wish
wish
About
- Username
- wish
- Joined
- Visits
- 46
- Last Active
Comments
-
Maybe you're talking about Windows of Opportunity, but honestly, I don't see how a game where you just run from one highlighted pallet or window to the next without really thinking is supposed to be fun.
A big part of DBD should be figuring things out yourself — where to go next, whether to use a pallet or save it, and how to connect one tile to another.
Winning because you read the situation and made the right decisions feels way more satisfying, and honestly healthier for the game, than just following highlighted resources around the map.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4101526#Comment_4101526
Or perhaps the reason you came to that conclusion is that you have only been matched against low-MMR Survivors who do not know how to use the current pallet setups effectively.
Ah, the classic. The person in question is not mindlessly complaining how unfair it is for Killer, so they must be low MMR. I probably played more Killer than you have overall hours. And from the Builds my opponents use, I have to assume they know at least a bit what they are doing.
I am at the Soft Cap of the MMR. This does not mean that I am extremely high MMR (nobody knows that), but I face opponents I know have very high MMR, so I am at least at the Soft Cap. Might be barely above it, might be way above it, nobody knows.
Main Buildings and loops being weaker than they used to be is a separate question from whether current pallet generation is balanced. Fewer windows, shorter loops, or removed breakable walls do not automatically mean the number and placement of pallets are healthy.
This is not a separate question. When they increased the volume of Pallets, they also reduced Pallets in Main Buildings (e.g. the Main Building on the Asylum Map only features one Pallet anymore), removed Breakable Walls (Groaning Storehouse and Gas Haven dont have the strong breakable Walls in their Main Building anymore) or removed Windows (the Main Building on Chapel does not feature the best Window anymore). And they made Loops overall shorter which resulted in more Pallets, but more unsafe ones. Yet when Pallets were reduced again, none of the changes before were reverted. This combined with the fact that maps became more and more unsafe over the years (strong structures get removed, added by way weaker structures) made the Killer experience overall better. The only thing which remained from Pallet Density is basically that it added some Filler Pallets. Basically:
Old: Two Jungle Gyms next to each other, both having a safe Pallet —> Pre Pallet Density: Those Jungle Gyms got replaced with much weaker Loops without compensation —> Post Pallet Density: Filler Pallet got added between those. And this is overall a fair change. More unsafe Pallets > better gameplay than very few super safe Pallets.
If the claim is that pallet density is objectively fine, it should be supported by things like average chase duration, pallet counts, spacing between resources, tile connectivity, and how different killers are affected—not a few days of personal experience.
This is the biggest head scratcher for me. Why do I have to provide proof, but every bad Killer Main who complains that the game is SO HARD for Killer does not have to provide anything? If someone complains about Pallet Density, they should provide gameplay. Because then we would actually see if there is an issue or if the player can improve. We get screenshots at best, often enough just rants without proof. Yet I am required to bring proof, others not?
The low-MMR remark was obviously sarcastic. You had already suggested that people who complain about pallet density must be playing badly, so I simply applied the same kind of reasoning back to you. You cannot reduce other players’ opinions to a skill issue and then suddenly object when the same logic is used in your direction.
But the main point is not MMR, gameplay footage, or who has to provide proof. The issue is that a noticeable number of players independently feel that the increase in pallets has made certain map generations excessive or unnatural.
A widely shared perception is not automatically objective truth, of course. But when the same concern repeatedly appears across different players, killers, maps, and matches, it is still a meaningful signal. It should not simply be dismissed as “bad Killers playing badly.”
Your personal experience is valid, but it is still only your personal experience. Playing M1 Killers for a few days and having no issue does not invalidate the broader perception formed by many players across far more matches and different map generations.
The point is not that the majority must always be right. The point is that an individual anecdote should not be used to deny the environment people were actually experiencing at the time, or to reduce a broadly shared balance concern to a universal skill issue.
You can reasonably argue that having more unsafe pallets is healthier than having only a few extremely safe ones. But that still does not mean every concern about the increase in pallets is imaginary, nor that everyone who notices it is simply bad at Killer.
Rather than reacting from the perspective of your own personal experience, it is more important to step back and look at the broader state of the game.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4101514#Comment_4101514
Yeah, but back then Pallet Density was actually a thing. This was when they first started working on it. Afterwards they went back on it by removing a lot of the Pallets (while keeping the Loops and Main Buildings weaker, as they did before) which resulted in the other extreme. And then we ended up on the current version, which is still weaker than pre Pallet Density for Survivors, since they removed Windows or breakable Walls from Main Buildings and shortened some Loops.
And IMO if people blame Pallet Density nowadays, I have to assume that they are playing really badly and kicking every unsafe Pallet and dont play anything. I was mostly playing M1-Killers the past few days and I had no issue at all with Pallets.
Using M1 killers for a few days and personally not having trouble with pallets does not prove that pallet density is fine, nor does it justify reducing every criticism to a skill issue.
Main Buildings and loops being weaker than they used to be is a separate question from whether current pallet generation is balanced. Fewer windows, shorter loops, or removed breakable walls do not automatically mean the number and placement of pallets are healthy.
The issue is not simply whether a killer mindlessly breaks every unsafe pallet. Even a weak pallet can waste meaningful time depending on how quickly it connects to another tile, how close it is to generators, and how many pallets spawn in the same area. Several individually weak pallets can still create a strong chain.
Map, RNG, killer choice, survivor skill, and match circumstances all matter. So saying, “I had no problem, therefore anyone who complains is playing badly,” is not a balance argument. It is an anecdote followed by an insult.
If the claim is that pallet density is objectively fine, it should be supported by things like average chase duration, pallet counts, spacing between resources, tile connectivity, and how different killers are affected—not a few days of personal experience.
Or perhaps the reason you came to that conclusion is that you have only been matched against low-MMR Survivors who do not know how to use the current pallet setups effectively.
-
@littlehoot said:
As someone who plays both survivor and killer, honestly I don't see the need to force the last survivor to have to stay to watch the Mori? Even if they abandon and the 'player' I Mori at the end is a bot, I still won, I still got the Mori. Forcing a survivor player to stay and watch themselves get Mori'd if they don't want to would just feel like rubbing salt in the wound. It would be like the game teleporting a killer to the exit gate to be forced to watch as the survivors escape.
I understand where you're coming from, but this actually highlights exactly why the current system is flawed.
Yes, slugging for the sake of avoiding the hatch game is often seen as abusive or unpleasant. But under the current system, even when a Killer downs all Survivors fairly and legitimately, the final Mori can still be ruined if the last player disconnects or surrenders, resulting in a bot standing in for the final cinematic. That completely undermines the Mori as a reward that the Killer worked for throughout the entire match.
Your argument basically says: "If the Killer played in an annoying way, it's okay to deny them the Mori." But this creates an unhealthy precedent — it allows certain survivors to weaponize surrender as a way to spite the Killer, regardless of whether the Killer played fairly or not. This isn't about "making it personal," it's about protecting the integrity of an earned mechanic that both sides are aware of from the start.
That's why my suggestion includes a safeguard: If the Killer slugs and stalls excessively (e.g. 60 seconds or more), survivors should still have the ability to surrender to prevent trolling or griefing. But if the Killer is actively playing and ready to finish the Mori, the last real player should remain to preserve the competitive and cinematic payoff that makes the Mori meaningful.
In short:
The problem isn't just slugging — it's that the current system throws out the entire Mori experience even in clean games. My proposal addresses both abuse cases and fair play, without stripping the Killer of a reward they legitimately earned. -
@littlehoot said:
As someone who plays both survivor and killer, honestly I don't see the need to force the last survivor to have to stay to watch the Mori? Even if they abandon and the 'player' I Mori at the end is a bot, I still won, I still got the Mori. Forcing a survivor player to stay and watch themselves get Mori'd if they don't want to would just feel like rubbing salt in the wound. It would be like the game teleporting a killer to the exit gate to be forced to watch as the survivors escape.
I understand your point, but I think there’s a fundamental difference between a Mori and an escape animation.
The Mori is an earned mechanic directly tied to Killer gameplay, often requiring specific conditions, perks, or objectives to unlock. It's not simply a passive result like survivors escaping; it's an intentional, cinematic payoff that both sides are aware of throughout the match. Allowing a player to abandon and leave a bot cheapens that experience — the Killer doesn't get to Mori the person they've been competing against, but rather an AI replacement, which lacks any emotional or competitive weight.
In contrast, a Killer being "forced to watch survivors escape" isn't equivalent, because escapes happen whether the Killer watches or not — it's simply the end condition. No one is locked into viewing a cinematic escape cutscene while losing control of their character. Meanwhile, a Mori is an intentional, interactive sequence that the Killer actively performs, and which the Survivor has been trying to avoid all match.
By preventing the surrender from being triggered until the last real player is Moried (unless the Killer intentionally delays), we preserve the integrity of the Mori as a competitive reward while still preventing griefing with the time limit. This isn’t about forcing the Survivor to "watch themselves die" — it’s about respecting the earned mechanic and giving closure to both sides.