MrPenguin
MrPenguin
About
- Username
- MrPenguin
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,543
- Last Active
Comments
-
Which killers?
Because if you mean all of them not at all.
If you mean the top like, 3-4 sure.
-
Because, generally, when people talk about the balance of a game they usually mean how the game preforms when everyone involved is actually good at the game.
In that environment it's a pretty agreed upon that only a handful of killers can even compete and the majority are dead in the water.
There's also a problem that when someone or something says "killer" that includes every character from Nurse to Trapper which have 2 very different performances in games with good players. Almost no one would argue Nurse is dummy strong but other killers are generally regarded as needing buffs. Saying "Killer is OP" and someone thinking you're talking about Trapper and Pig level and someone thinking about Nurse and Spirit level are 2 different things.
So you could say survivor favored because most killers cant do much and be correct and also say killer favored because the ones that can are a a little ridiculous and also played the most by a lot. Hence the problem high MMR players have with extremely stale killer pools of like 3 killers.
However in the scope of the overall game or lower skill levels, which includes the many more who are not that good at the game (most players), all those killers become killer a lot more viable.
But then we have a conflicting standard with killers like Nurse where in average hands she's horrible. Those who say make the game better for the average player is usually against buffing killers that the average person struggles on. In my experience at least. So it feels like many of those people (not all or maybe even most) want to balance for average/bad survivors but good killer players. Which leads to friction.
Something else that needs to always be remembered in these types of conversations is that there a lot of conflict/differences in the way the devs think and the ways most players think in regards to winning. As we can see with the huge killrate/winrate debacle as well as the way MMR handles survivors in particular.
The devs still leave the question of "what is a win" kinda in the air as a "well it depends on the player", but have decided to balance around a 60% killrate. They have also decided to count the match as 4 separate 1v1's instead of a 1v4 like the vast majority of the community does.
Yes even that peanits post stated that "well it depends on the player" before someone brings it up. As it is, it seems the devs don't generally consider anything as a definitive win condition for the game to even have a winrate, but they have a goal killrate that they go for.
-
@deckyr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3777017#Comment_3777017
being someone who plays both killer and survivor on this forum can be so annoying, because you always have people who only play one side insisting and demanding that you're from the other side trying to destroy the game, when really you just want the match to finish so you can play another one.
Agreed.
-
Getting? it always has been. It sucks for both sides.
Trying to change it though has players (survivor mains) clamoring that "you just want a 4K" or some such nonsense. So you need to be careful with how you do it and make sure they get something from it as well.
The previous suggestion about the 3rd survivor just getting moried coupled with a detection system after a long period of no chase happening could work imo.
The problem with tying the detection to gens is survivors will just wait until you check a gen and leave, work on it for 2 seconds then hide again to refresh their timer. Tying it to chase ensures that something happens to move the game forward.
Ensuring hatch will spawn and the survivors get found. Survivors can't whine about their pity escape being taken, slugging for the 4K is addressed, and the match doesn't take ages just because 2 survivors died.
-
@Glaive said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3776869#Comment_3776869
meh I’m friendless that’s not an option.
you can find a group on discord or even the forums if solo q bothers you enough to do so.
-
@k3ijus said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3774301#Comment_3774301
I addressed the fact surviviors just giving out without reason isnt what i defended, and you can test your builds;most of which i can promise 99% of surviviors will not dc and prefer your creative perks over meta so thanks for your creativity and playstyle, surviviors mains appreciate it
As someone who also uses off meta builds when I play killer, I have a lot more than 1% of people who DC lol. I wouldn't make that promise if I were you.
Also survivor mains are generally still just as toxic regardless of the build, if they "appreciate it" then they aren't showing it. Still get t-bag, chat BM, gate waiting ect. If anything it's worse using weaker builds as you'll end up losing more so they'll BM more. In my experience at least.
More on topic, survivors get upset the match isn't going their way and leave whether it's early or late in the match.
As you said, when it's done when the game is basically lost it's kinda whatever imo. Doesn't justify it and there are still downsides for the other players like less points and such, but it's not as annoying. But there's so so so many who do it when they could reasonably, or even easily, win. I dislike it on survivor so I dislike it on killer.
But then there's the people who think "the game is lost" when it's really not. For example, the games not lost just because there's 2 hooks at 5 gens when 3-4 are at 80-90%. But someone will think otherwise and nope right out. Even worse they might just use the "I'm not having fun so I have a right to leave" mindset as an excuse.
There's also plenty of people who want to play out the whole match regardless of the outcome. If many games where you're winning is cut short, the games you mostly get to see till the end are the ones where you lose. Since killer can't leave without penalties, which is also kind of not fair to the killer.
The ability to leave with no consequence needs to be addressed, early or late. Imo either both sides should be able to or neither should. Of those two I'd prefer if neither could.
-
If all 4 survivors are slugged the game is over the vast vast majority of the time. The finisher mori just stopped wasting everyone's time. It doesn't change the outcome of the match.
Basekit unbreakable is giving all survivors one of the strongest perks in the game for free.
These are 2 very different things.
The main problem with the PTB was unbreakable, not the mori. Survivors were running sabo, going to hook dead zones, offering bad hook spawn maps (like Midwitch) with hook offerings ect. to abuse the unbreakable they all had.
Before someone complains about a killer like Oni slugging the entire team, if that happens the game is over anyway so what's the difference exactly?
If someone has Unbreakable it should easily be used before the entire team is down. If it's the last survivor downed that has it the game is still basically over.
-
1 perk?
I guess Shadowstep and OTR don't exist
-
"Waited years to see Hillbilly fun again"
"Waited years to see Hillbilly be too strong again"
Is the killer only fun for you if they're overtuned?
-
I mean, people who BM are already acting immature. I'm not surprised when they continue to be immature.
-
I mean, they said Billy before and we saw how that turned out. Anything above B tier and they (generally) dislike it.
Even if they say they won't. -
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758503#Comment_3758503
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?
At this point I don't believe this is going to get anywhere without a more concrete and direct answer from the devs themselves even more so than the information already given out. Considering DBD as a sport and using sports logic will leave you very much in the minority. When players are talking about "win rate" they generally won't be using the sports version as it makes more sense given the game and the information given that it's not that. So if you want to continue to do so to your own conversational detriment go ahead I guess.
It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. Unless you're saying DBD is actually like hockey. Which virtually everyone disagrees with.
The majority understood what the devs said differently and afaik the devs haven't corrected or clarified anything on that front as would be expected due to how many people would be incorrect. I will continue to use the majority version as I still have not been given any good reason not to compared to what says I should.
There's more than just 1 infamously bad line 1 dev said 1 time.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758210#Comment_3758210
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
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/N11CE655K0PB/screenshot-20240712-045956-chrome.jpg
(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.
Infamous for a reason, because the game isn't like hockey. The problem the community had with that at the time was DBD is nothing like hockey or a sport so the comparison didn't make sense. Additionally they have said more about the MMR system than just 1 infamously bad thing 1 dev said 1 time. Leading to the majority consensus of wins and the game not being like sports, everything put together.
Idk exactly 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.
-
@Saiph said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758210#Comment_3758210
It's not specific to sports. The 0.5x factor HAS to be there otherwise the formula cannot work.
Simple example. Say 4 survivors play 2 matches in a row against the same killer, and to simplify, all players start with the same Elo (say 1000), and say a win is +20.
Question for you: what is the Elo of the players after the following result: 3K, 0K.
You're conflating the amount of elo won or lost with whether or not the result of the match was a win or a loss.
0-1 is a loss. Both are +1 loss.
2K is +0 or +1 draw, so not a win either way.
3-4 are both +1 win.
The amount of elo you gain or lose varies between how large the win or loss was. But that doesn't change whether they were a win or loss themselves. They're two different numbers.
It wouldn't be +20 wins for gaining 20 elo correct? No it's 1 win that got you 20 elo.
In this system at least afaik and considered by most players based on what the devs gave said. Of course the sports formula doesn't work if you're not using the sports definition of the variables.
You'd have to make an argument as to why the vast majority is wrong. "Because sports" isn't a good one when we're not playing a sport.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758210#Comment_3758210
A dev did say DBD is like Hockey.
The problem is DBD isn't symmetrical so these comparisons always ignore the fact that DBD has unequal sides. A survivor can win by escaping via the exit gate and the killer can win by getting a 3K. On the other hand a killer can lose by getting a 1K and the survivor killed will also lose.
Ultimately trying to balance around a winrate is a complicated mess due to the fact that players can individually win or lose and if the devs want the killers to have an edge or the survivor then balancing around 60% kill rate is perfectly fine.
It's always funny to me how people complain how DBD is too competitive and it should be more casual, but everyone always wants the devs to treat DBD as a competitive game that needs to be completely balanced.
Yeah I understand that but the point of contention here is whether or not a 1K is a quarter win and a 2K is a half win in regards to win rate. As that would mean killer kill rate is equal to win rate. Because that's how it works in sports.
Afaik that's not how it's considered by the vast majority.
-
@Saiph said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758112#Comment_3758112
The devs don't need to share the win rate, because it's the SAME THING as killrate.
You are correct that you can theoretically define a win as you want, but the devs HAVE defined what a win is, for survivors: escape = win, death = loss. So the survivor win rate is EXACTLY (1 - killrate) and then by symmetry, the killer winrate is EXACTLY the killrate.
You also make the common mistake to think that the winrate formula is (wins / matches) but it's not. The formula is WINS PLUS DRAWS/2, divided by matches.
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 as well as a Q&A soon after.
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 and a draw "not a win" based on what the devs have stated. If that was incorrect or they misspoke I would expect they would have said something by now.
-
@Saiph said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758089#Comment_3758089
The devs have not said that 60% is balanced, they said that they target 60%, which is different. By definition, 60% is not balanced, it is in killer's favor, and I'm pretty sure the devs have said exactly that somewhere (that they intentionally want the game to be in killer's favor).
I'm not arguing whether that 60% target is right or wrong. What I'm saying, is stop massacring math to pretend killers somehow have 50% winrate or other nonsense.
Fair enough. It's more accurate to say they want a 60% kill rate and balance around that.
My main argument is kill rate is not win rate as the designers and game have defined it. Not by some "sports logic", alternate personal definitions, or something else.
The definition of "win rate" is pretty important to determining what's considered "massacring" the numbers to change it. I would argue changing the definition to count losses and draws as "partial wins" when they're not does the amount of damage you're accusing. As you're inflating the win rate by a significant amount.
Idk if killers have a 50% win rate, afaik the kill distribution and win rate was never released. We just know that kill rate averages out to roughly 60%.
Under the 3K+ is a win logic the kill rate needs to be over 50% for the killer to win (not draw or lose) roughly half the time. Under this logic you can't really have both sides be at 50%. The "draw" condition on killer and both sides having different win conditions skews the numbers.
If the logic was different then sure. Under your theoretical system sure. But that's not the system we're in nor the logic this game uses.
-
@Saiph said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758073#Comment_3758073
I'm not going to write an essay again.
Survivors die 60% of the time.
If you seriously believe that you can conclude from that number, that the game is balanced, or that killers win only ~50% of the time, this is not math, but dishonesty.
The game is asymm it's not that simple.
Besides that no I personally wouldn't consider that balanced, but I'm not the one making the rules and neither are you. I wouldn't even balance off kills, I would balance off hooks.
Under the goals and vision the devs want, 60% is balanced. Theirs is the mind you have to change. I'm just working under the system we're in.
-
@Saiph said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757687#Comment_3757687
A draw is not equal to 0 win, it is equal to half a win. Also, strictly speaking, 1K/3K are not full wins/losses, they are 75% of a win/loss - that part doesn't make a big difference, but that's how MMR treats it: if you get a 4K you get more MMR than just a 3K.
If you properly take this into account, then your example magically becomes:
Kill rate=57.5%
Winrate=57.5%
Kill rate and winrate are the same. People who say the opposite are just trying to make killer winrate appear lower by counting 2K for killers the same as if they were losses, when in reality it should be counted as neither a win or a loss. They know very well that they are wrong, they know it's not how MMR works, I have explained it to them several times, but they keep spreading lies to divert debates. The worst part is that they are double wrong, because even if you assume this flawed logic the stats still show that the game is massively killer-sided (It's true that if you count draws as losses then killers win only ~50% of the time but then survivors win only ~30% of the time, so it's still a ~60% ratio in favor of killer).
A draw is not a loss but it's not a win either. It's a draw, it's a "nothing" so to speak as it basically gets cancelled out. But "not a win" and "a loss" are the same if we're talking about "how often do you win" a.k.a. win rate. It's a "no I didn't".
Afaik and as far as I've seen the devs and the general population talk about it:
Win: MMR went up
Loss: MMR went down
Draw: MMR did not change.So while yes you are correct in the sense that a 1K will lower your MMR less, it still went down so that is a loss. Likewise a 3-4K raises it, so that's a win. A draw doesn't change it so it's neither a win nor a loss.
Similar to other PVP games the win/loss it all determined based of the skill ranking system and what makes you move up or down, which in DBD is only MMR.
It might be a lesser loss but a loss is still a loss. There's no such thing as a "partial win". You either win, lose, or draw. Up, down, or stationary.
You're using a different definition of what a win/loss/draw is. At least afaik. While under your definition that checks out, that's not the definition being used by the game and most of it's community.
As for the last part about ratios yeah that's true. But "balanced" for survivor and killer are fundamentally different when only counting kills and escapes so I don't think there's a way to really make both 50% without some mechanic forcing it. Besides that the devs also want the kill rate to favor killers a bit so unless you change their mind that's just how it is.
Imo balancing around hooks instead of kills would be better in that regard (amongst others) as you could balance around a certain hook count which is more flexible, but that's not the system we're in unfortunately.
-
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757687#Comment_3757687
Each match is 4 1v1 matches. This has been confirmed multiple times by the devs in regards to how they balance the game and how mmr is scored. A 2k is 2 wins and 2 losses for the killer. Otherwise you're saying a 2k is a win for 2 survivors, a loss for 2 survivors, and a draw for the killer. You can keep copypasta'ing this every day but it doesn't make it true.
Wasn't that in regards to why survivor is not judged as a team, not the killers MMR or win condition?
Afaik It's exactly as you listed it, a win for two survivors, a loss for two, and a draw for the killer.
Because the game is asymm, so both sides are judged differently. Survivor only cares if you individually escape for a win or loss while killer cares about total escapes for a win or loss.So for the survivors it's 4 1v1's. But for the killer it's 1v4. Again, because the game is asymm.
To my understanding from the collective of everything I've seen the devs say. But if there was a more comprehensive concrete breakdown all in one spot I haven't seen I would like to see it.
The best thing I found was this from the wiki:
So as far as information I've found and have access too at this time, my original idea is correct.
-
@sinkra said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757413#Comment_3757413
Except that's not what happens. 50% kill rate does not mean all games end in a 2k. And even if every game ended as a 2k that would still be a 50% win rate because in sports statistics a draw counts as half a win.
If kill rate = win rate as you claim that would be exactly what happens in that situation. I'm taking the logic and applying it to see if it holds up and it doesn't.
DBD is not sports, or are you going to say it's like Hokey? "Half a win" is not a thing here, we're not using sports statistics. That doesn't help either in the 1K scenario.
Let's take it the other way with a 3K, ok now you have a 75% kill rate but an 100% win rate.
Lets take an random assortment: 1K, 3K, 4K, 1K, 2K, 2K, 1K, 4K, 3K, 2K. Kill rate: ~57% Win rate: 40%
Kill rate =/= win rate.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757392#Comment_3757392
When circle of healing was actually meta, the counterplay was to snuff it.
That's also base kit, and takes you out of the way of the action. Killers swore that it took minutes to go deal with and was a huge waste of time (for survivors, that's called slowdown).
I also have no control over my teammates, so I can repeatedly drop an item in the corner, or not bring one at all, and still be completely screwed because my teammate dropped something in main, and I have no way to communicate that. It's also likely too late by the time I find out it's even there, too.
Not to mention that the survivor item is the closest equivalent to the killer's power. Do you not think that, if survivors had a perk that forced the killer to avoid using their power most of the match that would somehow not be a problem?
The problem with that comparison is with CoH the "counterplay" didn't really accomplish anything as they could just reboon and often actually put you in a lose-lose of "lose gens or let them heal for free" and either way you lost the game. So it was worthless counterplay at best and a lose-lose at worst. Especially because there's 4 survivors and 1 killer so the time efficiency was massively skewed in the survivors favor. Put your item in a corner of your choosing (not across the map like boons would be) and 1-2 perks of the killer are worthless for the rest of the match is not the same. The killer cannot move your item back into a position where it's relevant again.
"I can't control my teammates" is a poor excuse. You're basically arguing the perk should be changed because many survivors are bad and lazy. If the you don't use the counterplay you suffer the consequences, that's how games work. If you don't want to worry about teammates why are you queing up for a team based game without a SWF? That's how team based games work. Either you que with friends or you accept the risk of "the randoms". Playing killer is also an option.
Items = killer power is a poor analogy as @Laluzi already pointed out.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757397#Comment_3757397
Killers have to deal with bad totem spots. I don't see why survivors shouldn't.
Ideally killers could place hexes by them selves (,but I‘m not shure wether killers would even want to search for them) or they make the spots a lot better. I don‘t see the point of I can‘t and therefore the other side shouldn‘t.
I also don't want my bloodwebs to get more diluted than they already are. We have enough bloodweb clutter on the survivor side imo.
That would probably be annoying, I agree. They could make that you can find a totem in the basement and carry it somewhere like xeno‘s turrets and take it out of the trail, so you could use it in another trail.
Ideally the spots themselves get improved at some point.Agree, but being able to place them yourself would make boons a lot better.
Imo the main problem with boons is that the perks themselves are not really worth using. But when they are the advantages listed before kinda break them like CoH was. Adding another advantage will just further exacerbate this. Imagine always being able to guarantee the best possible spot for a strong boon.
Something like main building basement Boon on a multifloored map or structure, CoH always away from the gens, or RPD/Midwitch Shadowstep on both sides if 2 survivors bring it. Guaranteed every time.
It opens the door for abuse. I understand currently boons could use improvement, but I don't believe this is a good path forward. You're removing 2 of the balancing points of the mechanic. Which is unreliable placement and finding the totem.
On the first part its not so much one can't so neither should the other, but more of both sides have to deal with it as a balancing mechanism. Furthermore, removing it for just one side would at worst be unfair and and at minimum feel unfair. It's just asking for a large negative reception from players. It already happened the first time boons came out. It's impossible to avoid the hex/boon comparison.
-
@sinkra said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757388#Comment_3757388
Actually a dev has confirmed that kill rate equals win rate. Here is a direct quote. I won't go into the math for why it's true but I'll ust let the words of a dev speak for itself.
[quote]If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal.[/quote]
You got a source for that?
Also I'd like to know what math says for example: I always get a 2K, so I have a 50% kill rate, I draw all my games, yet I have a 50% win rate because kill rate is win rate.
Last I checked draw =/= win.
1K would be a 25% kill rate, so that would be a 25% win rate if you get a 1K every game. That doesn't seem right when a 1K is considered a loss.
-
Killers have to deal with bad totem spots. I don't see why survivors shouldn't.
Especially when they already have the advantage of choosing which totem to use, unlimited reboons, and the totem itself just getting snuffed instead of destroyed.
I also don't want my bloodwebs to get more diluted than they already are. We have enough bloodweb clutter on the survivor side imo.
Ideally the spots themselves get improved at some point.
-
@Oh_deer said:
it's not fun to play against. the only real counterplay against it is to not bring items. dropping your items in the corner is not counterplay but in many cases it's literally all you can do to try and limit its strength. it's also paired with franklins which survivors hate playing against. according to nightlite statistics it's the perk with the highest kill rate in the game right now. it's overpowered. when i want to just annoy survivors i play as skull merchant with weave attunement. in fact, i'd argue that weave attunement is the skull merchant of perks. many survivors just give up the moment they realize you're using weave attunement, same thing with skull merchant.
Drop item in an empty corner now the perks do almost nothing. Why/how is that "not counterplay"?
-
Kill rate is not win rate.
People need to stop making this mistake.
-
Yeah of course survivor do have issues. I just personally believe that survivor leaning players tend to be a lot worse on average at actually having a constructive conversation about those problems. A lot higher frequency of entitled, unsympathetic, and/or double standard views in my personal experience/opinion. Not to mention the tribalism/Us vs Them and whataboutisms. Many conversation kinda just derail or devolve and it makes it difficult to make meaningful headway in that type of environment.
As for the rest, I don't think he forums overall are overwhelmingly sided towards one side or the other. It kinda just depends on the day and what's going on in the game at the time.
However certain members/people can be, so I can agree to the "pretty much know what they're going to post" aspect to a certain degree. I do have a "don't even bother" list as I'm sure many who have been around for a bit do. So it can also depend on whose on at the same time you are.
-
@Blueberry said:
I don’t think they necessarily have to have mobility. What they need is map pressure, that is what they’re getting from map mobility. You could hypothetically have a killer with no map mobility if they had like a built in game slow down that put survivors on side objectives. This would give them pseudo map pressure. Think Pig with her traps, but if her stealth and ambush were actually good.
I agree with this but survivors generally hate it if it's strong enough to be worthwhile i.e. pre-current rework Sadako.
Even though survivors keep asking for side objectives, not sure what's going on there.
It also immediately makes a killer a noob/pub stomper as we have seen with Pinhead, Pig, and again Sadako lol.
I don't think these are reasons not to do it. Just something to keep in mind I guess.
-
This threads a little messy but I just want to chime in to say I agree that tunneling is "focusing one survivor until they escape or they die" and that's the general definition I've always seen most people go by. Centralizing your play to eliminate 1 particular survivor ASAP.
Since "time" is being brought up I've been part of the game/community since 2018, so 6+ years. It's only recently where I'm seeing a noticeable increase in beliefs that tunneling is "getting hooked twice" or "chased soon after getting unhooked" regardless of what else the killer was doing in-between.
They existed before but it was very much the minority (usually new players) and they usually got corrected pretty quickly. In my experience at least.
-
You'd probably have better luck going through the support page and maybe submitting a ticket.
-
@smellywart said:
Let's be real here. The gaming scene is mostly dominated by kids and teenagers less than 18 years old. I'm going to make assumptions here but my gut feeling says that this game is mostly played by this new generation.
I saw a little kid, literally a "little Timmy", playing DBD on his Switch at a restaurant recently. Verbally upset because they were dying as survivor.
Easily >= 10 years old.
Made me wonder how much of the playerbase is similar.
-
Idk when/why this broad definition of tunneling became so popular. The only requirement has become "I got unhooked and chased soon". There's so many factors that can effect that and can happen super easily. Even if the killer chases and goes after others in-between the unhook or doesn't chase the survivor again for death hook until much later in the match.
I've seen people complain about tunneling even though no one got targeted to death when they easily could have been.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753555#Comment_3753555
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
You're the one who said you would ignore me and afaik you did with my previous response. You're the one who excused yourself. Why would I talk more, directly towards someone who said and showed themselves that they're ignoring me after I already gave them a chance not to?
Besides that this is a public forum, you can read anything I write. Anyone can comment on, discuss, and/or criticize what others post and interactions within as well. Which is what I did.
If I cared about keeping it from you, DM's are a thing.
-
@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
@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.
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.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752965#Comment_3752965
I do see the, "depends on who you ask", as so many people have different versions of what they believe it is, but I believe at that point it is no longer a fact or definition, it is an opinion. Tunneling does not depend on opinion, and I don't believe gen-rushing should either. I do believe that in order for it to be gen-rushing you do go in with an entire build and team specifically dedicated for gens, and the playstyle will reflect that (letting people die on 1st hook instead of leaving gens, refusing to heal etc.) it's when you tunnel gens, essentially.
When it comes to your point about feeling strange about how some (like myself) believe gen-rushing is only gen-rushing if they bring a build/items to do it, and that killers can still tunnel without bringing a build/add-ons, here is the difference in my opinion.
In order to be as effective as possible in tunneling, you do not need any perks or add ons to do so as every killer can do it base-kit. In order to be as effective as possible in gen-rushing you need to bring certain perks and items because you cannot do it base-kit.
I agree that it is an opinion at this point.
On the second part though I don't really agree 100%, while yes you can tunnel on any killer, there are killers that are much better at tunneling than others. Executioner, Huntress, Trickster, Hillbilly, Cannibal ect. In order to tunnel "as efficiently as possible" as you put it, that's not something every killers can do, there are killers that do it better and you have to pick one of those. Opposed to a killer for example such as Legion who are worse at it.
Likewise a survivor can gen rush basekit as per the definition I subscribe to, but certain builds let you do it much better.
But for the killer role you don't need to be "as efficient as possible" to be deserving of the moniker, but on survivor you do as per the "full build" definition.
But at the end I believe its still just opinions on both ends. But I appreciate your explanation on why you see it the way you do.
-
@jezebelthenun said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752965#Comment_3752965
It feels strange because they aren't comparable.
2 people doing 1 gen with no toolboxes or perks get a gen done in just under a minute if uninterrupted. As a killer, you have the ability to interrupt them at any time without additional perks or addons. It's just a matter of finding them. If you're chasing a different survivor, you have choices. Commit or patrol. Gen pressure is important. I think moreso than early hooks, but that's just my opinion and I can see how others might disagree.
For tunneling, it's not nearly as counterable, and requires extras to be avoided, and then only for a short duration. You have to assume it's going to happen and build for it ahead of time or you're SOL.
Regardless of whether or not the definition is solely "efficiency" for both as you say, they're not the same or even similar, based on counterability.
I disagree I think they're comparable just fine.
But like I said, it depends on who you ask. So if that's you opinion that's fine. Mine is different.
-
Depends on who you ask.
Imo and to many it's when the survivors are being super efficient on gens, as the name implies. Splitting on gens at the start, getting 3 done in the first chase, getting on a gen again the moment the killer even looks away from the area ect.
To others you need an entire dedicated build to be gen rushing. Which to me feels strange because it's not like you need a "tunnel build" or killer (like Executioner) to be considered doing the killer objective "too efficiently".
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752765#Comment_3752765
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
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/EHIK364X5FKK/image.png
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.
Does that say "I think survivors playin for hatch are pathetic"? No it says it can be seen that way by the same token, or in other words with the same standard.
I don't personally think either side is pathetic for trying to get their best result, that was a notion you put forward. But if one side is to be seen as pathetic for doing so than so should the other if you hold the same standard to both sides. Which you later on said you find those survivors pathetic as well iirc.
I was using the verbiage you yourself put forward ("thirsty" and "pathetic") to comment on what you were saying and draw the parallel. Not saying I felt that way myself as well. Otherwise I would have stated that I do.
Of course its going to be seen as off if you start making things up that I didn't say.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752755#Comment_3752755
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.
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"?
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752647#Comment_3752647
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.
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 pathetic that some people get upset at their opponent for trying to get the best result they can as the game presents it.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752513#Comment_3752513
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.
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.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752473#Comment_3752473
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
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.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752175#Comment_3752175
Honey, if you see a guy write 'a 3K always feels like a loss (for the killer)', you should realise that that is unhealthy. This person is clearly not going to enjoy the game, but still pushes themselves to play it. That's just a bad habit.
You're ignoring the survivors role in it again even though that's specifically what I was talking about. At this point the pattern is clear enough and I'm just talking to a survivor wall.
You're also misrepresenting what I'm saying on multiple occasions or leaving out very key context to argue a point different than what I'm saying. Even after I clarified further.
There's not really a point in continuing to try and talk with you when you're refusing to listen enough to even address the points I'm actually making and instead are arguing against the ones you want to hear.
You're not going to convince anyone doing that and I can't convince someone who won't actually take in what I'm saying.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3751024#Comment_3751024
They win if they get the 3k so no they are not "basically complaining that the killer tried to win"
I and others already addressed this if you read the rest of the thread.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752126#Comment_3752126
There you go: Unhealthy.
If that's "unhealthy" to you then the survivors are equally at fault since they are also the ones perpetuation the only real win condition being a 4K in the scenario/example given.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752158#Comment_3752158
What kind of cherry picking comparison is this?
The survivor isn't dead, and not only sees, but is actively taking the only steps they have available to them to survive in this scenario.
Also, in your scenario, the killer has killed 3 of the 4 survivors, and your reaction is 'the 4th kill should be automatic', and the killer shouldn't have to do anything else to pursue it.
You're expecting the 4th kill to be handed to you because 'you've already put in 75% of the effort, just give me what's mine' or some crap.
No in my scenario the survivor earns their escape if they and their team stall the killer long enough to open the gate and leave by the time the third gets caught and hooked.
Nowhere did I say it should be automatic. Please direct me to where that was stated.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752102#Comment_3752102
It's not just about the killer, the survivors also hide indefinitely once they're down to 2 because of what? The hatch. You're going to say the killer going for a 4K is responsible for that too?
Well, yeah. Survivors don't really have a choice. The only way they can close the game out faster is by just surrendering. Except this does make a difference for survivor, which it doesn't for killer. Killer will still get good BP and a win, whether they get that 4th kill or not, but survivor won't.
Again it's a "win most/most victorious" in most of these cases. You supposed to try and win
as much as you can. That is the point of the game, it's not "unhealthy".If you're ruining the game for yourself because you're chasing a 'win a little more' scenario, I am going to call that unhealthy, yes.
morefor a 4K because it's astronger win.Except the MMR ladder isn't even shown, the 4th kill rewards considerably less MMR, and climbing in MMR is only going to give you more difficult matches.
Again, this is a personal obsession getting in the way of your own enjoyment of the game. If killers would truly, as you said, 'much rather hook someone', then do so, rather than obsessing over an invisible value going up.
then the
gameplaycomponents that's responsible is the hatchAlso not true, considering there's also bleedout sluggers that don't care about the hatch. At its core, this problem is caused by the killer player's mentality, not by the hatch. But once again, killers ruin the game, and survivors are being told to foot the bill.
Also, consider the scenario if the hatch was not there. If there's no proper, gameplay way to turn a loss into a victory at that point, the only thing survivors are left with is trying to bore the killer into abandoning the match. Is that better?
Idk about you but I'd rather have the killer just hook the 3rd survivor then get their 4K than have to wait 4 minuets staring at the floor just to die anyway because hatch exist.
Or: We can have killers play the game the intended way. I know that's always been an issue, but we should really stop nerfing survivors because killers break the game.
On the flip I'd rather just get my 4K that I earned
That fourth kill isn't always earned. If you don't have it yet, you haven't earned it yet. If some survivor loops you for half an hour but the rest of their team isn't doing gens, you don't get to say you bested that survivor until you actually manage to kill them.
It's not the hatch that's the problem here. It's what you feel you are entitled to.
You let go of that, and the problem is gone.
You feel entitled to having the hatch escape. You let go of that and the problem is gone.
Survivors do have a choice, they chose to hide and prolong the game just as much as the killer does. At that point it's not even a 4K, the killer is just trying for a 3K that time and the hatch is already causing problems.
How is it the killers fault for trying to get a 4K when at that point they're just trying to get a 3K? The 4K is not even a factor yet. But hatch is still causing the survivors to hide indefinitely.
Everything is the killer's fault according to what you've said so far. Maybe stop villainizing the killer and treating the survivors as if they're spotless? That's what's really unhealthy here. Not trying to achieve what the game is asking you to achieve as a killer.
Also what I said meant they would rather hook someone and get their 3rd kill and let that survivor move on then get the 4th if risking it to hatch was not an issue. Not just blanket "they would rather hook no matter what the cost". I though that would be fairly obvious.
You did earn the 4K. The only way the killer didn't was if the killer got the 3rd kill after the gens were done. The last survivor earned their escape and the killer should have played better in that situation. The survivor played well enough to get out. Not the killer killing everyone else with 2-3 gens left since they played better than the collective team and the survivor just gets out because RNG said so.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3751294#Comment_3751294
It doesn't happen because of the hatch, it happens because of the unhealthy relationship with the game. The killer is trying to get the 4K, not because it makes any distinction in whether they win or lose (Nor that it matters much for BP at that stage, unless the killer camped/tunnelled/slugged, but if they did that, they clearly don't care about BP), but because they've either set themselves an unreasonable standard, or they really want the last survivor to lose.
Objectively speaking, there's no reason not to.
Except the frustrations you lay out here are plenty reason not to do this. I don't do these hatch stand-offs, I don't slug for the 4K, and none of this is a problem for me. I just hook the third survivor and go looking for the hatch. If I find it first, I close it and go into EGC. If the survivor finds it first, they escape and I win anyway.
The problem with the hatch here is an entirely self-inflicted one. Nothing but you is making it a problem.
It's not just about the killer, the survivors also hide indefinitely once they're down to 2 because of what? The hatch. You're going to say the killer going for a 4K is responsible for that too?
Frustration is purely emotional and therefore is subjective. So that's not an objective reason not to even if it's understandable. Boredom is also subjective. Most people just find the alternative more appealing as I also pointed out.
Again it's a "win most/most victorious" in most of these cases. You supposed to try and win as much as you can. That is the point of the game, it's not "unhealthy". Unless you just consider PvP games in general unhealthy.
While you are correct in it's a small amount of players, if you do happen to care about BP for that match a 4K is better obviously. If you care about winning as the game defines it a 4K is a better, absolute, stronger win than a 3K also obviously. This is further evident by the MMR system. You don't get a 3K and that's it you can't get anymore MMR points. You get more for a 4K because it's a stronger win.
If you personally have a different self imposed limit of how much "winning " is "winning enough" then that's good for you. But the game design is pretty clear that the thing the killer should be aiming for is to kill all the survivors or get as close to it as they can. So that's what players should be expected to do.
All the reasons to go for a 3K are subjective, main one being to be "nice". It's a PvP game, your opponents are not there to be "nice" to you. Most survivors aren't "nice" in return and many will even be sore winners about it.
If you personally want to play "nice" for whatever reason that's fine, but that's not to be expected of everyone.
There is still no objective reason not to try for the 4K in the current state of the game. Which means having to deny hatch as best you can. Slugging is the best way to go about it. So if the thing we're discussing that players are unhappy with on the survivor side of the gameplay is slugging for the 4K then the gameplay components that's responsible is the hatch. For the simple matter of if the hatch was not there, the killer would not slug (outside of toxicity or no hooks available). That is the threat making slugging the best play. That's the thing making the survivors hide indefinitely.
Idk about you but I'd rather have the killer just hook the 3rd survivor then get their 4K than have to wait 4 minuets staring at the floor just to die anyway because hatch exist. It's a waste of time. Take away hatch and let me get sacrificed and move on please. If we lost to the point the killer got a 4K so be it. We should have played better. I'm already punished by losing I don't need to get punished with time waste on top because the hatch threat is making the best play to stall us for 4 extra minuets.
On the flip I'd rather just get my 4K that I earned and move on, not have to scour every corner of the map to find the 3rd survivor and then fight RNGsus to see if that last kill just gets robbed away or not.