smurf
smurf
About
- Username
- smurf
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,387
- Last Active
Comments
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3873034#Comment_3873034
I am NA and I rarely see serial slugging, I much more often see tunnelling over here, which is easily dealt with and still also pretty uncommon. I genuinely am not getting these super toxic slugging lobbies, which either means I am very lucky or some players doth protest too much, methinks.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872940#Comment_3872940
Respectfully friend I have never seen a version of tag where this isn't allowed. Most people just don't do that because the tagged person is then It, or out of the round, or they learn to stay away from the person who is It better. I don't think the analogy quite fits here.
Exactly :)
The person I was responding to was defending tunneling by saying DBD is essentially a game of Tag. But it would be really weird if I were it and then tagged someone and then just kept chasing them. The analogy didn't make much sense to me :/
-
I think it's a good idea if we both take a step back here and agree to disagree about this :)
-
@Interrupt_Vector said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872940#Comment_3872940
Alright let's turn this around. What are you doing when you play this game? What is your expected game here?
The game is designed in such a way that you can start a new round with new players in a very short time. I am genuinely curious since I do not experience any of the inconveniences that some of you are talking about.
If I'm playing as survivor, I generally expect to be immersed in an environment where there's tension and a "horror" atmosphere, where I'll attempt to do the various tasks survivors have to do (e.g. some time on gens, some time going for saves, some time in chase, maybe go try to block for a death hook teammate, etc.). Tunneling takes that possibility away and instead makes the game into a nonstop chase where I'll have almost no chance of escape.
Likewise, as killer, I expect to hunt for and chase survivors, defend gens, and get survivors on hooks for sacrifices. An argument can be made that bully squads attempt to take that away from the killer since the 'hunt' generally stops the moment the first survivor goes down and a lot of the match turns into a competition to see if the killer can slug faster than the survivors heal until there's a moment to get someone on hook. I just don't complain about bully squads much because I usually don't see them get the gens done. Otherwise, I'd think they were a real problem, making the killer unable to participate in the game. But I generally still get hooks after two or three are slugged and the rest are injured :/
-
@Interrupt_Vector said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872928#Comment_3872928
>unable to participatein the game except to be chased
You realize this game is a variation of "TAG", right? That's literally the point of the game.
But in Tag, the person who is 'it' doesn't just chase one person repeatedly even after tagging them. Did I miss something in that analogy?
-
It doesn't matter how many gens it's done at, if a player is forced to be unable to participatein the game except to be chased and eliminated, why would they play the game?
And for the record, I play about as much killer as survivor. There are no sides here.
-
@Interrupt_Vector said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872914#Comment_3872914
I'm not even reading that. You're moving the goalpost every one of your posts.
Then we are at an impasse… something something, Vizzini, something, Princess Bride.
But really though, tell me how I've moved the goalposts. I believe they're quite fixed in place :)
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872836#Comment_3872836
Once again it's a pvp game. I don't have to be nice to you if my objective is to kill.
Almost every game played against another person is a PVP game. Any interaction with other people should involve caring about the experience of the others involved to an extent that the others are not unreasonably kept from enjoying their experience due to the actions of one person.
It doesn't matter what the objective of the game is. It could be to eat the food, or keep your opponent from solving a puzzle, or to steal your opponent's dolphin. Those are all the same thing as killing the survivors in terms of gameplay: There is an objective, and we try to do the objective. But it's problematic when players can forcibly ruin the experience of another player in any game.
And it's one thing when skill level matters. I expect to get destroyed if I play a sport against someone who plays professionally. But DBD isn't like that. No matter how skilled a survivor is, they will almost certainly not escape if the killer simply decides to tunnel them.
-
@Interrupt_Vector said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872853#Comment_3872853
If you die at 5 gens then the team messed up and the killer deserves his win.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872872#Comment_3872872
Getting personal or getting your feelings hurt over a video game is not healthy.
I also didn't say someone's getting taken out at five gens. I simply said 'early'. That could reasonably be interpreted as anything in the first half of the game. 3, 4, or 5 gens would be reasonable interpretations. But it's fair that five gens left is within that range, and I totally agree that the survivors have messed up if someone is out with five gens left. But a 3v1 at 3 or 4 gens should be easily winnable by the killer.
Also, while my feelings don't generally get hurt over playing video games, it's certainly reasonable for someone to be frustrated when they're treated poorly in any scenario. It's just like with any other activity done with other people; there's no reason to do something that ruins someone else's experience without provocation. Games on the internet are still interactions with other people. If we suggest that tunneling early in a match is an intended game mechanic, that suggests that BHVR intends for some players to have a relatively bad experience through no fault of their own. That is, the game would then be intentionally designed to force some players to have a bad experience regardless of how well they play. That would be a design issue, and should be addressed so that we don't have people playing a game where they expect to have pointless matches on a regular basis.
Tunneling prevents the targeted player from doing anything other than getting chased and eliminated for the entire match. They don't get to do any other part of the game, which is a situation most people don't enjoy. That's different than a person losing at a game where they get to do all the parts of the game. The idea that someone can force that to happen is a problem.
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872836#Comment_3872836
Once again it's a pvp game. I don't have to be nice to you if my objective is to kill.
Almost every game that's played with other people is a PVP game. And yes, we should all be considerate when we interact with other humans. Just because a game is played on the internet with people we don't know doesn't remove the fact that other real people are involved.
-
@Interrupt_Vector said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872786#Comment_3872786
Again straight up lies and made up stories.
>If you tunnel someone out early the rest of the survivors have essentially no chance to finish all the gens
Are you strictly talking about yourself here? I do not understand. The amount of games I won while at 3 or 2 survivors left is not neglect-able, and those games are often even more entertaining than anything else.
Watch him come out with the "low mmr" argument.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872784#Comment_3872784
Why are you making this stuff up. What's with this community and making up stories?
You might notice that I said of you tunnel someone out early. Early doesn't mean that two gens are left.
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872786#Comment_3872786
By the time you tunnel out a survivor 1-2 gens should be remaining. The first chase is always the easiest for survivor so they can basically run the entire map/main building to waste a boat load of time. And if you don't like that in an Asymm, a game built to be unfair, you can have games where you don't get to play much then an Asymm isn't for you. You're playing the simulation of being in a horror scenario and people do die fast.
So you're saying it's totally alright to make one person unable to play the game in the expected way because that should be expected?
By that logic, we could justify bully squads because a group of survivors are stronger together and could punish the killer for trying to kill them. Obviously in a horror simulation, four people would work together to fight against the killer, not drop blocks of wood on their head and run circles around a table for a while.
The problem is that both of those playstyles try to prevent someone from participating in the game in the way they expect to play. We can't justify being rude to someone by saying 'it's an asymmetric game.'
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872768#Comment_3872768
Yeah but for survivors the best thing is the killer not tunneling. Going for other survivors with no hook stats is just inefficient unless they just hand them to you.
Of course it is. If you tunnel someone out early the rest of the survivors have essentially no chance to finish all the gens because even if you don't tunnel another survivor, once you hook one more person, they'll have one person on hook, one person going for saves and healing, and another getting chased.
And that's a basekit ability of every killer. And all it requires is to tunnel out the first person you find who you think won't last long in chase. And when it's done, that player will have been unable to play the game other than to be chased the whole game, most of it in an inured state, and the other players will be unable to do the gens. How is it okay to make someone unable to play the game, and as a result render their entire team unable to win?
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872746#Comment_3872746
4 health states off hook, first right off hook, 2nd from OTR, 3rd from DS, 4th from DH. Sure it only works once but once is all you need. And a majority of killer powers are very easy to DH and only gets weaker against M1s which should already be a free 2 out at the very least. Like if everyone just does gens the 2 outs are incredibly easy to get against the majority of the roster.
But that won't happen if you don't tunnel. Basekit BT only gets used if you're hard tunneling or they do something dumb. Off the Record is designed to keep people from tunneling and encourage going after other survivors. Also, all of those are perks, meaning that if a survivor brought them, they might only have Bond or Flashbang or sometbing left. These aren't a similar scenario to tunneling or camping or slugging for 4k. They don't keep the killer from chasing survivors. With the exception of DH, they just keep a survivor from getting tunneled, and this all requires using up multiple perk slots to do it.
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872721#Comment_3872721
"Slugging is generally not viable against talented players except with high mobility killers" Well yes. Yes not for the reasons you think. Talented players will win regardless because lower tiers are that for a reason, they are weaker. Also you call slugging and tunneling low skill strategies when survivors can have a build to have 4 health states off hook. All of those require nothing to earn them so is that also low skill? Most of the time tunneling and slugging working is a matter of survivors allowing it to work.
Tunneling only wins the match for the killer when you target the right survivor. But it's extremely rare for a survivor to be able to last an entire match when a killer is tunneling them; it's practically a guaranteed kill. The reason it's a low-skill strategy is that tunneling to enable a win (e.g. a 3k or 4k) requires picking a survivor who's done poorly in chase and then eliminating them, generally straight off of the unhook when they haven't been healed and the killer knows almost exactly where to find them. They do not get to play the game anymore once that happens, and instead only get to be chased from a weakened state and then get forcibly eliminated without being able to participate in normal gameplay.
As far as survivors having four health states, that's generally not true. I guess you mean something like running DH and DS? But DH can be played around by the killer and takes some skill to time well or play by the survivor. DS doesn't take much skill, no argument there. But those are perks. Tunneling, camping, and slugging for 4k are all basekit for every killer. Also, people running DS and DH together won't make the killer unable to participate in the game. For a talented survivor, DS can extend the chase for a while as long as they can get to a new good loop in time, but the killer still gets to chase survivors and defend gens. There's a balance issue if DS is extending chase too long too often, and if that's the case, it should be addressed. But unlike with DS, tunneling and camping are basekit abilities for every killer that prevent the targeted survivor from doing anything other than getting chased and eliminated.
-
Agreed. I'm tired of matches ending in moris. I don't play survivor as much as before. And I do play killer more often now, but overall, I play the game less as a result. Sometimes there's a week or so where I just don't play DBD now :(
-
@PleaseRewind said:
If this is true and this has caused more slugging I just don't see why. Are people really that eager to see moris over and over? Even the ones I like I don't need to see over and over.
It depends on the player. Some people will want to see their moris, but I think the novelty will wear off for a lot of people. However, finisher moris are only executable on the last survivor in the match, making a 4k a very common way of achieving them. The subtle impact there is that the finisher mori can feel to some players like a reward; that is, their brain will reward them with dopamine when they get the thing they think means they've done well. We see this in gaming all the time where an in-game reward incentivises playing a certain way and doing it more often.
You're right though, some people won't feel the incentive, but others will feel like they're doing a good job when they get the mori, regardless of how they've managed it. I don't think the finisher mori incentivises much slugging in general, but when the endgame comes, some players are going to see a reward waiting for them if they just slug for 4k. And although the reward feeling may seem subtle, the impact on gameplay for people who get slugged for 4k by anyone who feels incentivised in this way is overt.
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872637#Comment_3872637
Ah there it is the "you're scummy for doing X". No it is not scummy to try and win in a PVP game. I also don't see the problem with "sacrificing your build to run DS and unbreakable"…. Those are very strong perks on their own and still leave you with 2 slots left. You have WAY more build diversity as survivor than you do killer. Also tunneling, slugging, camping etc are ALL core gameplay of DBD according to the devs themselves as they are not reportable options. If they werent you would have anti slug, tunnel and camp perks. Also if you throw core gameplay out the window and still win… is that not a survivor skill issue?
Tunnelling, slugging, and camping are reasons why a lot of people don't want to play survivor. With the exception of slugging, those are all low-skill strategies that pay off most of the time and make the game feel pointless for the players being targeted. Slugging a whole team is generally not viable against talented players except with high mobility killers, hence the exception there. But even then, slugging for 4k falls into that category of low-skill strategies that pay off well.
We see these things complained about a lot while not seeing similar complaints about survivor behaviors as much because survivors need a somewhat reasonable skill level to even try to bully the killer. And even then, bully squads tend to lose matches since they don't do enough gens.
That's the issue here though: there are things that both sides can do to try to make their opponent unable to play the game as they should expect to play. The killer just has a very easy time doing it unless they pick the wrong target to tunnel. And I fully understand the challenges faced too; if my first chase goes poorly, I might struggle pretty hard in the rest of the match. But that's because of my performance vs the survivor when we're both playing the game as we expect to do. If I then proceed to tunnel someone out because I can't win otherwise, that's just me saying "me winning is more important than you getting to play the game."
-
@R3b3l54TTV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3872434#Comment_3872434
I say all the time i WISH they would create a mode that allows survivors to actually fight back. In real life I'd be picking up the closest thing I could grab to beat a killer with. Like a DBD battle royal would be EPIC.
Kate has icepicks…
-
Sometimes I communicate with my dog by crouching and pointing at her nose :)
Actually, though, I think a few meaningful emotes wouldn't be bad. Like one that indicates the word 'killer'. That way you could say 'killer' and then point.
My preference is to avoid voice chat or open chat in solo queue though. I'm sure that I don't want to know what certain Aces or Megs are thinking when they show up next to me on a gen. But a few emotes sound great to me!
-
@sanees said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871294#Comment_3871294
So you hide, delaying the game for 30+ minutes while complaining that the killer is delaying the game? In this case, you were both ready to sit until the end and you are both to blame
This is false. If this actually happened, the killer intentionally kept hatch race from starting for longer than the duration of two normal matches. Meanwhile the last survivor was simply attempting to survive. As killer, I've never had survivors able to successfully hide for more than a few minutes. And in the case being discussed here, the killer took specific actions to draw out the game, specifically refusing to engage in normal gameplay.
If the killer had sacrificed the bot, hatch would have spawned and the game would have ended promptly. If the killer had left the bot slugged, hatch would have spawned when bleedout ended and the game would end after several minutes. If the killer just stood still and did nothing, the match would have ended by generators getting done because at least the bot would have finished them. The killer took very specific actions that drew the match out for an unreasonable amount of time.
-
@kit_mason said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871454#Comment_3871454
Your MMR is a hidden value, you have no way of knowing what it is and even if you did have the number you'd have to know how the playerbase is distributed amongst those MMR values to know where you were.
Additionally, we've been shown that escape rates for survivors hover 40%. Hell- from my own data collection, my SoloQ escape rates are ~42%. Yours may be 10-15% - I trust that you have no reason to lie about that, but this fact makes you an incredibly huge outlier, and I'd be very interested to see how you played to ascertain why it is that astronomically low.
I think we also don't know the shape of the distribution of escapes/sacrifices per player. The standard deviation probably matters somewhat.
You're also probably right that 10-15% is at the lower end of the distribution though. If someone got a 5% escape rate, they'd probably quit playing survivor.
But also, MMR should correct this over time, shifting such an escape ratio to face opponents that lead to a higher escape rate. Maybe it's just a temporary streak and MMR will shift at some point to fix the escape rate?
-
@Emeal said:
I think bots are okay, most times a bot is better than your average Sable Ward.
It all depends on how many bots we will have each game and if it takes priority over the incentive system.Of all the ideas on the last Survey, I think I was most positive about a quick queue system based on how many Survivor games you played, like if I played 5 2v8 I would be awarded 1 ticket for the fast lane for Killers. I understand 2v8 is popular and I would gladly play 30 games of Survivor, for three fast queue games with my buddy. That is a fair deal in my mind.
That is not a bad idea. I queued up for killer in 2v8, but have never been willing to wait the 20-45 minutes to get one match and instead just played survivor.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3867402#Comment_3867402
I am a little buzzed rn as I'm with family and we went out, so IDK how much this will make sense, but I think you're right. I think we need to deincentivize MMR even more. Perhaps it would be better if BHVR said they're removing it but actially did not, would people's perceptions change?
MMR is a placebo effect. We all think we're top MMR but data says we're definitely not. If that's the case, never mention MMR again and asy it's being removed as a trial in a PTB but don't remove it. Then see who says what is happening. If changes occur based on play, then simply lie and say there is no MMR and it's been removed.
My thought is, if people do not know MMR exists (because they think there is none) they may chill out and think differently about games, that is less competitively. But when BHVR has advertised MMR as it has, now people see that as a challenge to best somehow, so people play more harsh to want to gain it. It becomes a commodity, not a system, because everyone wants the bragging rights of being high MMR,I agree that this is likely to help with some of the competitive feelings people get when playing DBD. They'd need to look at any mechanism players will use to judge whether they did well in a match and consider if it can be used to justify playing in certain ways also.
For example, in the absence of MMR, would some players just decide to go for the highest bp score they can get? Or maybe people would judge a win by pips? I guess those seem like solvable issues too since the amount of bp or pip progress could be shifted toward more fun playstyles. And while I think it wouldn't get rid of tunneling, camping, bully squads, etc., this kind of thing could lead to fewer extremely different and conflicting methods of approaching the game :)
-
@jmwjmw27 said:
What frustrates me is knowing that the developers basically never actually take feedback from this forum (I believe it has happened before but not frequently) and they don’t even listen to feedback from fog whisperers. Other than arguing to argue or discuss with fellow gamers what even is the point?
They have people reading the forums, though I have no idea how much of what we say they think is worth listening to :)
But I would love it if they said they listen to fog whisperers by going into matches with that purple murky fog offering and running Whispers.
-
@Dadeordye said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871687#Comment_3871687
Honestly… I have no idea.
Maybe I'm confusing the recent games from weeks with the result of months. I don't hard tunnel because it's a braindead way to achieve your objective as much as gen rush. Also there are some matches that I simply forget that one of the guys on the floor already had a hook.😋
If I'm a surv and this happens to me I simply say "well, I'll go make a sandwich while I wait". No big deal.
All I know is that 4% needs to go regardless. Luck based stuff is stupid. It was a pain to watch Yugioh everytime it was Joey's turn to duel😂lol That's fair. I think a lot of people have complaints about RNG-based stuff in DBD. Even Pain Res gets talked about in that context. I've personally had three scourge hooks spawn near each other, though I usually don't mind RNG stuff; sometimes it's in my favor and sometimes not. And as long as the odds are reasonably balanced, I'm happy :)
I think the most common complaint I see surrounding RNG is hatch. I honestly like hatch the way it is, but I think there are some people who would be appeased by a carefully balanced skill-based hatch mechanism.
-
@Dadeordye said:
4% needs to go.
It's quite a considerable amount of matches that "I can't" hook the 3rd and 4th surv because they were never hooked and if I do it they can 4%. This is also aggravated when one of then have that amazing idea of crawling to some corner to deny the hook (these ones seems to love being slugged or they wouldn't do such a pointless thing), so I have to wait this one to bleed out to hook the last one so he/she can't 4%.If a survivor hasn't waited on hook and immediately uses all three of their 4% chances, they have about a 1/9 chance of self-unhooking. If they waited for an unhook for very long, they have fewer chances, leading to lower odds of a successful self-unhook.
It should also almost never be the case that the last two survivors both have zero hooks. Without hard tunneling, that should practically never happen.
Together, these things suggest that this phenomenon of the last two survivors self-unhooking should be extraordinarily rare. And even then, it's not so hard to find and down the survivor who self-unhooked since you know where they were when they did it.
How often would you say you find yourself seeing a survivor self-unhook, without an unhook-related perk, in a way that impacted your ability to get the kill on that survivor when only two are left?
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3870232#Comment_3870232
I think there's less whataboutism than most would believe, and more of trying to show people why something is broken or why their idea wouldn't work. They say buff DS, I say that'll create slugging. I say SWF debuff, they say that's anti-friends. I think sometimes the counterarguments are accepted rather than ignored, but not to the extent where they change their mind. That why in your initial paragraph, I thought you were being serious and reasonable.
I do see legitimate hardcore detractors though, like "You just don't want our side to do ANYTHING!" or semantics about logic and definitions, or tone policing. I really don't mind the us vs them mentality as long as it doesn't become that stuff, and as long as valid points are being made. I've tried my best to make compromises, but sometimes there's just nothing to work with. The devs have got to stop hiding MMR and making everyone think they're a top player. It's the #1 barrier to discussions.
I think you make a good point that as long as arguments are made honestly, it's best to have people advocating for both roles to prevent some very one-sided updates.
I do also feel that there's a lot of disregard for the experience of other players by a non-zero fraction of the player base though. My biggest issue with the game in general is that there are a lot of mechanisms for making a particular player's experience worse. And that goes for both sides: The killer can tunnel, proxy camp, and slug for 4k, and survivors can try to bully the killer. Also, survivors can just go next and ruin the match for three other players. A lot of posts/comments I see appear to only consider one issue without considering the game balance and/or the experience of the 'opposing side'.
I think all of those should be gradually pushed out of the game with small updates that nerf those tactics over time in small increments, except in niche situations. Like in the endgame, probably most tactics are fine to try to save a survivor or secure a kill. And we shouldn't try to fix the issue of someone just having a bad match. But I guess we all acknowledge that we can't just take away those things suddenly or the game balance would be destroyed. But ultimately, I think tactics that make one player have a much worse experience than they need to have should be fixed over time. And I think a lot of the discussions that appear one-sided are a result of that kind of thing; that or inexperience…
Really though, I agree, we do need people pointing out all issues that players can experience so that BHVR gets to see the full spectrum of problems they need to balance for. And crowd-sourcing is a great way to do that.
-
I'm going to say something in support of the killer's interest here. "Bring a perk" isn't the answer to an in-game problem.
Having said that, I don't find flashlights to be a big problem. Flashbang locker saves from bully squads can be obnoxious, especially if the squad is running WGLF, expo, flashbang, Head-On, etc. But flashbangs performed outside of pickups can usually be countered by just looking up. I think the answer to some of this is in the details of how blinds play out during certain situations in-game. During pickups, I don't think a killer facing straight at a wall within some angle should be blinded. Survivors can crawl away from walls. But flashlight angles also need to be forgiving enough that flashlights are still worth bringing.
-
@FMG15 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871454#Comment_3871454
Based on the official stats it's around 60%. It definitely leans towards the killer side, but 60% is closer to 2 kills than 3 kills. Soloq is definitely different you lack information and often the mates you get do whatever they want but that's a soloq issue. SWF are still in a good spot. If I play with a strong squad I escape the majority of my games
Isn't that a problem though that SWFs are so different than solo queue? I sometimes play in SWFs, but never with comms, and I think most survivors are solo queue, with duos being the most common form of SWF. I forget, do we have access to the stats on SWF vs solo queue escape rates adjusted for MMR?
-
Hard tunneling in the early game is a serious flaw in the game design. The idea that one player can force another player to not be able to participate in the game except to be chased and eliminated, unable to enjoy the game the way they should expect to, is ridiculous.
And the reasoning that people give for it is shocking too. "If I don't do this thing that makes you unable to play the game, I might not win!" That feels like someone seeing a line of people at a store and saying "If I don't cut into the front of the line, I might not get the outcome I want." It just totally disregards the experience of the other people sharing the activity.
I can't even imagine a person doing something like that with a group of friends. If I sat at a table going "You're getting out of this game immediately and everyone else practically won't be able to win!" I'd expect people to not want to play games with me anymore. But for some reason, there are people who play DBD who think that kind of behavior is okay.
Op has the right mindset surrounding games; everyone playing should have a reasonable chance to enjoy the game. However, we also can't make it so the most recent person off hook can't be downed at all. Bully squads would have a giant celebration. And there are situations where you can reasonably expect to get chased off hook. If all gens have been done, the killer should be monitoring a hook or the gates (or in some cases mindgaming those activities to find survivors). But in any case, hard tunneling in the early game is a massive problem. Why even play the game as a survivor if it's going to happen?
-
@YuffieGreatestWaifu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871187#Comment_3871187
It is regarding Sabo or bully squads they are one MASSIVE reason why Killers resort to slugging but the problem is once Killers got used to that strategy they never stop.
I think that could be correct about people getting too accustomed to slugging as an acceptable approach. I thought you were talking about slugging for 4k.
Just about everyone slugs bully squads since you can essentially count on them having someone around the corner or next to the nearest hook once you get one or more down. There's often not another option. Only a fraction of the SWFs I see are bully squads, but honestly it's not even fun to 4k them.
I remember a specific one I got a couple days ago that was just super frustrating. They didn't come close to getting all the gens done, and I got a 4k against them, but the game was super annoying. I'd think the area was clear, have two downed and two injured, then go to put someone on a hook, but they'd have someone at the nearest hook, and they brought an oak offering to space hooks out.
Still, while the match can be frustrating, they usually don't bother me since I can take the 'win', then go next and play a normal game. But I can imagine if someone got five bully squads in a row, they might just quit playing for a while though, or start adopting an annoying playstyle. If I got two or three in a row, I'd probably just do funny stuff instead of trying :/
-
@YuffieGreatestWaifu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871141#Comment_3871141
The problem is Dead by Daylight is balanced for Solo Q and SWFs with coms break most of the mechanics of the game. SWFs can relay information like Killer location, perks, Killer Add-ons and more. This is information SOLO Q teams dont have or have to waste perks to get to the same level. This is why Gen-rushing with SWFs is so dangerous forcing Killers to play very Toxic gameplay like Slug 4k.
Slugging for 4k isn't related to SWFs. By the time a killer is able to slug for 4k, the match is already won. That's a decision made independent of whether the survivors were in a SWF.
It would be possible to argue that SWFs on comms make killers feel the need to tunnel or proxy camp. But honestly, that just ruins the game for the people the killer is sharing the game with. The target becomes unable to do anything other than be chased for as long as they're in that match; they don't even get to play the game they should be expecting to play. If my opponents are better than me, that doesn't justify me making someone wonder why they bought the game. Instead, I play it out, take my loss, and get better. And if there's a balance issue, that's for us to come here and talk about so BHVR can solve it.
My opinion is that the only justification for tunneling, camping, or slugging for 4k is if the survivor has decided to bm first. Then the killer can decide if they want to reciprocate. But I think there are also certain mechanisms that could be coded into the game to diminish the amount of teabagging or other bm that players have to deal with. And don't get me wrong, I do on rare occasions see a survivor teabag, then do it again at a pallet, and so I'll decide that bad manners beget bad manners… though I'll also say that I usually just ignore the bait.
However, you're not wrong that external comms create a game balance issue. We can do things like increasing MMR for SWFs, and implementing comeback mechanisms or other solutions, and I think that's the discussion we should be having. What's the way we make most matches worth playing for most people?
-
There are benefits to a lengthy song duration. I had a survivor try to boop my snoot for the first time in a while earlier, so I crouched to accept the boop and they pulled out a lute!
We were the best duo. Fifteen seconds of Laurie on strings while Pig roared on vocals!
But for functional use, it does seem to take a while.
-
@notacamper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3870193#Comment_3870193
https://karasuden.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/dodge-yer-bait.jpg
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3870190#Comment_3870190
Your missing the point, when surviors sweat that hard to get everyone out, its not about "working as a team" to them its about being able to brag that they 4man escaped, all four of them get to teabag at the exit gate, and brag the killer sucks because they couldn't sac one of them. It's not about points, its not about "Gotta save my teammate cuz its the cool thing to do!", it's litle more than to tilt the killer as much as possible.
This isn't always true. I'll take protection hits and risk my escape to get a teammate out, and I've also gone as far as sticking up for the killer in post-game chat when my teammates were being rude. I remember one specific instance when a teammate said such awful things to the killer that I told them to stop talking. And they did, probably because they didn't want to deal with the consequences of what they were doing. What you talked about also happens, but those hard saves aren't always just to gloat :)
-
What about those of us who have an issue with the way forum discussions don't lead to prompt action? Your issue is irrelevant without this being fixed. Both are issues, but why should your side get what you want fixed while my side is left to deal with this? It would be unfair! Rant rant rant!
Sarcasm aside, what you said is very true. There's an absolutely wild amount of what-about-ism in a lot of forum discussions regarding DBD. Generally speaking, that entire approach to debates and/or discussions is a logical fallacy and used by people who want to misdirect otherwise productive discussions. I think there is also an issue of some people being unable to see or hear the issues other people are experiencing.
You're right that one discussion can handle two issues, but as you mentioned, on these forums it often devolves into some nonsense us vs them quagmire. It would be great to see more people acknowledging compromises here :)
-
As someone else mentioned, Darth Vader isn't really in the horror genre.
More than that though, he's kind of a complex character that wouldn't fit well as a killer. Anakin's fall was tragic, but in the end of the Skywalker Saga, his love for his wife and son helped him fulfill the prophecy and turn back from what he had become. That feels a little off for killer material.
Don't get me wrong, the concept of Darth Vader is horrifying, but his character is built in a way that has a lot more love and redemption than we see in our typical killers.
Also, I feel Darth Vader has a power level vastly beyond any other killer in the roster, and he might just overhrow the entity. It feels almost like adding Neo from The Matrix as a survivor; he'd just fly around and fight the killer.
-
That might be it. There are some killers who will give hatch to people they know were contributing to the match, but take others out who they think weren't contributing. I know if I have a 2v1, I'll spend some time checking whether one of the survivors is hiding and not doing gens while the other one still tries. If one of them is on gens, and no other gens progress for a while, I'll go hunt for the hiding one.
And some killers will assume that if they haven't seen someone during a whole match, that person must not have been doing anything useful. I won't do that since that survivor could have done gens, gone for saves, cleansed totems, etc. Admittedly, I would expect all survivors to at least try to take chase if their whole team got to death hook though. But it sounds like that's what happened, the killer didn't think you did enough for the team. …That or they thought Lara's outfit was fun.
-
@buggybug said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3868850#Comment_3868850
Yeah lol and their perk suggestion for looping? they clearly just purchased the game 10mins ago or they just very high and angry with the world let them continue its giving me alot of giggles. Who the hell uses Alert, Open Handed + Kindred, Fogwise, Object of Obsession as chase perks lol. It is clear they do not know what they talking about.
But what's wrong with looping the killer around the hook with Kindred? ... ... 😉
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
If I see a bot in a lobby, I'm out. This is such a terrible direction for the game.
It looks like the message says they won't go into regular solo lobbies, but may go into events. I bet some killers in 2v8 would appreciate it. I queued up for some killer lobbies in both 2v8 runs, but always dropped out before ever finding a match because I don't want to wait 10-40 minutes for a game.
If this went into regular solo queue, they'd have to give the bots MMR dependent buffs/nerfs or people would start dodging lobbies if they see basic skins. (High MMR would eat normal bots alive, but at quite low MMR the bots might frustrate the killer.)
-
After that title, I was really hoping you were going to say "I Plot Twisted."
-
@Slan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3867867#Comment_3867867
Once again I tell you, no matter how good you did, if you are the last survivor and get caught, you are dead no matter what. The finisher mori lets you save a lil time (the time a killer takes to get you to the hook) if everyone did it as soon as someone was downed.
And if you desire to keep a name with "ttv" in it, do it at your own discretion. Dbd isn't the only game in which people stream snipe. To your friend I suggest changing his name if it gives him this many issues. If you want to reach people, use endgame chat in PC (in ps5 it's more difficult) once the game has ended, that way you deny every chance of stream sniping deliberately. You also need to be riminded that not everyone is you and not everyone would want to be you.
Also leaving hurts your team and the killer as well. Bots are there to help mitigate the effect of someone leaving, so that a team has an actual chance.
I highly advise you take in consideration all alternatives before suggesting something radical, because this post almost sounds like an individualistic rant centered on yourself and your case instead of showing an open mind to any solutions.
Honestly, the finisher mori seems to typically take much more player time away than it saves. I've seen a lot of matches where the killer will wait for other survivors to die on hook so they can do the mori, or the killer will pick the last survivor up and carry them to a place where the mori is more visible. But it's usually quick to pick up a survivor and put them on a hook; it would save time.
Also, you're right that if the last survivor is caught, they're usually done. But it's not always. I've definitely had scenarios where I'm defending the gate and choose to drop a survivor to go after their teammates. In those situations, it's possible for the survivor to wiggle out when I pick them back up and possibly even escape if the gate gets done or they loop their way to hatch. It's rare, but I've even done it myself as survivor.
Personally, I don't see why the finisher mori exists. I wish they'd get rid of it.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866924#Comment_3866924
That's all fair, and I'm not saying change that. But my point is, wouldn't it be more accessible and feel a lot more casual if ANY amount of Kills felt more like a win, and escaping through hatch by the skin of your teeth felt more… rewarding? Being the Final Girl should be as celebrated as having even just one Kill, because you can still have a decent horror film even if a lot of people survive the Slasher or the Slasher kills nearly everyone. We don't say Sidney Prescott is less of a Final Girl in Scream 2 where almost all her friends die, so why is that the case here? And we don't say Ghostface is less of a Killer because his kill count in Scream 6 is lower than in all the other Scream movies, so why is only 1 Kill even considered a loss here? If we're talking about the game's spirit, then low kill and escape counts should also matter as those can still make a good Slasher horror experience just fine.
Every amount of Kill or Escape should, theoretically, be therefore considered winning. I don't see why that's not the case. And lorewise, it just makes sense for a lot of hooks to be a similar wincon, because the intent of the hooks is to create misery for the Entity to feed on, and also you can literally pip up by 8hooking and letting people go anyway even if you win the round. I have Killer Main friends who do that all the time just to vibe because they are casual.
Why are these alternative wincons not considered if the Devs truly want this game to be casual? It doesn't harm anyone who wants their wincon to be a 3-4k or a 3-4 escape doing this. All it does is help people who don't want to play that way, feel more included. Shouldn't we want more inclusion and more people to play?
I already play this way. As killer, I view any match with a 3k or 4k as a match where I did well, and I see a 1k or 2k as being alright. 0k makes me a little sad, but I can't currently remember the last time I had a 0k.
Likewise, I view any escape for my survivor as a good outcome, whether it's through the gate or the hatch. Basically, I still use the game as a bit of hopefully harmless escapism that lets me participate in a survival horror experience (however non-horrifying the game may be).
Honestly, I don't think the game should have any kind of 'win' condition at all, and BHVR should openly qnd strongly emphasize the lack of 'win' or 'loss' outcomes. Instead, they should encourage the experience the game is meant to provide. Currently, the community has latched onto the MMR conditions to define wins and losses, where the same thing that provides an MMR boost (3k or 4k) is what the community considers a win. Same with ties and losses. It may be that BHVR should make the MMR system more opaque to combat this, simply stating that they may be making updates to the system, but not revealing the way the system works at any time.
I see a lot of arguments that killers need a certain number of kills to have a good game, and it might be better if people felt less pressure to perform, and just wanted to have fun :)
-
@BritneyMitch said:
ive always thought the hatch should spawn after a time period that only 2 survs have been alive. Give the killer their time to close out the game, but i mean if 15 minutes roll by and nothing happens what are we doing here. If all 5 gens dont get completed and they escape from hatch the killer won imo. The other option that is just so obvious that it should exist; but for some possible reason that nobody understands doesn't exist, would be the option in the 2v1 to "let yourself go" immediately when downed and go next game. This fixes the problem for everyone and lets the game work the way it should.
Both of those sound decent. They wouldn't be perfect solutions to what op is talking about but they would help with it. And they might be solid answers to slugging for 4k (though I haven't thought yet about any negative repercussions).
-
@Sigmalarity_Main said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865273#Comment_3865273
Hatch is a problem, because:
- Killers that want to give hatch will happily give gate anyway
And, here are the things a Killer has to do for a 4k:
- Kill 3 survivors before the gates are powered
- Win a 50/50 race against a survivor for hatch
- Hope the survivor doesn't have Sole Survivor and Wake Up (guaranteed escape regardless of distance)
- Hope the gate isn't far enough for even holding W straight to it from hatch won't make it in time
All that for a 4k.
Now, if you remove hatch:
- Kill 3 survivors before the gates are powered
- Hope the survivor doesn't have Sole Survivor and Wake Up
Make the 3rd kill automatically trigger gate power-up.
Literally, at least when you hook the 3rd guy you can go somewhere between the gates to hold W more strategically.
Those things are mostly just balancing mechanisms that make the last survivor escaping into a somewhat reasonable possibility. Hatch race is generally somewhat killer-sided, and for the entire duration of the hatch race + egc, the survivor has to avoid the killer.
Hatch plus gates together give an okay chance for the last survivor to escape, but one that sometimes favors the killer and sometimes the survivor, depending on hatch and gate positions. Honestly, that seems fair to me. If the escape odds for the last survivor were too low, I'd suspect we would see a significant increase in the number of survivors hiding for the endgame, even if egc is triggered.
You're right about Sole Survivor + Wake Up, but that's not so different than a killer running No Way Out + NOED.
Also, and this is just my own perspective, but I honestly don't understand why a 4k matters to a killer player. I find a 3k with a hatch escape to be essentially the same performance as if I got a 4k, but then one survivor lives to tell the tale :)
Anyway, I guess we could argue that blood points matter, so the killer is getting robbed of some bp? Or maybe some people don't feel good enough about winning unless they completely defeat everyone?
Anyway, I think it's good that the last survivor has a reason to play out the endgame and not just hide. A lot of people conplain about the rng thing, but the hatch race is almost as strategic as monitoring gates. There's an optimal way for the killer and survivor to run around the map to optimize their chances of finding hatch first.
A skill-based replacement for hatch could be okay, but it would be very challenging to balance across all MMR levels. I think some kind of limited duration hide-and-seek might be a good solution since both high and low MMR survivors should be able to hide. But I think very low MMR survivors will still have an easier time with hatch as it is. And that may be helping with player retention.
-
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866191#Comment_3866191
Then again, why did he quit in the first place?
You're right! Stevegull only ragequat because the killer was camping his hook!
Actually though, you're not wrong about having a 3v1 be a viable play condition. 3v1 with too many gens left is rough and can lead to matches that seem pointless. It wouldn't be bad to think of a sort of 'lesser escape' or 'lesser win' condition for certain 3v1 scenarios. That is, a lot of killers are thinking about the game in terms of wins/losses, and a lot of survivors are thinking in terms of escapes/deaths. But what if it wasn't as binary as that?
Maybe there could be a sort of intermediate condition where if either the killer or survivor side are losing, they could push toward a mitigated loss. Possibly like a kind of 'maimed escape' for the survivors, where the killer gains something and so do the survivors. But the side pushing for that condition accepts that they're not getting their full sacrifice or escape, and the risk of a full loss still exists, but is less likely?
Not sure at all what that would look like, or if it even makes sense to anyone but me. But maybe worth thinking about. And in the end, maybe just slight 2v8 style comeback mechanisms for both sides are a better idea. Idk :)
-
Thank you to everyone who occasionally updates here! I have this thread bookmarked :)
Also, I just learned that Tanuki is actually a real animal:
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
pre-dropping is countered by having anti-loop power that allow killer to hit survivor when pallet is dropped. pre-running is countered by having haste.
unfortunately there are no haste perks that easy to use for killer. all of them have major drawbacks with the best one being play with your food.
Anti-loop power are hit & miss. some are good when pallet is dropped. others are not. Nurse & Spirit can play dropped pallets. blight can break them than use his power to catch-up. other killers get like… pig dash which is not exactly up to par to nurse blink, spirit walk or blight rush.
lol Pig dash is exactly countered by predropping or by just running away once Pig crouches at a pallet :/
I main Pig and have to mind game the dash counter against good survivors.
-
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865873#Comment_3865873
Maybe we are all AI???
If you read a bit (or already know) about neuromorphic computing, you might very much find that possible... :)
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
I think most of the ragequitting starts happening while all 4 survivors are still alive.
And if ragequitting happens when there are less than 4 survivors, the #1 reason is because another survivor already ragequit that game.
I would like to support the past tense of quit being 'quat'.
For example: "Our match sucked because Steve ragequat on his first hook."
-
This is a good idea. I'd be willing to sacrifice the ability to buy a new cosmetic or two so the team could take the time they need to design new skins/morphs/animations that would make the game more accessible for some players. I've seen more than one other person talk about how Plague is awful for them to go against because of a response they have to depictions or instances of vomit as well.
This sort of thing could be a real QOL improvement for some people. We might just have to sacrifice a rift cosmetic or something here and there to work it in? Or even make it a small purchasable item to justify the development cost?