while playing DbD, players base their decisions and actions on what the majority of other players do. What I as an individual survivor do and what you as an individual survivor do doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things if the majority of survivors play differently. We base our general tactics and decisions within the game on what the majority of people do. As an example: If I'm playing killer and in my experience the majority of survivors hide in the corners of the map, I'm going to go check the corners of the map; you telling me you personally don't hide in corners isn't going to change my behavior.
But I don't know. I now feel rather confused because I read what they said completely differently from how you read it, apparently.
Please reread all, and let me emphasize ALL of the words in all of the posts and try to figure out if there are any parts of the exchange you are missing (a paragraph beginning with the phrase "Question, if I don't..." is incredibly key to understanding this whole exchange, and nothing you have said thus far has suggested you have read that part of my post, which was actually the core point I was getting at)
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753124#Comment_3753124
Please explain to me what other possible interpretation there is here?
They said: "survivors do and absolutely will camp in the hatch for 10 minutes." Personally, I thought they were talking about the same thing I talked about in my earlier post: the last survivor alive sitting on the open hatch for 10+ minutes teabagging waiting for the killer to come over and see them escape.
That was my interpretation, anyway.
I'm talking about the interpretation of the entire exchange, that is to say:
They say: "some survivors engage in this toxic behavior, therefore any survivor criticism of killer behavior is invalid"
I say: "I don't engage in the toxic survivor behavior you mentioned, am I allowed to offer criticism of toxic killer behavior"
They say: "well some (i recon most) survivors still engage in the toxic survivor gameplay so no"
I was hoping my drippingly scathing phrasing would cue you in to the fact that I was criticizing the shockingly narcissistic attitude that I percieved as the only possible way of interpreting the sentiment behind what they said: that they think, so long as killer players have complaints about a certain element of gameplay, that survivor complaints about that aspect of gameplay are invalid.
It's frustrating, because your "alternative" explanation for what they could have meant is solely a nitpick on what specific survivor behavior they think disqualifies all survivors from being allowed to have an opinion, not that the quintessential interpretation of what I think they said is wrong. Your reply kind of reinforces my point; if the only alternative explanation is that they think survivors aren't allowed an opinion because of a slightly different gameplay style than the one I assumed, I'm forced to the conclusion I really wanted to avoid: that some people on this forum simply are so biased that they think that they're allowed to invalidate one entire side's (representing 80% of the players in any one game) opinions because an entirely unrelated survivor player did something they didn't like. I'd hate to believe such a person existed as anything other than a strawman. Please help me figure out where my logic has gone wrong
-
@Neaxolotl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752738#Comment_3752738
You may be different, doesn't matter when majority is not
Please try to actually read the post, your reply doesn't make any sense, at all
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752785#Comment_3752785
Imo, some killer just like playing hide'n'seek with no time pressure, that's the thing
I don't know any way of interpreting this other than "no, because I dislike it when survivors hide any survivor opinion on killer player is invalid"
You used your complaints about survivors hiding as rationale for why complaints about slugging are invalid.
I asked if I'm allowed to complain about killers slugging for the 4k if I don't engage in hiding as a survivor.
You said it doesn't matter if I engage in hiding or not. By implication this means that no, I am not allowed that opinion.
Please explain to me what other possible interpretation there is here? Because I know, I just KNOW nobody would be so brazenly narcissistic as to claim that their opinion trumps all others, but I simply cannot come up with any other interpretation of what you've just said. Please help me out here
-
When you get a notification from someone, and then ignore them before the notification has been cleared, it becomes impossible to clear the notification and you are forced to keep the red bell icon in the top corner. Even the "Mark All Read" button doesn't work - it makes the notification temporarily disappear, but once you refresh the page it comes back.
I've been going around with this red 1 in my top right corner for months now. I finally managed to clear it by going to my ignore list, un-ignoring each person, clearing the notifications, and then re-ignoring them, but it shouldn't take that much effort just to clear out a notification from someone who you do not want to be hearing from. I know it's low priority and a heck of an edge case, but please look into figuring out how to make the "Mark All Read" button affect notifications from users that are ignored.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752763#Comment_3752763
I never condemned the survivor players either as far as I recall. They are in their full right to try and escape. As I've been saying both sides are doing the most optimal play. To quote something I said directly to you "It's obnoxiously boring, but it's also optimal for both sides to do so it's not like I can fault either side over the other".
The players playing to get the best results they can is fine and acceptable on both sides.
"You use your words to say you are sympathetic to both sides, your actions disagree."
What actions? My words are my actions, we're on a discussion forum. How is one different from the other when the only action we can do is "words"?
how is one different from the other when the only action we can do is "words"?
What you choose to write about and the amount of effort you can choose to spend writing about it is an action that is distinguishable from the meaning of your individual words. To use an example relevant to the pinned post on these forums, there are people who will say "I'm fine with LGBTQ [people], but…" and then launch into a multiple-paragraph long diatribe saying all sorts of horrific stereotypes about them, which they say only applies to "some" LGBTQ people. They say they are fine with them, but then spend large amounts of time complaining about them and spreading negative stereotypes. Their actions (spreading stereotypes) do not match up with the short, halfhearted CYOA disclaimer that they "totally are fine with them, swearsies." Obviously your posts here aren't spreading bigotry, that's just an illustrative example of what I mean.
I never condemned the survivor players either as far as I recall
at this point you've said so many things that I believe to be not only fundamentally incorrect, but also that I have reason to believe you know they are fundamentally incorrect, that I feel I would be doing myself a disservice to engage with you seriously. i'm sure you have some reason as to why calling those survivor players "thirsty" and "pathetic" isn't condemning them, but understand if you provide it it will be ignored because i feel like there's nothing you could say that would change my mind on the validity of your points.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752741#Comment_3752741
It's still complaining about players trying to win, even if that's just trying to win more. They're still just trying to win, it's just more than you'd like. But the survivors are not the judges of how much a killer is allowed to try and win.
To many players a 4K is what they determine as a win and going for a 4K to them is "trying to win". To many others they're trying to win as much as they can. I don't believe the game or the devs for that matter ever said "try to win, but just enough so it barely counts as a win, then stop trying to win any more than that". That also just sounds strange to hold as a general standard. You can choose to do that, but it's your choice.
That's your experience but others don't have the same ones. Besides that, the number of people participating in something doesn't make it right or wrong to do. There's more than enough behaviors that are problematic that have many players doing it.
If you personally see trying to get the best result as "pathetic" that's your opinion and not really a fact that can be asserted or proven.
By the same token, survivors hiding indefinitely being so thirsty to get hatch can also be seen as pathetic.
I think it's kinda pathetic that some people get upset at their opponent for trying to get the best result they can as the game presents it.
But that's not "complaining about killers trying to win" that's "complaining about killers Not Being Satisfied With Anything But A 4k," which you have to acknowledge as being a fundamentally different complaint unless you believe a 4k is the only win condition.
I know other people don't have the same experiences, but I truly believe that I am in the majority here, and short of some evidence from BHVR showing that a majority of killers will slug for the 4k I don't think there's anything you can do to convince me that people who think that way are the overwhelming minority.
WRT the hiding thing, I also think that people who hide and play for hatch are pathetic, with the one exception of people hiding from the specific situation of a killer with 2 dead and 1 slugged trying to find survivor 4 with no cues to where they might be. Not that it matters - we're talking about killer behaviors here, doing a whataboutism on survivor behavior only serves to distract from actually talking about that killer behavior.
However, I find it very interesting that you accuse people of "complaining about killers trying to win" (despite the fact your reasoning doesn't back that up), yet you yourself do something that could far more reasonably be called "complaining about survivors trying to win." With 2 dead and multiple gens left, there's no chance of an actual escape happening. the best chance of getting out is through hoping you lose the coin-flip of getting found first, and then finding hatch, so reasonably speaking that is what someone who is trying to win will do.
I've played enough where I don't really care about getting sacrificed, so as I said in another comment I'll just play normal and if I get found first it's whatever (and as I said in this comment, I think it is pretty thirsty and pathetic to play stealth like that) but I find it very interesting that you're essaying to defend killer players who slug for the 4k for trying to upgrade their Win to a Win Deluxe, while also condemning survivor players who are trying to turn their Loss into a Maybe A Draw. You use your words to say you are sympathetic to both sides, your actions disagree.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752521#Comment_3752521
Neither side is "the bad guy", or if anything both sides are. It's not always a us vs them tribalistic problem. It's understandable that survivors don't want to stay on the floor for 4 minuets (I even stated I dislike that myself) and its understandable that the killer is allowed to and expected to go for a 4K. If they want to be "nice" and go for a 3K instead that's also fine. If they are ok risking it for hatch that's also fine.
If they want to settle for the lesser win and are ok with it then cool. But that doesn't make those who don't the scum of the earth. They are just striving for the higher form of a win, which is to be expected. For players to try to get the best result they can.
A 3K is a lesser win and a 4K is a higher win. Most players are going to aim for the higher win and that's fine. That's expected in the game design. That's the expected ultimate goal of every match for killer, to kill as many survivors as possible and ideally all of them. Survivors it's to escape with as many as possible.
Then there's also players who believe that a 4K is the only time the killer won because that's what the game asks the killer to do. Whether from personal belief or because the game does not ever say that a 3K is a win, so they default to 4K. That happens on both sides btw, there are survivors that believe as long as at least 1 gets out the killer lost and the survivors won.
The main issue here imo is the game is designed in such a way, due to hatch, where once it gets to 2 survivors left the match dissolves into a waiting, slugging, and hiding fest for both sides. It's obnoxiously boring, but it's also optimal for both sides to do so it's not like I can fault either side over the other. It's just bad design pushing players into a situation where neither is happy and they are pushed to play in exceptionally uninteractive ways for an RNG chance.
If they want to play for the best result possible at least. Which is not a crime, it's to be expected.
I hope that summarizes things from my perspective well enough.
Once again, none of this supports the notion that people who complain about slugging for the 4k are "basically complaining that the killer tried to win."
Most of the people I play against - at least 95% of the endgames I get to, more likely over 99% - are perfectly content with hooking the second-last survivor and risking the hatch. That's what I'm basing my complaint on. You can explain about lesser wins vs greater wins, and people wanting to get the most win per win, etc. but it really doesn't matter.
In my experience most people just enjoy playing the game and want to get a result; they don't care enough about the distinction between a 3k and a 4k to bother doing something they know is annoying to a lot of people. When I make the complaint, and I'm sure when many other people do as well, what we're saying is "jimmy how are you this thirsty, why can't you be like 99% of other killers and just hook." It is, in a way, a condemnation of the reasoning itself that you have presented, rather than a failure to understand that reasoning, that drives these complaints. To be blunt about it, they are saying the few people who care that much about getting the so-called "greater win" over the "lesser win" are pathetic.
-
@Neaxolotl said:
It's quite weird some people believe slugging prolong the game, but the fact is, survivors do and absolutely will camp in the hatch for 10 minutes
Most of the time, going for 4k ends up faster
Yeah, good point. When there's only 2 survivors left, the survivors should just give up and let the killer kill them. Also, since winning with a survivor down early is basically impossible, when there's 3 survivors left the survivors should just give up and let the killer kill them. Also, since it's trivially easy to tunnel someone out of the game early most of the time, getting to 3 survivors left is basically guaranteed so when there's 4 survivors left the survivors should just give up and let the killer kill them. Anything else is just survivor entitlement asking for free wins, really
…I trust you recognize this is a joke, and understand what the joke is.
Question, if I don't play stealth when there are only 2 survivors left - Just play the game normally, work on a gen, and if the killer finds me so be it - am I allowed to call killers who slug for the 4k when they don't know where the last survivor is "thirsty as heck", or am I still a toxic survivor main asking for free escapes?
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752495#Comment_3752495
I didn't say it wasn't a win and that was also already talked about. But like you said, you don't care enough to read counterpoints so it is what it is I guess.
if a 3k is a win then it's dishonest to say that someone who is complaining about slugging for the 4k is "complaining that the killer is trying to win." you Must maintain that only a 4k is a win, and a 3k is not, if you want to stand by that point, otherwise you are openly using dishonest framing in order to portray [people who don't want to spend an extra couple minutes on the ground] as bad guys.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752461#Comment_3752461
I and others already addressed this if you read the rest of the thread.
i don't particularly care because a 3k is a win in the eyes of a majority of the community (including anyone i know who has played killer) and any attempt to contextualize it as "not a win" or "not feeling like a win" is just, in my opinion and as other people have said, ego-tripping and focusing more on trying to make sure other people lose, rather than merely trying to win
-
@MrPenguin said:
You're basically complaining that the killer tried to win. Which is the point of a game and this one is no exception.
Besides that, this is a hatch problem.
Survivors hide indefinitely until the other dies for hatch.
Killer slugs indefinitely until the other is found or the first bleeds out because of hatch.
It sucks on both sides.
They win if they get the 3k so no they are not "basically complaining that the killer tried to win"
-
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752291#Comment_3752291
"Anything that is even remotely decent or requires changing their normal play style is immediately bad and must be removed"
That is what you meant to quote but rephrased. That is me pointing out many players point of view, not a monolith of what happens as you rephrased.
""Except the difference is all the slow downs don't leave the meta ever"
Slow down has in fact never left the meta. Ever. A couple perks here and there, but slow down as a whole never.
The actual context of my points is that survivor only players tend to try and force anything out that's decently good or makes them change their play style. Of which they succeed in almost everything other than slow down because it is required in the game. This is why the meta ends up stale for everyone. That's my point.
Thank you for telling me I meant to quote you there. Until this moment, I thought I had always intended it to be a summary rather than a quote (which is why it was a summary rather a quote). Thanks for coming to tell me what I actually meant to be doing!
Gonna be honest, your summary of your first point still seems like you're saying "[when a perk or combo is decent], survivors complain about it and it's fairly consistently nerfed" which is roughly what my summary… sorry, "quote" was, and your second point, while slightly different from my summary, still really doesn't make sense as a refutatuon of the point that slowdown being meta disproves that survivor complaints force slowdown to be meta.
I think we just have fundamentally different views on how the game is balanced -I think the devs focus on all sorts of feedback from all cohorts of players while taking into consideration how reasonable that feedback is and try to create a game they think is balanced for all players, and from what you say here I assume you do not. Rather than hash out these irreconcilable differences of opinion, I think it's best if we just drop this topic.
-
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752251#Comment_3752251
I'd rather you not put quotes around something I did not say. You took what I actually said and rephrased it as you heard it. What I actually said and what you rephrased it as are two different things.
Sorry to hear you feel my summary of what you said is inaccurate. Could you please find a better summary of the phrase "Except the difference is all the slow downs don't leave the meta ever" in the context of our discussion? Preferably one that relates to the point that I'm making, which is that pointing out that slowdown perks haven't left the meta does not debunk anything I've said and in fact is one of the premises of why I felt your original point is wrong.
-
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752132#Comment_3752132
"That doesn't make sense since survivors complain about 4 slowdowns harder than they complain about any other perk build."
Except the difference is all the slow downs don't leave the meta ever. They are still kept good enough because they're required. The slightest nerf and the Weave combo is dead as it's barely viable.
"haven't slowdowns been nerfed into oblivion?"
Because they are required and also because slow downs require nearly zero counter play from survivors, they get to still play the same way they always do.
you: "things that survivors complain about get forced out of the meta"
me: "but survivors always complain about stacking slow down and it hasn't been forced out of the meta, therefore that's wrong"
you: "but that's because it's never been forced out of the meta"
??? I know, that's half of the point I was making.
-
@Blueberry said:
I think the amount of people complaining about this is a good demonstration why the game is just stacking slow downs. Anything that is even remotely decent or requires changing their normal play style is immediately bad and must be removed. No one wants to have to do any counter play and wants to play exactly the same as normal.
Honestly, the counter play this this combo is ridiculously easy, fast and simple. As soon as you see it's in play you just pick up the item and drop it in the corner to pick it up later at the end of the game. Now you removed 2 of their perks with a short trip. That wastes barely any time at all for removing 2 of their perks. That's less than hexes which are honestly too easy as well at the moment.
I would rather the killer run this combo over stacked slow downs any day. I think people are crutching too much on items.
That doesn't make sense since survivors complain about 4 slowdowns harder than they complain about any other perk build. If complaints are driving the killer meta by Discouraging killers from using those builds or Causing those builds to be nerfed, why is the most complained about build still the most popular, and haven't slowdowns been nerfed into oblivion?
-
@MalekithHatesSnow said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/418729/slugging-at-5-gens-is-unnecessary
Your complaint is literally "The killer didn't let me win" and by going by your own words you do sound entitled yes
I dont see how you can read this post and come to the conclusion OP is saying "the killer didn't let me win"
They were complaining that in a scenario that the killer was already at a massive advantage, they were pressing for even more advantage in a way that is both miserable to he on the receiving end of, and actively works to deny Survivors BP.
There's a lot of people on this forum who could benefit from a reminder that there's a thick line between "letting the other side win" and "sweating when your victory is basically already assured".
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3751375#Comment_3751375
I did not accuse anyone, i asked and i asked for a full screenshot instead of a snipped part.
I also did not say that anyone is bad.. you keep putting words in my mouth, please refrain from that, its toxic.
I did question why no gens were done at all. → i even explained why (but you choose to ignore that part completely, even when i told you to read it again)
"I didn't accuse them of being a bully squad, I just asked if they were and said that it made the most sense given the context and heavily insinuated that they were bullying by implying they were intentionally hiding something that would be evidence of bullying. but i didn't outright accuse them, teehee"
lying is a sin and honesty by technicality is a form of lying. quit lying, and quit lying to yourself that that's not what you're doing
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3751357#Comment_3751357
Here we go again… i think this is the weekly topic by now.
Bleeding out a survivor is no worse than survivors dragging time for the killer when they have won the game, but camp the exit gate. This happens in about 80% of the games. They are forcing killers to go and push them out, they even split in 3 some times, so that the killer have to go to both exit gates and the hatch.
But as soon as the killer slugs them for 4 minutes, all hell breaks loose and they go to the forum and complain about it...
If this is such a big problem, then there is perks to counter it, and if you dont want to "waste" a perk slot for that, then the problem isnt really that big that you make it sound.
Its rare that i get bled out.Its not someone else's responsibility to fix what you do, nor can they be held responsible for your actions ect. - suggesting that is just toxic. - so please stop pushing that on to the killer, this is purely on the survivors.
Bleed outs take longer, yea sure. But they are really rare, and if the survivors stand at the exit gate to tbag anyway for 80% of the games, who cares?
Team A drags time from Team B (and have been doing that for a really long time). Now Team B is dragging time from team A as a consequence of that. And now Team A dont think its fun anymore? - im not sure if i should laugh or cry.
Also i have had killer games where my only option was to bleed survivors, because they abused game mechanics to make them unhook-able.
Its kind of tireing that a lot of survivor mains think its ok, and even trying to downplay or even push the responsibility (as you do now) for the exit gate camping to the killer, and over-dramatizatize the bleedouts.
ignoring how obviously wrong you are in your analysis on basically everything I said (I get the feeling this is a generic essay you've been stewing on for a while and you decided to direct at the first person you could reasonably convince yourself was an Evil Toxic Survivor Main despite the fact it doesn't really address what I said)
…i'm tempted to copy-paste the lyrics of the hit Taylor Swift song "look what you made me do" to highlight the absolute childishness of the argument "teabagging survivors made me do it," but I worry that doing that without any explanation as to why I did that nobody would understand the point being made. Just imagine I copy-pasted those lyrics and you immediately understood that your argument was childish
-
@bornagain234 said:
Its as reportable as 4 healthy survivors sitting at the end of the exit gate teabagging until the last microsecond is.
you do realize that killers can go in and hit teabagging survivors to force them out?
the OP is just asking for a mechanic that allows survivor players to cause the 4-player-slug-out games to come to an end instantly, instead of being forced to wait the 4 minutes - similar to how killer players can hit survivor players to force them to exit the game and thus bring the game to an end
don't get me wrong, I despise when my survivor teammates teabag (admittedly I rarely if ever get teabaggers as killer but when I do i find it more corny than anything, but that's beside the point) and I think it's toxic behavior, but the OP is clearly complaining about being forced to wait several minutes without recourse and is asking for a feature that allows them to skip that waiting game while still granting the win to the killer, just like how hitting teabagging survivors out of the gate forces them to leave while also conceding the game to them.
-
@H2H said:
Sure let’s give survivors even more basekit second chances and put even more restrictions on how killers are allowed to play. This will definitely solve all the problems this time.
hey man, really like this post of yours. i'm having a bit of trouble though and maybe you can help me. do you mind pointing out where in the post OP asked for "more basekit second chances"? because I didn't notice it. i'm sure it must be there since you're so confident that's what people are asking for, so could you help me locate it?
-
@Junylar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3751060#Comment_3751060
killer decides to engage in the most antisocial behavior
Killer is the one who kills people, and killing people is indeed a very antisocial behavior if you ask me.
I can't tell if this is a joke meant to agree with me, or someone who genuinely thinks that "pretending to be incapable of understanding even the most basic of declarative statements" is a genuine argument, and that says something about the level of discourse on here. I'll assume it's a joke
-
@govengoben128 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/419012/so-this-isnt-reportable
you can counter any perks like no mither or boon, unbreakable.
why you dont use it?
why is it whenever a killer decides to engage in the most antisocial behavior in the game that actively pushes people away from the community, it's the survivors fault for not picking perks that have a 98% chance to get no value, or even actively detract from their chances in most cases? why do survivors have the responsibility to throw just to earn the privilege of the killer not being toxic to them?
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3750366#Comment_3750366
it makes survivor do secondary objectives. it is similar to my old idea with hex:undying to provide secondary objectives.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3750534#Comment_3750534
someone got sick of gen-rushing survivors. so he made a perk to counter gen-rush.
It's more that I got tired of people complaining that the first few gens go so fast, so I created a perk that takes advantage of that fact. Rather than give killers tools to prevent the first few gens, I came up with something that makes the subsequent gens much slower as a direct result. There was even some level of hope that I could get people to start thinking about the ways in which those later gens are already harder to get done even without a perk like this, but maybe my hopes were too high
Well, the main reason was that I wanted to come up with a hex perk that activated whenever a gen got done, but that was the reason for the specific points of my design.
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3750562#Comment_3750562
We missed the gate thing, plz no. We see the next pain in the arse build and tactic...
I mean Remember Me adds 24 seconds to gate time and nobody uses that perk, this would only add 10 or 20 seconds depending on numbers
-
@danielmaster87 said:
Both sides should play to win and not guilt the other side into going easy on them.
Nah, I think we should fully shame anyone who treats the event named "Bag of Tryx" (tricks) event with the seriousness of a DBDLeague scrim. It's an embarrassing attitude to have in a game mode where everything from its mechanics to its name screams whimsy, and people who hypersweat in it deserve to feel that embarassment
By all means, play your scrims as sweaty as possible. I'll even grudgingly concede try harding in normal DBD is fine, particularly for this event. But if you're seriously going into the anniversary event with the mindset "according to my calculations, slugging here will boost my win probability from 98.8% to 99.4%" then that's just clownish and I will treat you as such