ReikoMori
ReikoMori
About
- Username
- ReikoMori
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,794
- Last Active
Comments
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3731593#Comment_3731593
I don't mean to balance around tiers, because if we nerfed everyone from S-tier down, and buffed D-tier up, people would still expand the top of A tier to become the new 'S-tier'. Heck, even if everyone was within the current understanding of B-tier, people would still rank them sequentially and say the top X# are S and the bottom X# are D. I just mean the current lines in the sand most people tend to agree upon (Nurse is S, Tombstone-less Myers is D), still roughly compare to power levels and potential that should be adjusted. I'm just using a colloquial understanding as a shortcut for this paragraph of explanation, sometimes the explanation works, sometimes it doesn't. I think that overall that the current S and D tier shouldn't exist, and the bottom and top 5 should be regularly (at least every 6 months) rotated in and out through buffs and nerfs (both of buffs to the weakest, as well as middle power to top tier, and nerfs of top Killers to be weaker than mid tiers).
Freddy could be buffed to become more powerful instead of weaker as the game goes on, like his perks would also indicate. We could allow Freddy to TP to completed gens, but now it also puts the closest non-alarm clocked/sleeping Survivor to sleep as well. When you TP to a gen, it could also reveal the auras or do a Rancor styled info on people working gens (with or without an add-on for the intel), maybe also a shorter CD for TPs to completed gens. We could also make it so Freddy gets both Pools and Pallets, (like Clown Purple and Yellow Bottles) with 3 tokens per Pool, 2 per Pallet, with 15 tokens base (for the same current limits of 5 Pools/7 Pallets, or raise the base tokens to something like 18). I don't think we can just throw in the towel and say X Killer can never be balanced, especially with how the first half was simply things I thought of off the top of my head. (The Clown swap power buff I have suggested in the past.)
While I agree that Billy was far stronger than people previously gave him credit for (I've played both Blight and Billy as M1 only, power only to break pallets to see how Mobility is the greatest strength), people still ranked him at B-C tier prior to his last major update. That update was the exact type of update I would like to see more of for other commonly under-ranked Killers. For example people think Ghostface is super weak, but that is only true if you play him as 'Chaseface'. Playing him as a strategic Killer like Hag/Trapper where you set the traps on Survivors (99'd stalks) is far far far more effective, and I've had much above 'expected' kill rates (for all individual Killers, not even the average) with Ghosty when playing him in that style.
I don't know the full history of SF2, so I was relying on google averages, but I think your clarification still helps my point. I am of the opinion that 6.1 was a "Final Challengers" tier update, adding in a bunch of things no one likes for the sake of 'shaking things up'. Since we have to recover from those bad updates, we can never iterate from the best of updates that came before. Eg. Super Cool edition was a 9.2/10, and Super Uncool edition was a 8.9, they can still go back and improve from the 9.2 before with separate releases, and release Super Cooler edition with a 0.2 increase up to 9.4. DBD has to commit to the Super Uncool edition and slowly roll back the changes to get back to the 9.2 rated patch, and can't just start there fresh. Even if DBD did an equivalent Super Cooler update from the Super Uncool update, that would only raise us the same 0.2 from 8.9 to 9.1, instead of the 9.4 the separate release model offered Street Fighter. I would say overall though, that change is probably good overall for the sake of 'shaking things up', even if I think 6.1 truly failed to understand what made the game playable before its introduction, willing to take the risk and fail is better than perpetually playing it safe. The important part is to learn from failure, which with the map updates I would say it appears they aren't doing that very well.
I mean SM has a bunch of problems in terms of enjoying facing her. First off, she is a stealth Killer without sound cues, a big no-no. Myers, Dredge, Ghostface, Wraith, Sadako, all have sound cues to prevent stealth from being just stupid unfun, and SM doesn't. Also when you disarm the drone now, it lasts far too short, instead of say putting in back in the SM's inventory with a delay before redeployment. It currently just serves as a self-location snitch. You also can't remove scan stacks by doing anything, so it feels like there is no counter-play. With all that and more, I can understand when Survivors go "Oh you didn't want me to enjoy playing the game huh? Fine right back at you.". I just wish there were Killer bans to prevent the worst scenarios like that, or doing a heal tome running into a Plague, or a pallet stun tome running into a ranged Killer. It just makes people have a 'go-next' mindset that is poisoning the game right now (and too many poorly designed Killers that either are unfun or only draw in sweatlords). While I think bans would improve match quality, I think Killers should also get map bans to match, both to feel more 'fair', as well as to prevent Autohaven for Stealth Killers, or Indoor maps for Ranged Killers, and equal measure "gosh darn it I'm just gunna go next" hinderance for Killers.
Killer bans is an idea that folks have been asking for, but it's a feature that would a poison pill for the game.
One of the things that DBD has going for it is that you can play whoever you want whenever you want. If you want to only get good at playing one killer then you can master that killer and comfortably know that you'll always be able to play that killer. They may not always have the same balance points that you like about them, but their general features will be there barring a few exceptions. Bans would force more killer diversity, but not in a good way. Bans in MOBAs work due to the sheer number of characters and the expectations that since you're filling a role within a team you will learn multiple characters who can fill that role. DBD doesn't really have roles which is something that in a way holds the game back on the survivor side, but is extremely pronounced for solo killers as well.
It takes a lot of time to learn killers in this game and the process of picking up a new killer is actually pretty bad for the average player. You immediately have to go into matches geared more towards your skill level with your main killer rather than lower tiered competition or just straight up bots. Like you can go to customs, but you don't gain any progression that way which ultimately is one of the most important things in DBD. Killer bans would just make people who play popular, strong, or hated killers not be able to play the game comfortably. A solo killer player would be eating 4 bans every match being allowed to pick or they would queue up only to discover they have huge waits between matches because the killer they play is getting mass banned. It's a quick way to drive a wedge between an already tribal playerbase.
Skull Merchant's stealth used to depend on her passing through her drones' detection field which made things much more fair in that regard. If you saw the drone you knew it was a place she was most likely to pass through if she was playing stealth builds. Merchant by default isn't really a stealth killer, she's a weird hodgepodge of mechanics and stealth just happens to be one she can make use of without as much hassle as relying on others. She would be more balanced as a tracking/stealth killer that was purely focused on only those two aspects, but the devs seem to want her to be a weird toolbox that only Pixelbush enjoys. Then again my main killer before SM was Legion so I've been through the hellscape of DBD reworks gone wrong a few times at this point so perhaps I'm overly jaded about the whole situation. Either way it's been a breaking point for me really engaging with the game on top of everything else.
-
@ZE8ERDEE said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3731586#Comment_3731586
and the players will be acting this way based on the state of the game. If the game is generally broken or has a lot of unfun elements that aren’t fun to go against that cause dcing en masse then that’s the issue. Sure you’ll never be able to fully stop rage quitters or petty people but buy fixing the issues and giving incentive to the games matches you’ll provide a healthy and natural reason for people to stay. The removal of pip removal has only done more damage as people don’t have to worry about there rank now when dcing, giving them more incentive to dc to bad or unfun matches.
as for chat I’ve never been a fan of restrictions of any kind, you don’t have to use it and there is a report function if you get overly butthurt but I’m all for people saying what they want.You don't have to use chat, but people also don't have to throw slurs, death threats, and generally be jerk in it either. Framing people as being "butthurt" when people literally make it a point to say some of the most heinous stuff is always going to sound like a cop out when paired with saying one is against restrictions. The world is built of restrictions both self imposed and mandated by authority figures. Those who can't or won't practice self restraint breed the conditions for authority figures to impose blanket restrictions.
DBD has a lot of contentious elements that don't gel with every player, everyone has a game where things aren't going their way or the vibes are generally off. It's that way for basically every multiplayer game at some point, but it is more pronounced in this one due to the inherent differences between both sides. That doesn't mean you should be given a free pass to further ruin the experience for others playing the game. The DC penalty only truly hurts those who constantly make a habit of dcing and if it makes people like that quit altogether then so be it. If you're only doing it like once every couple of months when something is just really off about the situation in game then you're not eating anything more than a 5 min timeout which you probably need anyway if things were bad enough to make you leave the match. If you're someone who has issues maintaining a stable connection to the game and get dc'ed multiple times in a single session that unfortunately is probably a sign you need to play a different game.
The only time we shouldn't have the DC penalty is when there is either a persistent server side issue or when folks find a force dc exploit that is getting used en masse against the community. Again, we have the conditions we have now as a direct result of the actions people committed in the past and continue to commit whenever given the chance. Every multiplayer game penalizes people for leaving matches these days.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3731590#Comment_3731590
It is being subverted though.
They've basically already told us that once a lobby is created, and someone leaves, matchmaking basically turns itself off completely to get literally anyone that can fill that slot as fast as possible.
So when killers dodge a lobby, this is how you get situations of a 10k hour nurse going against 200 hour survivors, or the other extreme of a 5 hour killer against 6k hour survivors.
When searching for a lobby, it only gradually widens the MMR range slightly every several minutes. The only way the matchmaker would make these mistakes before the lobby is created with players in it, is if the players are literally waiting to queue for something like 30 minutes.
Lobby dodging opens the flood gates and completely bypasses the matchmaker to prioritize speed as much as possible.
Except I've legit watched the game build a lobby where it just slapped people in with wild degrees of disparity between hours played.
In a system where getting a balanced matchup is left to a background MMR score that is purely composed the most baseline metric available you'd be better off just not having the MMR be a factor to start with. A bad system isn't really harmed much by people not taking the first lobby they get shuffled into when the things that do the most damage happen after a match has started. Lobby shopping while not the greatest thing, personally I think it overall makes you a less adaptable player, doesn't really compare to myriad of thrown games that actually cause MMR scores to rubberband up and down.
Just even trying to accommodate the current matchmaking system on its terms of playing the first lobby you get often means you're better off only playing the killer or survivor you're best with/have the most stuff rather than using anyone new. MMR has been worse than the only rank buckets in almost every way other than speed of matches made which really was only a problem for people in low population regions and at extremely low or high ranks where. The old system did a better job of sectioning off people with massive amounts of hours from players who were just starting the game or playing very casually. If you were a player who could push to Rank 1 within a couple days of a season start then you'd effectively needed to wait for others on your approximate skill level to catch up to you in order to get matches. It sucked if you were in that situation, but most players were having more fun with the game and what felt like less scenarios of being completely overpowering for their opponent or completely outclassed as often.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3727197#Comment_3727197
Comeback mechanics - I disagree that it will cause a side to finish their match out in a timely manner, I have been 6-8 hooking before my first kill for the majority of my Killer career. The only reason I say 6-8 is because sometimes you get the 1 rat player who will hide no matter what, and then they complain I tunneled them (for their 2nd stage going from 7 total hooks to 8) when their entire team was death hook. I do agree it can be too swingy, but I would want to test something out at the very least. This is a way to potentially influence the match timing that doesn't involve significant changes like say generator parts and other suggestions to alter the game flow. It uses an existing mechanic, could easily be thrown in a PTB (like the UB Mori finisher PTB where it is being made clear it is to test and test only, but sadly it sounds like they might be going through with the Mori finisher that was universally rejected by the playerbase).
Stale gameplay - I partially agree and partially disagree. We still have no solution for base game flaws, that's true. We also get new mechanics to both play as, and play against, in the form of a new Killer. The problem stems from the same Killers being bottom of the barrel, and the same Killers being the best. The not too insignificant nerfs to Blight, and the significant buffs to Billy keep the game fresh. I'd love to see another patch where Freddy and Nurse trade effective spots as well (even if Blight wasn't nerfed to Billy's old level). I still can't play with friends to this day though because they don't like the game. Why don't they like the game? Because they get tunneled out at 5 gens since we have a (~) 100hr/500hr/1000hr/>2k hr split. The Killers ALWAYS (in terms of per session, not per match, but negativity bias makes it feel like every match) turbo tunnel the 100hr and 500 hr players, even when I'm trying to run interference, take chase, making loud noises while the Killer isn't in chase, and so on.
Techs keep interest - I would agree this keeps interest, but in such a small percentage of the population that it isn't going to help. This is largely going to help only the top 1% of skilled players, and even then not all of the members within that population. Also SF2 did have a massive amount of different versions, but from googling, Turbo was the best version, the one that came out in 1994. That means every iteration after Turbo was bad (in comparison to Turbo itself). They had the advantage of separate releases, we don't. I don't want to run the risk of losing what might be DBD's Turbo, to get 2017's Ultra Street Fighter 2: The Final Challengers (one that showed up frequently as one of the worst SF2 remake versions, but I'm not in the Fighting game sphere, it might actually be the pro's favorite version). I think variety is the best way to keep interest, and I think the Chaos Shuffle is a good type of variety. The Killer effectiveness shakeups is another good way, as long as we mostly buff the bottom 5 and nerf the top 5. (I think we have Killers ranging from S-D tier, and S and D tiers shouldn't exist.)
Perform too well/Creative on their own - I mostly disagree here. Someone could make the argument the Potential Energy bug was players 'getting creative', and that's the argument I make for Oni flicks. Both bugs are people abusing a bug to bypass a limitation, for the detriment for the opposite side. The only difference is the minimum skill level to execute the bug. The effectiveness gained is too high in both cases for the effort put in. Oni is supposed to have restricted mobility during Demon Dash, just as Toolboxes are supposed to lose charges, and a bug bypassing those limitations is bad for the game. I'd be willing to try a gen parts mechanic, but to implement it correctly would likely need more testing and R&D than BHVR would be willing to put in.
Trying to balance killers around tiers is bad way to approach design. Tiers are something that players derive based on their subjective experience with the game. Dbd is one of the few games where due to the nature of its gameplay there is rarely any natural shifting of perspectives on killers. Nurse isn't ever going to be a mid or low tier killer through nerfs as her base power is the absolute best power to have in this game. She's legit not playing the same dbd as any other killer because she can ignore terrain. Freddy's probably never going to be a high tier killer through buffs alone because his power gets weaker over the course of a match and losing mobilty/map pressure is one of the worst traits to have baked into a killer kit. That's why the best killers in the game all tend to have high mobility on demand as a key feature.
Like even Billy at his worst was still like a solid A tier killer imo due to the fact he was very fast on top of an instadown. The power a killer ships with is often very set in stone and then you get a bunch of number tweaks mainly to addons that ultimately doesn't change the overall inherent strengths and weaknesses of a power. If the powers aren't going to just go through sudden drastic changes on a regular basis then you need changes to basic universal gameplay.
The Final Challengers isn't well liked because it commits the cardinal sin of being a shallow cash grab that has even less features than original version of SF2 and adding things no one likes. It was a lackluster switch port all in all, I think the "newest" revision of SF2 Turbo pro players actually play with some passing regularity is maybe Turbo HD Remix which has its own set of issues. Most just play classic ST when they want to play ST. DBD on the other hand hasn't even made it to its ST era after 9 years and we've the benefit of being able to patch games without making a whole new arcade board or game cart. We've got plenty of new characters over time, but most actually share mechanics which isn't necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is that the core gameplay is a hindrance to innovating the ways in which players can engage with game. Hopefully the new mode menu will help with that, but this is something we should have been seeing experimented with years ago.
I wouldn't be so dead set on seeing weird janky pieces of tech held onto if there was a historical precedent in this game for things trending towards being fairly innovative. Yet, it's the opposite where players finding interesting things is tamped down and the game trends towards long term stagnation rather than some sort of reinvention. Number tweaks and slight effect changes can only do so much and the same loop/gen/chase structure can only be so fun. When we do get novel mechanics they often feel and look hamstrung by the basic gameplay if they fall outside of the couple handfuls of mechanics that we recognize as "known goods" in dbd. For me I've been engaging with the game in some way or another since just a few months after it launched till now. The last time I was dedicated to playing was when Skull Merchant released and stopped when she got reworked cause I think the rework solves none of her core issues and playing matches isn't fun when no matter what I do people still just give up the moment they see a merchant.
-
@JPLongstreet said:
Lobby shopping and/or dodging by a killer does wreak their MMR pretty badly, and I often wonder what effect skipping lobbies altogether would have on the quality of matchmaking. I'd like to see this tested out.
There's not a lot of what I'd call "legit" reasons for leaving lobbies, things like real-life issues of course, and recognizing a known hacker I can get behind. Aside from that, shopping around to me seems like either passing "a problem" onto another killer, some kind of protest of current balancing, not liking some cosmetics, or simply looking for a personal definition of a "fair" trail. Smells like looking for an easier match to me.
When it comes to survs hoping lobbies it too is not good for proper-ish matchmaking, but less destructive imo.
In truth, how can we blast the devs for an MMR system that is being maneuvered around & bypassed like crazy, and not really given a good shot to do its thing?
The system isn't being subverted though.
The current system isn't particularly good and prioritizes matchmaking speed over balanced matches when it is working properly. It isn't like MMR changes function just because a killer leaves the lobby since it not that narrowly gated to begin with and since by default we can't see the MMR scores you have no way of knowing how much of an actual difference there is.
-
@BbQz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3731450#Comment_3731450
They are circumvented? Don't want to play? Die. All you did is ruining other people's games trust me the desperate need to "punish" the first hook deather ultimate result is ruining the people who's stays time simple as. Ask your self if you didn't get a penalty would you start leaving? If the answer is no then trust me this isn't going to be any more of a problem then it currently is just now your not effected your welcome
The history of this game and how people tend to interact with are in direct opposition with this line of thinking.
Before the game had DC penalties the rate of DCing was so high that at times it functionally broke matchmaking times. Anytime after the addition of the penalty where the devs have needed to turn it off for bit there were huge spikes in DCs. Believe it or not people are more inclined to at least attempt to play things out when the threat of escalating penalty is in play. Literally the community of this game proves that when given benefit of the doubt they will turn around and abuse it.
It's why you get an overly strict chat filter and dc penalties because folks simply can't be trusted to not be the worst version of themselves when playing dbd.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3720477#Comment_3720477
I see you don't/haven't play/(ed) Oni in soloq, where he has power in chase 80%+ of the relevant time. The only way to have less power is if you are greeding for a 4 slug, or using power for exclusive mobility, or other misuses of his power, in which case it is merely a 'skill dif git gut' circumstance. His 1-hit down is balanced around the limitations, so bypassing the limitations with a bug exploit should remove the benefit. That's why Oni flick should either be removed, or basekitted with Dashes no longer instadowning.
Wasn't Bayonetta beyond broken in Ultimate? Like 2 tiers above all other characters? That sounds like a perfect comparison for Blight, so I think that is good bugtech was removed, to put the character in line with the rest of the cast.
People hate bugtech because it removed a limitation of the power's usage, not because whatever 'the other side revels in my misery' victim complex that made up quote contained. It countered the main counterplay of Blight's normal power usage, and would put Survivors into scenarios where there was no way to outplay. If I run out and away, the Blight (with normal human reaction speeds) could peel out and still get the hit, so it was a free-win for Blight (at short loops where the Blight can see). I honestly think it would have been fine to keep if he went back to the groin height camera like it was bugged on release. That would have been a fair tradeoff for the power to be gained.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3721471#Comment_3721471
Good, because I haven't been doing that. I don't call things techs, I don't redefine what they actually are, I don't use the thinly veiled coat of paint other people put on them. That means I can have nuance and allow some, allow some with tradeoffs, and disallow others, instead of blindly allowing all of them carte blanche.
Is jumping not a popular mechanic? Do people not get disappointed when the latest game doesn't have it? That isn't hyperbole if I proved it to be true. I'm using "popular mechanic" to encompass any facet of gameplay that people enjoy, a 'mechanic' that is 'popular'. You might be using "popular mechanic" to specify anything that isn't a core mechanic, and that is just us not using the same language. If we were to use your definition, then the bugs lose their bug status in the next game, so SF2 it was a bug, and SF3 it is a basekit mechanic, not a bug. It never was a bug in SF3, because they found a way to integrate it into the game without the problems that were coupled with in before. Sprinting may be coming from the bug of older games allowing 'W' and 'D' movement at the same time, giving a diagonal speed of sqrt(2) ~1.41, which roughly compares to the 35% and 50% common sprint speeds seen today. I guess to rephrase my point, former bugs inspire similar mechanics to be basekitted, not the direct adaptation of the bug itself.
Everyone who lost their flick only lost it because it was never intended for the level of power they bring to the table. Chucky was busted with his flicks, and not intended, Blight was busted with his flicks, and not intended, Oni is busted with his flicks, and not intended, Billy is good/great with his flicks, and not (originally) intended. The difference between them is both the power level (Billy being fair), and how easy the bug was to fix (Chucky had the design eyes still on him, Blight finally got major focus to reign in his power, Oni is still ignored).
I do agree there needs to be more fun opportunities for both sides (although mostly for the M1 simulator that is Survivor atm, I can still have fun chasing as Killer). I don't think bug depth is how we should reach that though. We should make the core loop more enjoyable, or add gameplay elements or modes like the 2v8 mode. I think the game is too set in stone, once your side starts to win, you can't really lose. We need more rubberband/comeback mechanics. Basekit NOED if you go into endgame with 0 kills, disable gen regression after a kill, these would allow the other side to still have a chance and be willing to play the game when most people would want to afk/give up on hook instead.
It may be true that 'Tech' can keep players invested in a bad game, but shouldn't we make the game better instead of dealing with a lesser evil like many of these are?
Disabling gen regression after a kill instantly creates an inevitability scenario that would place too much pressure on killers. It's a reverse snowball that rather than causing the game to rubberband would just incentivize one side avoiding doing their objective in a timely manner unless they were already playing a killer who actually can thrive without gen regression. Basekit NOED is one of the biggest band aid fixes people have thrown around for years. It's lowkey kinda insane to get to endgame with zero kills and be handed innate NOED which as a base mechanic either has to be strong enough to truly be game changing or weak enough to only offer a bare advantages. It feels weird to place survivors is a situation where they can suddenly go from handily winning to being at an extreme disadvantage without some sort of investment of resource from the killer. It also feels like to trash to get what amounts to pity buffs that don't really help your situation if you're a killer who is losing. DBD has comeback mechanics already, but the design of the game doesn't really allow for a back and forth because the sides aren't meant to be on equal footing. So comebacks either succeed in grand fashion or they fail outright.
The recent changes to the game have further cemented the fact that having a back and forth style of gameplay isn't seen as desirable. Caps to gen regression means that killers are hard limited how much they can impose their will on the game in regards to undoing progress. That's a direct statement that no matter what after a certain point the survivors will complete their objective and preventing it can only be done by kills. It makes sense to do this with the issues for 3 gens and general game stalling, but removing gameplay whether intended or unintended by design further sets the game in stone. Having more modes would be great, but the gameplay loop is still largely the exact same as it has been and we're now 9 years into the life span of this game with little to show for it in terms of mechanical depth and skill expression. New intentional mechanics are rarely added to the game and when they do get added they usually get absolutely decimated or they're too clunky to be with the time investment. Things players figure out for themselves and get a lot of value out of using either for fun or competitive advantage get removed as well.
So what are we gaining? 2v8 is still more of the same DBD, but with an extra killer in the mix. That isn't a substantial addition because the base game is still losing depth rather than embracing it in any meaningful way. Tech can keep players interested a bad game, but it can also keep players interested in good yet stale and flawed game as well. DBD is at its core a good game, but it has grown very stale and is taking too long to iterate on its formula. SF2 had around 28 iterations of itself by the time Capcom finally moved on from it to work on the Alpha series of SF. Each one keeping the core gameplay, but adding something to it or adjusting the balance. In DBD we get regular balance changes, but we also get more subtractions of things than additions. Even when intentional mechanics get handicapped or outright cut post introduction to the live game. If the expectation is that this sort of philosophy is going to make the game better then time hasn't proven that to be true. 9 years in and we have less overall freedom within the game than at any other point in the game's history.
Even truly exciting new additions like Vecna's mechanics are hard to get excited about because we've seen how the devs handle things that either perform too well or allow players to get too creative on their own. I also agree that survivors need a more dynamic objective and have been suggesting for years that they should have at least part scavenging mechanic to repair gens rather than just holding down a button for a minute.
-
@Spirit_IsTheBest said:
The thing is that hug-tech was never intended, and an exploit. Good Blights abused that exploit and made matches unbearable, now that he got fixed, he became much more fair to verse, and in fact one of my favorite killers to verse.
An easy time? Well not exactly, I've versed some great Blights even after the nerf, people can't just be carried by hug-tech anymore, which is a positive in my opinion, and requires more skill on their end. Along with there being more counterplay considering that he was, and still is a very good killer.
Cause so many people were getting carried by a tech that required you to learn how to play the killer at fairly high level and learn how DBD's collision worked in fairly deep detail.
It's not like hug tech was exactly simple to do, but the benefits to learning it made an already strong killer that much stronger. Just saying maybe the narrative of folks being "carried" by stuff like that is a little overblown.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3717892#Comment_3717892
Vast majority of popular mechanics started as exploits/bugs/glitches - I'm sorry this is ridiculous hyperbole. What, was jumping in its own right a glitch? Was damaging specific bodyparts (aka headshots) doing more damage a glitch? Did moving faster with a button/double input to activate 'running' mode start as a glitch? While there may be offshoots of these respectively such as bunnyhopping, richochets bouncing to multi-tap hitboxes, and wavedashing, the base mechanic was already enjoyable without the hyperspecific bug/exploit for the new 'tech'. To be generous, I would give a maximum of 10%, and that is far more generous than I should ever be. This gives far too little credit to all the mechanics put into games that we enjoy, as if a noise to cue getting a reward wasn't planned. Essentially you have to play a game that intentionally makes movement clunky and bad to enjoy good movement. the newer RE engine games are a perfect example of bad floaty movement, when we had Rev2 and Res6 with clean(er) movement, or even the OG RE games with responsive fluid movement, which is still used in games as late as OG4 and RE5.
Weigh pros and cons of remove or basekit - See my final paragraph of my previous post, already covered. (Short version being Billy flick was fun, basekitted, Blight flick+faceslide wasn't, thus removed.)Fighting games/comboes, future revisions - The difference being here, is both versions exist at the same time. I can buy the OG Street Fighter, or the original release of SF2, or the latest remake/remaster. You can have your cake and eat it when there are different versions/revisions. Someone who likes the mechanic can play the version that they like, and someone who doesn't like the mechanic can play the version they like. Here, we have to pick someone to irritate, and someone to please (or more accurately try to figure out which group is smaller and irritate them). We only have 1 version of DBD, unless they allowed for greater customization in KWF. If I could roll back patches in customs, then I wouldn't have issues with this, and it would be even better if you could customize which version of various things are allowed (maybe 80s gens, with 5% regression on kick, with Blight flicks, with 200% Ruin), but we can't do that sadly.
Shooters with exploits and glitches becoming the norm - This suffers massive survivorship bias. How many of these bugs and exploits were patched out of future iterations because they caused negative backlash also? I remember glitching out of maps and shooting people from the outside (since outer wall collision was unidirectional), and that was fun for me, and bullschenanigans for my opponents. I remember glitching the physics engine to hop on top of a beam that couldn't be reached normally, and if I did that with a sniper, it was a free win. Both of these were fun for the bug exploiter to use, but weren't adding to the game at large to be more fun or fair, so they should be removed. Sadly people view many of these exploits as the 'good ones', and that IMO is what Blight/Oni bug abuses are/were. Oni shouldn't be able to 1-hit down with 180 turning (Left/Right, full 360 coverage), he should only be able to hit 90 degree turning (Left/Right, for 180 degree coverage). If his flick is basekitted, IMO he should lose the ability to instadown with Demon Dash, and only keep instadown on the Charged M1 without sprinting.
DBD flatten's skill expression by removing fun things - Again, fun for the exploiter, not the recipient on the other side. Should we remove the entity block on windows? That was a mechanic added to prevent fun for the exploiter at the cost of health for the game, just as Blight and Oni flicks did/do. Billy's flick on the other hand was fun enough for everyone to basekit, so not all exploits are removed. You can still see this infinite vault partially happen on Dead Dawg's infinite, and Hawkin's infinite (both against M1 Killers mostly). Should every map get an 'infinite'? Something 'fixed' that I disagree with is invisible walls added EVERYWHERE on 2nd stories. The 'problem' there is falling onto loops from above (which was hyper rare and too specific to matter IMO), and instead of fixing it on the problem's end (adding cone hitboxes onto loops so you would slide off), they just added invisible walls any and everywhere you can gain altitude, especially where it doesn't make sense (bug report I posted with YT vid of invisible wall). Essentially there was 2 ends of the problem, and they picked the wrong end to fix.
As far as people looking things up to have fun in DBD, there are more than enough core problems with the game that have gone unaddressed for nearly 8 years now that you don't need to pretend exploits are saving the game. We still have no method to deal with bleedouts other than "just wait 4m LOL". We still have no method to deal with 2 Survivors holding the game hostage other than "just record at least 10 minutes of gens being not worked and report them LOL". There are plenty more massive problems, and little to nothing is done to fix the worst of experiences for both sides. That is far more likely the cause of people being turned off of the game, and the direct cause of 4/5 people IRL that I know that have quit the game for any period of time (the last being "I play the first month of a cool Killer/Survivor/Perk then wait until the next content drop with something cool", invocation of spiders was his last 'cool' thing then soft quit again).
As long as you frame everyone using a tech you don't care for as an exploiter you're going to reach the conclusion that nothing is valid tech.
A vast majority of popular mechanics did indeed start out as bugs and glitches, but that isn't to say that every basic function started that way. That's not even something I claimed yet you chose to argue against the hyperbolic statement you made. "Popular mechanics" isn't anywhere near all encompassing and I would hazard to say that when people think of popular mechanics they are thinking of something a bit more involved than simple running and jumping.
i also said that things that are legitimately problematic absolutely should get patched. Like if something is gamebreaking or so disruptive to normal play that there is no means to balance it out then obviously it has to go. In DBD's case we have precedent that shows that flicks aren't gamebreaking nor due they rise to an extreme level of disruption. That's why Billy got his back, that's why Oni continues to have his so why exactly is there a need for Blight and now Chucky to lose their flicks? Blight losing his isn't really going to affect him all that much most likely as strong killers tend to be pretty impervious to nerfs. It does make a group of people happy and flattens the game out.
DBD is in need of depth and generally fun little things for people do with their characters on both sides. Rarely does survivor actually get new tech and killers are starting to lose tech at about the same rate they gain tech. Rather than we as players constantly wanting this removed and the devs actually removing things it would be more beneficial to embrace some of this tech and find ways to apply it across the game in a balanced way. It shouldn't just come down to picking a smaller group to irritate because if that is the kind design philosophy at play then what's the point in anyone getting into this game if they gravitate towards the "smaller group"?
Tech is one of the things that can keep players invested in even a bad game.
-
@KTH said:
Yes cause a killer tunneling someone just to get their mori is really fun
You're still getting tunneled either way it goes. At least with moris you'd get a fun death with a chance to have a funny clip of someone photobombing the cinematic. Finisher mori being a thing is great, but losing the other mori opportunities is a bad trade off. It's another case of where there is a way to have both, but the devs just choosing not to. Hopefully, they at the very least are considering a way to give the mori system more freedom.
-
@mizark3 said:
A 'tech' is simply a bug/exploit spray painted over with a fresh new look/name. It doesn't stop being a bug/exploit just because people call it a 'tech'. It just basically signals 'I like this and think it should stay, so I call it tech'. The main difference between bugs and exploits, is that a bug is unintended behavior, and an exploit is an intended behavior used in an unusual or unintended way.
For an exploit example, healing prevents movement, so you can't be healed while holding the run button, so the intended behavior (can't heal a runner) is used in an unintended way (crawling isn't running, but also standing still while injured isn't running). That is what people call 'shift tech' instead of saying 'you can't heal someone running'. Since this is a mechanic working as intended (can't heal a runner), only the edge case scenario might need to be removed (running doesn't prevent heals while slugged).
The flicks and slides are (predominantly) bugs. They are unintended usages of the power, caused by programming errors. If they were intended, then you wouldn't have to jump through hoops to use them (frame perfect Wesker Slides/Hill hops), and the powers would likely be weaker to counter-balance (EG. Oni losing instadown potential). Since they are programming errors, they can be super hard to find, pin down, and fix. They can get fixed when the sufficient time or effort is put into fixing them, and should always be viewed with a limited lifespan.
One massive bug still in the game to this day (that was fixed at one point) was damaging Survivors through stuns. Due to lag, a Survivor could send the Stun message to the server, and the Killer could send the Hit message to the server, and both go off. There was a patch where the Devs put in lag verification (so whoever between Survivor or Killer sent the message to the server first, overrode the oppositions message, AKA laggy person loses), but that caused the client sided hits on Killer side to mismatch from the server sided 'you got stunned, you didn't get the hit', and it was too frustrating and confusing for most of the playerbase to deal with. Thus they added the bug back into the game, and we have laggy BS hits going through stuns to this day sadly. So this MASSIVE bug was considered too difficult for the playerbase to deal with, so this bug/'tech' is acceptable.
There is a line that needs to be crossed where what stands to be gained from the bug, is compared to what is lost from its removal. Similarly that line also exists with exploits and intended mechanics in unintended circumstances. If they removed the 'can't heal a runner' line of code, they might accidentally allow healing on the move with both players running in the same direction. That would be a far worse problem to have, so we are stuck with 'shift-tech', from that analysis. Since most Survivor experiences are hurt by these Killer extra potential bugs (IME 3/5 players), and the Killer and 1 Survivor enjoy them (2/5), they likely are all on the chopping block. At the same time, Blight finally stopped rushing through nerfs that instead landed against far weaker Killers, and his power level was finally hit a bit, as 'bug-tech' was finally fixed. At the same time most people enjoyed Billy's flick (IME 4/5), so it was considered to be up for basekitting.
The vast majority of popular game mechanics across multiple genres often started out as unintended exploits/bugs/glitches/player interactions.
When your playerbase finds interesting ways to engage with the game that express a deeper level of skill and understanding of the underlying systems of your game you're always gonna have to weigh the pros and cons of removing it carefully. Whether it be hug tech, flicks, moonwalks, crouch techs, 360s, wallbangs(blinding through slotted surfaces), etc. they're all forms of skill expression that add depth to the game and a large amount of the playerbase enjoy both seeing and using. DBD has a history of rather than choosing to make these things proper parts of the game they instead either remove them or stifle them to near uselessness. There are ways to adjust the game to accommodate these "techs" while keeping the game balanced.
Fighting games originally were not made with combos as we understand them today in mind. When players first started to really do long strings of attacks in SF2 it was straight up unintended by the devs. Rather than squash the "tech" and force players to lose skill expression that they were having fun with. They made adjusts to the game overall in the future revisions to enshrine the ability of characters to combo attacks together as part of the normal design then balance it so everyone could do with a decent level of consistency. Players who were better at the game would get more mileage out of it, but since it was made a natural part of the game it made it easier to balance in the long run. It became a genre defining mechanic that fundamentally changed the genre for the better.
Shooters are notorious for exploits and glitches that ended up becoming tech that is considered benchmarks for how well you understand the functions of the game. IR shots, drop shots, cross map knife ricochets, wiggling(found in shooters with leaning mechanics while aiming), etc. Stuff that now gets celebrated and widely used that used to be just straight up bugs and unintended design quirks. The devs choose to more often than not embrace these things turn them into proper codified and balanced mechanics rather than just denying them outright.
DBD by comparison goes the abnormal route of and flattening out the game's skill expression and time after time just straight taking away genuinely fun things. Like I'm all for fixing actually problematic bugs that destroy the spirit of the game no matter which side they benefit, but the only thing keeping this game going is the fact that it is unchallenged in its genre and the licenses it has access to. When people look up DBD content these days they get tons of videos seeing genuinely fun and funny stuff that gets them excited to play the game only to then get the game and find out that most of it has been patched out or nerfed into the ground.
-
@MagicDragon said:
There are many discussions on what is unfair for killers but as someone that plays roughly 50/50 killer/survivor I don't see much discussion around criticizing killer's lack of improvement. I get that DbD is a popular game and there are new players coming into the game all the time, but barring that the game has been out for many years and most of the problematic killers are not new players.
Main issue I see with killers is that they overly prioritize gens. They consistently go for dry kicks on low progress gens and let survivors pre-run. Killers have got to start learning gen speeds and being proactive about pressuring survivor hook states early in the match, or in the event that they do get a hook, proactively pressuring different survivors and force the survivor team to do alturism and get off gens. There are perks available to help out with this so "I can't get a down" is not an excuse. Running around kicking gens blindly is not doing you any favors and in most cases you are handing the game over to the survivors.
This brings up the second issue: Many killers don't force survivors to make dead zones because they want to kick gens and are afraid to loop with a survivor. Killers have to learn that the survivor team has to use pallets in order to loop, and in addition survivors need to be rationing their use of pallets to avoid dead zones, everyone needs to do this. No one is expecting you to end every chase in 5 seconds or win every 50-50 like a looping god but be proactive and learn to use tiles to your advantage, there are myriad youtube tutorials on the types of tiles and how to use them effectively as well as aura reading perks and items to help you see the survivor while looping and tagging. Time saving perks like coup, STBFL and others are also at your disposal.
Third, Too many killers complain about being gen rushed too often, but aside from learning to use tiles better and improving your map sense and knowledge, are you also playing to prevent gen rushing? do you zone survivors into dead zones and spread pressure while forcing the team off gens to prevent gen rushing or do you kick a gen and then wander off aimlessly?
TLDR: Too many killers complain that the game is unfair but they don't work to improve their game by watching tutorials or run the perks needed to balance their weaknesses. Sometimes you are the main cause of your own demise during a match.
There isn't a discussion because there really isn't anything to discuss. You're making a blanket generalization that generally is just an implicitly understood thing that people acting in good faith wouldn't argue. There also isn't anything to really be learned or gained from approaching any gameplay discussion in DBD through this particular entry statement. It's the sort of statement that more often just makes people automatically defensive because rarely do people who play this game and are seeking discourse about real or perceived problems with the game going to take blanket criticism well.
DBD as a game has a lot of issues that aren't really getting addressed in ways that seem to make sense for a plurality of people who play killer now or played killer in the past. The game while technically being the most mechanically balanced it has ever been in it's life seems to not feel good to play even if you do everything you've mentioned. The game more often than not feels like a pressure cooker whether you're doing well or not. Some of your suggestions forego some key facts about the game.
Kicking low percentage gens being bad- This can be a bad idea, but gen kicks are better earlier in the game rather than later in the game considering that now they are finite resource. Saving them for later is fine if survivors generally aren't able to progress the game at a decent pace, but you should treat every team as if they are going to push the pace until they prove otherwise. While you can definitely over prioritize this to a detriment it sort of needs to be a early priority considering the recent changes to the game to make kicking just less effective overall the further you get into the game and the more progress the survivors make on gens anyway.
Forcing Survivors to make dead zones- That's generally what killers want to do, but the longer you play the game as a survivor the more you learn that a lot of the map tile layouts will allow you to loop while also being rather greedy with pallets. If a survivor is determined to not use a pallet there is little you can do about that as a killer. Also most maps have pretty high density of pallets, relatively few areas where a deadzone can be made in a timely manner. You get deadzones from forcing a chase well past the point of it being a good time investment usually. Only like 6 killers in the game really require you to pre-drop in order to properly evade them in a chase. The most common scenario for most killers is a survivor greeds the pallet and goes down or they just leave loop to the next tile in chain which likely has a pallet or vault. Dealing with these takes time to learn and while tutorials help the game still needs some changes to way tiles chain and/or pallet density on some maps. Also Coup De Grace is not a time saving perk, if you're getting Coup stacks it means you're already behind. It's a decent perk to catch folks off guard, but it isn't saving you time.
Complaints about gen rushing- This is hard one to tackle. Like I said earlier the game feels like a pressure cooker no matter what and the language to express that in this game when it comes to mechanics is limited. An actual gen rush at this point isn't something that most killers in the can do anything about, but rarely is anyone actually talking about a true gen rush. They're expressing that the game feels like it goes by too fast to really enact a gameplan. That's a combination of skill issue and mechanical design flaws imo. The entire game is time management when you play killer and you can't be everywhere at once and pressure everything at once. You have to compromise and depend on specific perks to keep the pace of the game feeling manageable. It shouldn't be that way though, yet we can't just make every killer highly mobile and we can't increase the actual time it takes to do gens by default anymore. If it were up to me I'd alter both killer and survivor objectives to sort change the overall flow of the game just enough so it doesn't feel like a mad dash to get up to speed for most of the killers in the game.
-
@Junylar said:
The core reason for camping is the hole in the game's design. Since the hooked survivor stays on place, which the killer knows, and the killer has no incentive not to pursue the same survivor until death, it will happen. One of the easy solutions would be teleporting the survivor to a random hook on the map without showing its aura to the killer, similar to how PH's cage works.
That's not an easy solution and honestly it's a pretty bad solution that removes strategic play from the game in a way that is more detrimental than helpful. Killers should have the option to defend their hooks within reason and survivors should have a chance to make saves within reason. Random teleports in the early game aren't that bad for killers, but towards the middle and end of the game it would actively hurt survivors more than it would help them while the overall game for killer becomes closer to a game of chance or singular gameplan.
People have been suggesting this before Pyramid Head even existed and there is a reason why the devs have not done it even though they have the capacity to do it. It's not really solving the problem it is just replacing one problem with another set of problems. Though survivors rarely use them there are perks that essentially stop functioning as intended if or are functionally useless because they revolve around the current way hook interactions take place.
-
@OrangeBear said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3715906#Comment_3715906
Well i don't play slinger because his projectile is very precise and has high punishment for missing. And survivors can break free. I feel like there's no room to be ambitious as deathslinger.
I sometimes play wesker but usually always with unicorn medallion. He can't cancel his bounds midway so if you miss you become further away from the survivor. Also without unicorn medallion you have to bound after the second one, this gives time for survivors to react, so you have to be very quick to get hits without this add-on.
I like chucky because he has stealth and slice and dice is fairly easy to hit.
I'm not looking for a unique killer just one that suits my playstyle and is minimally frustratingWe can have and did have both those things in Chucky. There is nothing gained from removing the one of the two unique features of the killer. Balancing scamper is hard, but it is possible and honestly it was already fairly balanced if survivors made the right play decisions. Removing it just means rather than them learning to not greed a pallet the killer just loses a tool and a layer of depth. That's the problem with this game currently is that unique traits get scaled back or removed purely to the detriment of overall game variety.
-
@arcaneGospel said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3699832#Comment_3699832
Jack Baker is visually just a guy, sure, and technically speaking he does only walk around with a weapon. However, he's the perfect character to play with the mold taking over the Baker estate for a power—And having the Entity replace Eveline in controlling him makes solid narrative sense as well. Jack is a strong guy who is made of a bio-organic weapon that has also taken over the entire swamp he lives in, so he could easily have a power centered around manipulating the map in ways we haven't seen yet, he's capable of being a very complex trap/setup character. Alcina doesn't have something so versatile or interesting as the mold to work with. Having a vampire would be cool, but Dimitrescu would actually not be a good way of implementing one—I would much rather see an original vampire who can actually use the concepts of feeding on and turning people into thralls.
Wesker from RE5 is well represented, he just doesn't belong. It's nothing at all like saying he doesn't fit in Teppen or MvC, because my argument is that Wesker is tonally inconsistent. He's a comic book character, a Matrix action man. He isn't a horror character in RE5. Jack's humor is mostly worked into his horror, Wesker's high speed action is—intimidating, sure—too far into the ballpark of 'cool' to be scary.
Characters can be both cool in action sense and still fit in a horror setting as the horror genre is extremely versatile. Mechanically speaking he's the best possible fit for DBD out of all choices presented from RE.
Jack is infected with, powered by, and made of the mold but he can not control it. He also isn't a good fit for being a trap setting character as even in the game he doesn't set traps, his son does. Alcina has the Cadou infection which is derived from the mold which not only granted her large size, increased strength, regenerative capabilities, but also the ability to transform her body into a dragon and could command swarms of mold flies. Literally has everything Jack has but better and as for seeing thralls in DBD that's unlikely to happen even with an original character design as players tend to despise losing control of their characters in this game.
At least with Dimitrescu you could have her make use of her own innate abilities or those of her daughters if you absolutely wanted minion type gameplay. That's looking at the characters and comparing their kits as demonstrated in their respective games as objectively as possible. Even if we set aside both Jack and Alucina to choose other boss characters you're in a situation where the best boss characters of the current modern era are in Village. Heisenberg and Donna Beneviento offer interesting and new things to play with and in the case of Donna she can actually control mold infected plant life in addition to her dolls.
-
@arcaneGospel said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3697851#Comment_3697851
I knew it was mostly that, I was just hoping to be a LITTLE wrong. It's a shame—I think she's alright, it's just the most obvious hornybait character I've ever seen after having played the game.
I'm not so well versed in Silent Hill, so I don't know much about other killer candidates. I would rather not get another ST chapter, and I don't see the potential in Xenomorph 2, really, though.
As an aside, I think RE has awful representation as a horror series in DbD, because Nemesis is terribly adapted and Wesker doesn't fit this game whatsoever, and it's a shame—Jack should have been here before Wesker, at least.
Jack Baker isn't really all that interesting though. He's just a big dude with a hammer or chainsaw sheers. His "power" is purely expressed in his extreme regenerative healing ability and strength. Even when you account for his DLC appearance where he's a literal swamp monster doesn't really exhibit much in the way of standout power manifestations and is literally beaten to death by a his cousin using a high tech boxing glove. At least with Lady Dimtrescu you have character with not only a ton more character appeal in the personality department and looks department. You also have a character who has displayed actual controllable power feats such as being able to transform part of or her entire body at will.
Lady Dimitrescu also fills a monster role we don't have any representation for which is Vampire. Jack is the least interesting boss in his own game compared to the likes of his wife who can control and birth insects or his freakazoid son, or the little girl. Jack is funny though which goes a long way in making him memorable. Like we could just make him a Legendary skin for Hillbilly with voice lines an accomplish the effect of having him represented perfectly in game. Can't really do that with Dimitrescu which is something else to consider.
Wesker is also represented fine this game and saying he doesn't fit in this game is like saying he doesn't fit in Teppen or MvC3. Makes zero sense. Nemesis isn't terribly adapted he's just not all that exciting without his arsenal and his arsenal doesn't work in this type of game balance wise. Then again the majority of RE bosses tend to just not function well outside of their game and the ones that do are usually tyrant types or enhanced humans which really limits the available pool of interesting things to be done.
-
@Nicholas said:
So far the answer has been a resounding no! Why are the devs so afraid of implementing server authority for hits? Or some other approach other than "hits being handled on the killer's end?"
This is the only game I play that rewards lag in 2024!
Being particularly laggy in COD still to this very day can and does win you gunfights
Being laggy in basically every fighting game that isn't using rollback netcode or poorly implemented rollback can let you take rounds of people.
Hits in this game are in fact already handled by server authority to a large degree rather than purely handled on the killer's client like it used to be in the p2p era. If you're getting hit more often than not the server just didn't favor you in the moment.
You should play more games.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3691187#Comment_3691187
Surely a 1Kb patch is able to be vetted and pushed to consoles within the span of the two week event it's designed for right? Also, sure we had Alan Wake, Chucky, and the Unknown; and the art team does a fantastic job at modeling, animating, and designing content for the game, but taking the models and actually putting code to them is what I'm talking about. Most of the new perks and killer abilities are copy-pasted amalgamations that could realistically be coded in a day's worth of time. The only novel thing that was added recently was the invocation, which I would understand if it took a few week's development time.
The way I understand it, the patch validation process for consoles can take quite a while depending on the amount of things in the queue to be validated. So regardless of the patch size a company still has to wait their turn on top of the usual time it takes to actually validate to the standards of the console makers.
-
@supersonic853 said:
[CHANGE]Adrenaline no longer activates if you are hooked when the gates are powered.[CHANGE]Reduced speed boost duration to 3 seconds (was 5 seconds).[CHANGE]Adrenaline no longer causes you to wake up when facing The Nightmare.
Dev note: Adrenaline had a lot of exceptions which made it difficult to play around. If a Survivor was hooked while the exit gates were powered, they would be healthy and receive a substantial speed boost upon being unhooked, making it very difficult for the Killer to catch them before they could escape. We have made it so Adrenaline no longer pauses when you are on the hook.
We’ve also removed the wake-up effect when facing The Nightmare to clean up the Perk as we’ve moved away from Perks that affect specific Killer Powers over the years.
Didnt expect them to change that much. I woulda at most did the perk saving on hook and the waking up. But had to go the extra mile i guess.
This is a long overdue revert to how the perk used to function originally.
-
@Atom7k said:
Alltough they add new content regularly and the new chapter looks amazing, it didn't even took 5 matches for it to feel stale and boring again.
Why is that you may ask? Well let's look at the current situation. A new player join's dbd he get's maybe 5 starter games before mmr screws him over and sells him out to a killer with more experience then the whole team has. They get stomped into the ground and made fun of in the endgame chat.
I've seen it, I've even tested it with a new account. It's just so disgusting.
If that was your first impression of the game when you started you probably would've put it aside too. Eventually after 2 weeks you even forget about the game alltogether and never play it again. That's what happened to a lot of my friends when I tried to bring them into dbd. It wasn't even my presence that made the match mmr bad for new players. They played on their own more then with me but the experience was the same.
So dbd can attract new players but can't really keep them. This means a constant decrease of players over time.
Now onto the current situation for veteran players. I don't really know how we ended up here but currently I blame streamers partially for it. Popular players like Otz and others made a whole marketing strategy to sell tunneling as a strategy to the average person. Tunneling is normal in competitive dbd but has never been as present in normal dbd as it is today. It was so normalized that people don't even feel bad about it anymore when they made bad decisions the whole match and then "won back the game" by tunneling and camping. That is not what the entity wants according to lore.
People are proud of themself when they won a match against solo-q survivors by tunneling and camping. When has it come this far. It's just sad
So currently active players are beyond annoyed as they have to face killers tunneling at 5 gen's almost every game now. It's tiring, boring and draining. All killer feels the same because they are played the same way with almost similar builds.
So players take a break for a weak, come back to find out it's still the same, go on another break for a month, nothing changes, they are gone for years or even for good.
This game will have a rapid end if the matchmaking is not improved and tunneling is put to an end.
Tunneling is more prevalent, but make no mistake it was an issue that existed before Otz, Scott, [insert dbd content creator here] ever said anything about it. The onboarding for dbd is terrible, but it has always been pretty bad if you didn't start playing in 2016/2017.
-
@appleas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3660543#Comment_3660543
Early 2022 before 6.1.0, the norm for Survivor queue times was 10 minutes in my region. Matchmaking prioritizing queue times had yet to be implemented yet and I was not aware of any widespread complaints about beginner players going up against much more experienced players during that time period. Streamer vods from that time period can prove if I was "guessing" or not.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3660547#Comment_3660547
I'm not sure if I'm following your point but are you saying that the disparity between swf and solo queue cannot be bridged?
I'm saying that the disparity between Solo Q and SWF is can't be bridged by mechanical intervention by the devs and that the way people approach arguing for the devs to do something is flawed. I do not see SWF players as being distinct from other survivors and find it weird that Solo Q complain about SWF as if they are an antagonistic force to them despite being on the same side. I also believe that Solo Q players already have all the tools they need to give them the information they are often wanting, but simply refuse to use those tools or fail to use them effectively.
-
@appleas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3660451#Comment_3660451
The way I see the "sides" in this game, it's Solo Queue, SWF and Killers and not Survivors vs Killers.
SWF has the potential to hit a higher ceiling in terms of teamplay and coordination which has led to Killer players calling for a nerf to this role.
The general sentiment I see around here about SWF is that this group cannot be nerfed because "You can't nerf people for playing with their friends!" Fair enough, then how about buffing Solo Queue? The devs tried that with the HUD, however SWF indirectly still got buffed with the HUD. When I play with my SWF, instead of having to ask where the gen my teammates are working on and the gen progress, I only need to ask where the gen is because I know the progress.
Add on tome challenges with some Survivor challenges being akin to throwing the game and the average solo queue player probably not communicating this which leads to more frustration overall. A winnable game could become a loss because one player decided to cleanse some totems for a tome challenge instead of doing a gen. At least in a swf, the person would probably communicate this beforehand to manage the expectations of their teammates.
While giving ingame voice communication sounds like a good idea to bring solo queue up to swf level, people on this forum have also spoken against it citing language barriers, toxicity etc.
When looking at all the hurdles that the devs have to go through just to buff Solo Queue, is it really any surprise why devs seemed so unenthusiastic on improving Solo Queue QOL in the recent AMA?
Attempting to buff solo queue without positively or negatively impacting swf is a difficult task to achieve. Devs also have to avoid buffing Survivor overall too much or Killers would get frustrated with constantly losing and switch roles/quit the game leading to longer queue times as Survivor. It has happened before pre 6.1.0.
I suspect even if the game becomes centered around hooks and not kills, the issue of swf and solo queue disparity would still remain. The game having a casual vs competitive identity crisis even after all these years is another huge issue, but that's a conversation for another time.
You can not buff solo q without buffing SWF players because at the end of the day the game is survivors vs killers. I've been saying this for years and it bears repeating, Solo Q players do not have to face SWFs, you're on the same team and you're all facing the killer. Calling for buffs or nerfs against yourself makes 0 sense contextually. You can not separate yourself from them, ask for them to be penalized, and think that somehow this will magically undo the problems of solo q which aren't mechanical in nature, but behavioral. Like it isn't even like the communication and information aspect hasn't been handled pretty well via perks, but survivors en masse often choose not to run them. Often making the argument that they shouldn't be "forced to run info perks".
How do you balance around deliberate decisions to not use the tools provided? You don't.
How do you balance SWF vs Solo Q play when you're legit in the same player pool often on the exact same team as you are all collectively treated the exact same? You can't really unless your goal is to emphasize a specific style of play, but no mechanical changes will ever fix lackluster team play. Even with MMR tweaks you're still not gonna get much better teammates.
-
@BubMickey07 said:
Why is it fair that fortnite gets lady gaga and we get no one cool like lana del ray or smth!!
We just had Iron Maiden and we've either already had or will have Slipknot tie-ins.
We have Nick Cage and just about every major horror icon of the 80's/90's/early 2000's
I love Gaga, but we're good.
-
This kinda just shows that month to date survival and kill rates are by in large within the normal expected ranges.
I've seen a couple of complaints on the 60/40 split in terms of kills vs escapes, but honestly you would and should expect that the role with literal supernatural abilities or weapons has a slight advantage over the side that just has more people. The data also highlights a point that people got extremely upset over that was made during the last AMA which is that Solo Q's survival rates are not statistically far worse than any configuration of SWF even at high MMR. That kinda points to the fact that there really isn't a mechanical solution the devs need to implement to boost Solo Q players.
Also holy cow Skull Merchant's numbers make no sense and I think that means it is time for something to change. As much as I love her and what her kit used to be people still just flat out refuse to play against her. She's a killer that functionally doesn't do anything and doesn't heavily benefit from her past or current power variants yet her less than stellar pickrate and obscenely high kill rate are too far outta wack. Something's gotta give and I don't think there is a way to get people to remotely try playing against unless she's just flat out entirely different. It kinda feels like Skull Merchant data is probably just mostly useless since folks clearly aren't engaging with her on any meaningful level.
-
This kinda just shows that month to date survival and kill rates are by in large within the normal expected ranges.
I've seen a couple of complaints on the 60/40 split in terms of kills vs escapes, but honestly you would and should expect that the role with literal supernatural abilities or weapons has a slight advantage over the side that just has more people. The data also highlights a point that people got extremely upset over that was made during the last AMA which is that Solo Q's survival rates are not statistically far worse than any configuration of SWF even at high MMR. That kinda points to the fact that there really isn't a mechanical solution the devs need to implement to boost Solo Q players.
Also holy cow Skull Merchant's numbers make no sense and I think that means it is time for something to change. As much as I love her and what her kit used to be people still just flat out refuse to play against her. She's a killer that functionally doesn't do anything and doesn't heavily benefit from her past or current power variants yet her less than stellar pickrate and obscenely high kill rate are too far outta wack. Something's gotta give and I don't think there is a way to get people to remotely try playing against unless she's just flat out entirely different. It kinda feels like Skull Merchant data is probably just mostly useless since folks clearly aren't engaging with her on any meaningful level.
-
@Sunbreaker7 said:
The meter progresses far too slow regardless of the situation. Huntress and many other killers still hold the ability to camp the hook from outside the hook radius for the bar to progress while still not losing or risking anything by doing so. Anyone who tries to go for the rescue will still be downed just the same before able to do a proper hook trade.
The meter stops moving as soon as a survivor enters the hook radius, instead of progressing slowly. Makes no sense and encourages Killer to facecamp.
When a survivor is downed near the hook, despite not having the ability to unhook the survivor, the meter is still paused. THIS MAKES NO SENSE, even if you factor in the possibility that the survivor may get back up with a perk and then rescue.
So many years of waiting for anti-camp feature to be implemented to the game and BHVR fails to implement a proper one. I simply cannot understand how hard it can be. You have so much feedback from your community and you still dont listen.
It's a very specific mechanic meant to address a very specific set of circumstances without completely removing a playstyle. It's always been known that this was going to be an anti-facecamping mechanic which it does address. A killer can deny you a save but they can't completely delete that from being an option to begin with unlike in the past. It forces killers to allow for hooks to be properly contested, but when unhooking another survivor you're not supposed to be in a position of strength and safety. It should be risky to make saves.
AFC provides exactly the spacing for that and nothing more or less. It's doing the job it was built to do just fine.
-
@mikewelk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3645703#Comment_3645703
Endgame isn't really stable anymore considering the popularity of Adrenaline. You could be chasing a injured survivor and suddenly you're back at step one. It's not really the perks fault because it's balanced and whatever but you should not really expect much apart from one kill from camping and maybe a couple of hooks from trades. Tunneling applies more gen pressure than spreading hooks ever would. If you tunnel out the weakest link (like many killers do) you have a 3v1 relatively fast. Once that happens it's ggs unless you're tunneling a survivor that knows what they're doing a bit. That survivor may be trash at looping, but they still contribute the same gen progress as every other survivor.
Adrenaline's effectiveness while strong isn't insurmountable. You endgame is actually quite stable if you've had a solid early and mid game of spreading hooks. Also you have other tools at your disposal to address potential Adrenaline plays such as slugging. The strength of your options will again depend on what killer you're playing. Stronger killers or killers with niche gimmicks that work well in the endgame will obviously have better results.
If your only concern is a total victory snowball then yes, tunneling is your best value play. I would say that playing that way typically isn't the most stable way to play because unless you're actively profile peeking to see who is most likely to be the weak link you could end up over committing to the wrong target and if you mess up your tunneling strategy it is harder to recover than if you are spreading hooks. If you're spreading hooks effectively and consistently that means you're also pressuring more of the map and map pressure is one of the big difference makers that can swing a game in your favor.
-
@mikewelk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3645478#Comment_3645478
Old DBD had anti-tunnel perks that actually worked like Dead Hard (albeit they were busted) which helped prevent tunneling. Borrowed Time was ran very often as well. As I said before, basekit BT can hinder more than it helps as being wounded prevents anti-tunneling perks from doing their job. You aren't forced to, sure, but killers can very easily wait out ten seconds and body-block at places like basement or just hit you and give you a little speed boost to get to whatever loop possible.
If you think you aren't punished for spreading hooks, compare a tunneling game with a game playing like that. You don't get any benefits from playing like that and, if I'm wrong, I'd like you to explain how without mentioning skill issues in any way.
Teamplay in solo queue is non-existent (majority of the playerbase). It's basically a 1v1v1v1v1 as to who will "win". This is a huge issue due to MMR doing what it does best. Either fixing MMR or preventing tunneling would be the two best options for the future.
For me "Old DBD" predates anti-tunnel perks as that's how long I've personally played the game. So, I'm aware of the times when they did come into being and their peaks as well as their low points. From my experience and perspective there are only a couple handfuls of situations where survivors truly just have no recourse to deal with tunneling. Not that the options you have are at their strongest peak, but they are by no means ineffective either. They just don't absolutely remove the team reliance element from the equation if you are in a particularly bad spot anymore.
You're only punished for spreading hooks if it is overall just taking too long, but the benefits of spreading hooks are usually a much more stable endgame. Tunneling applies a ton of pressure to the early and mid game if you're successful with it and don't lose a ton of that pressure to losing gens. Spreading hooks gives up a heavy pressure application early in exchange for an overall better chance of winning as long as you can keep the game at a decent pace. Also it isn't as if you have to choose one or the other because you can spread hooks through early and mid game and then single out someone to start snowballing towards your endgame. There isn't a one size fits all strat that works for every killer, but this is the overall theory I've played my games around for a long time.
Teamplay being non-existent in solo q isn't something that the devs can fix as it isn't a mechanical problem and changing matchmaking still won't give you teammates who want to play in a team oriented way. The playerbase needs to recognize the issue lies within them and then strive to correct it. Preventing tunneling is a nebulous goal with no real sensible way to do it based on how the game is designed to work.
Whether the killer is chasing the same person repeatedly or trying to chase everyone equally at some point you're gonna end up in a situation that technically qualifies as someone's definition of tunneling. Preventing tunneling means fundamentally changing something about chases or hooks, but it would also be a major change that would effect many other facets of the game for both sides. It isn't as simple as making players invisible or using cage of atonement mechanics ( the two most suggested things). Ultimately, the games are still progressing normally even if we don't appreciate the way it is being progressed.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3645478#Comment_3645478
"Old" DBD had tunneling and arguably much worse tunneling as for a considerable amount of time there was nothing that could be done about it.
Depends on how far you go and what version is being taken into consideration.
Because you can reach a point where survivors had the DS + UB combination to stop tunneling, and more resources to use in case they were being tunneled. Meanwhile killers had BBQ as an incentive to not tunnel, plus the possibility of rendering half of a survivor's build useless.
Essentially, 2019 DBD after Plague's release. Considered by many as the most fun the game has ever been. This is taken directly from here, by the way, you can search for those threads if you would like to.
Was that enough to stop tunneling completely? No, and I think nothing will ever be. But tunneling wasn't the norm as it currently is, and I think that was something we should return to.
When I see "Old DBD" I equate that to pre-2019 DBD. Because to me the differences between 2019 DBD and current day DBD aren't all that big. Tunneling was extremely prevalent before then and much harder to actually deal with compared to now where to me it feels like I have a ton of options to address the situation the times I did play survivor.
-
@mikewelk said:
This game mode has succesfully allowed us to witness DBD's issues in an amplified manner, as someone mentioned here on the forums. With multiple discussions being formed regarding the unpleasant experiences people have encountered, one thing seems to repeat the most - tunneling. Who would've thought that in a game mode where anti-tunnel perks are non-existent and killers are ENCOURAGED to tunnel (thanks to survivors being stealthy, the whole point of the game mode) that this would happen? Proxy camping is a whole other issue I'm not even going to go into here because it's self-explanatory with no terror radius presence and goes hand in hand with tunneling. Tunneling has stained every experience it touches and nerfing Onryo's tunneling potential does not compensate for this stain. Something more has to be done about this playstyle or there needs to be a new matchmaking system that provides reliable teammates to have games not end up in 3v1's at 3-4 generators every couple of games. I understand that it's a strategy and necessary sometimes, but it shouldn't feel necessary. Mitigate tunneling so that it doesn't ruin just 'one' person's experience (when it affects the entire team) and compensate for it. I don't have a specific idea in mind, but I really want to play old DBD again, where different playstyles were encouraged and it didn't feel stale and mind-numbingly dull to play. Being happy that I'm not getting tunneled or proxy camped shouldn't be a thing, I shouldn't feel forced to run anti-tunneling perks to have a chance at countering such an obnoxious playstyle, I shouldn't be punished for spreading hooks, etc.
Incentives can only do so much so I really don't know what the next steps are here. Tunneling isn't going anywhere until something sufficient will be done. I'm glad this isn't a permanent game mode, but a little reality check where you play a couple of games and then never want to play again since it's that bad. Had high hopes for this game mode, but here we are.
"Old" DBD had tunneling and arguably much worse tunneling as for a considerable amount of time there was nothing that could be done about it.
There is no version of DBD that can exist that won't at some point have tunneling and still be the same game you want to play. More playstyles should be encouraged, but it isn't as if that isn't already happening. As long as the incentive structures and gameplay stay largely the same for both sides you will always have some form of the things you don't like. To even really make substantive changes to tunneling, we all have to agree on what constitutes tunnelings because funnily enough while everyone seemingly hates they don't universally agree on what is and isn't tunneling until you get to the furthest extremes on either end of the spectrum.
You're never forced to run anti-tunnel perks especially now when the best anti-tunnel perk, borrowed time, has been basekit for a couple of years now. You also aren't really punished for spreading hooks unless your overall gameplay has a lot of other inefficiencies or your preferred killer is severely limited in how they can approach the game. The ultimate counter to tunneling though has never been perks even when DS was turbo broken for years. It's always been teamplay that counters a hard tunneling killer unless you're in the top 5% of players who've actually mastered how to run every tile optimally and have the reflexes to dodge hits.
-
Soul At Stake would be my pick.
The concept was refresh and gameplay had the right tools to be good, but lack of good servers for so long just wrecked it senseless.
There was also Gold Express which died in early access and the same could be said for Hide or Die which also died in early access.
The biggest one though has to have been Resident Evil Resistance which took a very unique approach to the genre and could have been something truly great if Capcom had of put the money into it.
-
The math ain't mathing.
Even if you failed every skill check you'd still be under having a 30 min or longer game. Also considering that if what you said about doing 4 gens super fast is true then how in the world did you completely collapse in the 3 gen scenario. That's a complete regression of player ability against a killer who functionally shouldn't have enough tools to pressure a full set of survivors. Merchant's drones don't even activate on folks crouching or working on gens and with 4 people you've got enough coverage to have two to three people spreading on the gens with at least one person able to just hack drones.
Regression event cap means at even the worst case scenario you should have all been able to finish the last gen and get at least one to two people out unless they had endgame perks.
-
@JimbusCrimbus said:
The game will end. You're not being taken hostage. Therefore, not bannable. They COULD give survivors a "die" option when slugged, but in order to do that, they'd have to change hatch so it didn't immediately spawn when that happened.
The devs would also have to add in something to discourage or outright prevent survivors from doing as a knee jerk reaction out of spite. You'd have to adjust a lot of the fundamental scoring and gameplay to accommodate a proper surrender feature on both sides. Personally I think that is why we don't have one and that because the player base as a whole has a strong tendency towards quitting unconditionally as a way to "punish" whatever they don't like in a match. The amount of work that goes into making a feature only to have to make even more stuff to basically prevent people from abusing it to the detriment of the game isn't worth the headache.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
They have just moved on from one broken killer to another. Its sad that ... a majority of killer players enjoy doing this. I tend to be pretty forgiving in this game when I play killer but some people are.... taking their frustrations out in a video game and will do anything to win, including using horrible tactics (camping, tunneling, broken add-ons) to using broken killers ie: Nurse, Billy, Blight.
Sadako was never in need of buffs and certainly did NOT need what she had last patch. Maybe an update to her addons and the manifest no pallet stun. But the rest was a complete joke, I suspect defenders of this 100% only play killer side in this game. There is no way anyone who plays both roles thought this playstyle was fair or intended to face.
No data ever released by the company ever suggested she needed a significant buff. This is purely on the players that were struggling with her that had issues. Many wished for her to be brought back to what she was before the update. She is now back to what she was with little bonuses here and there. Which is fine.
However,
Billy is now in this unfair and broken category. He was buffed so much that its put him above blight (without broken blight tag of course) in power. His turn radius, his collision reduction, 0 overheat, 0 cooldown, movement speed, map traversal... ALL rewarded with overdrive which empowers all of these... All with a one hit down mechanic and can cancel/fake his power at any time. This is not where we should be putting killers in terms of their power, its too much. I dont blame survivors from inting themselves against him.
Similarly no data suggested he was struggling to such a low degree. I am guessing most of these changes are on the heels of people getting, a minority of their matches I might add, competitive SWF opponents that make the killer feel powerless. SWF is a complete broken version of playing this game we shouldnt be balancing anything killer side to match that level of play. Every killer out there already can stomp solo pubs just fine currently(this is excluding broken grim embrace and its combos).
To the developers:
Stop making changes to killers because people are upset in competitive SWF matches. Solo's are stomped, in the majority of matches, no matter what killer you use. I would also guess most SWF's (party friends, joking around) are stomped as well. The high end of grouped survivors are not what we should balance killer power around.
Thank you!
You don't need data shoveled at you to understand that Billy went from one of the most played killers for several years to being one of the least played killers for an almost equal length of time due to the piling on of limitations and baseline nerfs to his power and addons. Billy simply wasn't particularly fun to play as in the state they were in and needed changes that imparted some actual fun. Because even if it makes him harder to play against as a survivor the point of any killer is that they should be fun to play. Game takes both killer and survivor players to function and the biggest complaint is lack of variety in killers being played so the devs have to address that complaint by finding ways to get people play other killers.
You can do that by either crippling the killers being heavily played which will push players to try other killers, but it also is likely to just push diehard one tricks out of the game which is bad. You're more likely to get more people to stick around if you bring a killer up rather than forcing them down. Optimally it would be great if everyone played both sides equally, but that isn't the case and the devs have to meet the demands of two opposed sides with very different needs gameplay. Billy's strong now, but he isn't really broken and they didn't arrive at their changes purely based on player complaints.
Sadako's not in good state right now and I would argue she has never been in a good state because she's a killer who is being designed as if she is being slotted into an older version of DBD. She flat out needs a proper chase oriented ability if they are going to scale back condemned this drastically and probably should have had one from day one. Instant kills and passive slowdown through secondary survivor objectives worked fine several years ago, but that sort of thing doesn't work well without a way to engage in the key feature of the game which sadly is chasing. Sadako could be a map presence monster with an incredibly harassing chase if allowed the freedom to do so. Why they hold her back so hard when they want the instakill mechanic to not be the only thing people play for is beyond me. That took a step in the right direction during the PTB it seems, but then immediately changed course only making her that much weaker.
Honestly, I think Sadako just might be a bad fit for the game considering the difficulties the devs seem to have in crafting her a power that feels good to use and isn't horrible to play against.
-
@jonifire said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637386#Comment_3637386
Then the people don‘t do gens and in most case you can just look at a wall or slug. Just hard countering an item, which is equivalent to a killers power (in my opinion), doesn‘t feel right to me.
There isn't always walls to look at nor is that a full proof solution. Slugging sucks the fun out of the game for both sides and when you're in the small amount of games where your hand is literally forced into doing it that just feels worse. We already had the "just make blinds take longer" attempt and turns out it isn't worth using in that form because of the way flashlight addons have always been and continue to be balanced.
-
@codebibi said:
12% on top of the 8% when all survivors are injured which make gens incredibly slow
It's rare that any killer is going to have survivors in a position where they actually benefit from that 12% conditional increase.
Plague has the best chance of getting it value from it and even then that is only if survivors refuse to cleanse and aren't trying to hammer out gens like they are supposed to. Also most survivor action speed bonuses are much stronger than 20% speed penalty.
-
Solo q winrate is probably sitting around 43% if I had to guess, but that is also because the vast majority of players aren't usually playing in SWF groups.
I'm firmly in the camp of people who agree with the devs on their take that solo q players issues don't primarily stem from lack of information, but lack of team cohesion and understanding of all the info currently available to them. I get people feel that is a callous answer no matter how it gets worded, but in this one instance they aren't wrong. We've all experienced how a solo q game goes where you have 3 teammates who are doing everything but trying to be useful. You can't really attribute their "bad" plays to a lack of information and you can't also expect all possible sources of information to just be innately available just because you are playing solo.
-
Xeno didn't fail, but they also didn't overly succeed. I think the expectations people built up over the years were far grander than what was ever going to be what came to the game. The people who want to play Xeno do, but there isn't really a reason to go out of your way to do so. The experience of playing them isn't anything you can't get from another killer and they aren't some high skill ceiling killer that can be mined for tech. Overall they're fine, but that is all they are is just fine.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632389#Comment_3632389
Just out of curiosity, where would you rank Legion?
I think Legion is in a somewhat ok-ish spot but comparing him to other killers he doesn't get very high. Not a candidate for D-tier (that's Myers, Trapper and Freddy in that order). I just don't know if I'd put him above Clown (both have their strengths and weaknesses).
Legion's a solid lower mid tier killer at their weakest.
Legion has a really effective chase power and produces a huge amount of slowdown and information when played effectively. While they'll rarely down anyone with their power alone that isn't really their goal. The goal is to constantly force survivors to mend or risk playing injured long term making it easier to down them overall. Much like Pig their power is designed to waste survivors' time rather than serve as a proper life or death threat. Regression has seen a lot of nerfs across the board over time and now certain killers don't really benefit all that much form stacking regression perks. Legion is one of those killers and I would suggest stacking healing speed penalties to draw out the length of time they have to commit to healing/mending.
That amount of time waste adds up to about the same amount of time you gain from stacked gen regression perks.
-
@Lixadonna said:
This games is being balanced for Casuals. Unlike other Casual friendly games, still not Free to Play. Devs want players to feel good with no effort. Skill doesn't matter anymore. Players who played for 7 years find game too easy. For a game that's not free, why be Casual friendly? You don't see Call of Duty aiming to please Casuals. Not to mention 7 years of DLC and cosmetics. If aiming to attract Casuals, just go Free to Play.
Call of Duty absolutely appeals to the more casual player base much heavier than their absolute hardcore competitive player base. The game is balanced the way it is in great deal to be the most appealing to the maximum amount of players at any given moment. TTK is kept relatively low while health regen is still relatively fast because casual players find prolonged fire fights less fun, but like being ready for the next engagement in the time it takes to round a corner or two. The absolute unit of a in-game store which is basically goon skin central. Plus their battlepass map thing and rotating playlists that feature game modes with absolutely no competitive balance.
Balancing makes no difference when talking about whether something should be free to play or not. Most free to play pvp games are extremely competitive and only cater towards a comp play crowd who don't care that the game is threadbare outside of anything else. If there is a reason for this game to go free to play it is because it is almost a decade old and has a huge amount of content and steady monetization schemes in-line with a freemium game.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3619982#Comment_3619982
you are heavily missing the point in your opening sentences. why should soloq be giving up perk slots for boosters when swf can pick all best boosters and have all information base-kit. that is what that reddit AMA post is about.
The game isn't designed around real time information passing that you get from coordinated voice chat. It can make the game much harder for killers and much easier for survivors. That said it doesn't mean SWF should have a -3 perk slots as a drawback.
your agreeing that real time information is providing an advantage here but your disagreeing for SWF having less perk slots due this said advantage. After that, your asking soloq to use perk slot on information to have less perk slots available for perk they want to use. In other words, it is fine for soloq to have -1, -2 or -3 perk slots but not fine for SWF. Irony.
Yes I'm against people asking for SWF to be handicapped mechanically based of a balance decision targeted at regulating something the game can't regulate. A good SWF still has the same effect whether have 4 perks, per person or 1 perk person because coordinated play, team oriented thinking, and the fact they still have access to all the baseline tools solo q has. And again, the gap has been closed as much as it can be mechanically without adding voice chat to the game. Which would be a terrible idea for both balance and general enjoyability of the game. Solo q teams won't coordinate any better and will have the added distractions that come with games with built VC.
I'm not asking solo q players to do anything other than play the game they have in front of them and actually make use of tools they do have already. The problem isn't and hasn't been that y'all lack tools, but that you don't see value in those tools over other things and that generally speaking your fighting against human nature rather than the game or SWFs. What exactly do you expect anyone to do at this point when you yourself have made it clear you don't see using the available tools as worthwhile over other things. You feel you're being forced into a bad situation, but I'm telling you that your situation isn't going to change just from frontloading mechanics in solo q.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617362#Comment_3617362
you realize that telling the player to use kindred is forcing the player to always play with 3 perk slots. perks are suppose to be optional bonuses. not mandatory choices where not using a perk makes you automatically lose. That is hardly reckless player choice. Saying the game is not designed around constant real time information means that SWF should have -3 perk slots as drawback. dbd is meant to be played as team-game on survivor side but soloq is playing the game as free for all survival.
Picking perks is about give and take. You want more info then run info perks and accept that you'll give up a boost somewhere else. Not using the perks don't make you automatically lose, plenty of folks don't run info perks and do well. If you need or want the extra info, but still decide not to expend a perk slot on then that is reckless player choice. The game isn't designed around real time information passing that you get from coordinated voice chat. It can make the game much harder for killers and much easier for survivors. That said it doesn't mean SWF should have a -3 perk slots as a drawback. You can't balance the use of systems not in the game, but here is the real kicker; You as a survivor are NOT PLAYING AGAINST SWFs. The difference in gameplay experiences between SWFs and Solo Q players has very little bearing on the problems that affect someone playing solo.
SWFs and Solos are playing with the exact same balance against the exact same killers and the only real difference is solo players are more likely to play like teamwork is optional. To drive this home even further SWFs and solo players are even playing in the exact matches with each other as teammates with the results largely being the exact same as usual. DBD is a team game and that means it requires survivors to work as a team, but what is preventing that team work from happening isn't a lack of information. It's a lack of player cohesion and bad decision making which aren't things that can be fixed by the devs shoveling mechanics at you.
The game already gives you a ton of information to the point you can literally know what every player is doing at any given moment. You can see every major piece of information necessary at a glance. If that plus perks(that people refuse to use) hasn't improved teamwork then why do you think another mechanical intervention will curb 'free for all' survival habits?
-
@xEa said:
It would for sure reduce the tunneling.
A 5 second DS will bring this perk back to the meta table. Killer would have to expect everybody running DS, which would eventually lead to less tunneling. Some might still tunnel and go for the slug instad of the insta pickup, but because of that they would not be able to kill of one person quickly - which will make them loose the game.
About 5sec DS: I think it should be rather 4 second, but adding another 4 second on top of that no beeing able to use the power. So Nurse and Blight, the 2 stronges killer, will get hit the hardest if they tunnel.
DS was meta not for the long stun but because it was hard to play around without wasting a ton of time and forcing no-win situations. 5 seconds still isn't really enough time for survivor to make reasonable distance or break line of sight in a way that inhibits being tunneled. Survivors still likely won't be able to just sit on their DS which is what actually made it meta to begin with. It's a huge ask to have DS lock out powers on top of stunning though. The gameplay implications around that is going to make for typically worse scenarios.
The counter to DS was already slugging and one could argue that if you're going to lock out a killer's power the response is to just keep downing the survivor until they bleed out. You get the same level of pressure if someone is just on the ground as you do on the hook. We were tunneling extremely hard when DS could be held basically indefinitely and weaponized in the past so a timing change on its own won't and hasn't ever changed that. It's still more efficient overall to get a 3v1 early.
-
@SomethingChill said:
I understand most cosmetics that are sets are sets for a reason (being hard to make them separate pieces), but on some cosmetics it's just ridiculous.
The greatest example is in my opinion the Executioner, who has 3 cosmetics that are all sets. The problem is, that it's so incredibly easy to make them separate pieces! The head is clearly the pyramid and does not interfere with any of the bodies on any of the cosmetics, and the weapons are also really easily separatable.
I understand that a reason for this may be that people will have to pay for the whole skin instead of just parts of it, but why not make every skin a set then? The sole reason I refuse to buy a skin for this game, is because the skins I want to buy (for Executioner) are sets. I would still be happy to buy the entire skin for the whole price, but just make some obvious skins not sets.
The main given reason for sets being locked is that the pieces are fitted together and designed in such a way that while they look fine together when paired with other cosmetics there can be clipping or visual issues like some parts of the body being invisible. Like some midriff tops look fine in their set, but when paired with cosmetics the exposed tummy bit is invisible.
That's the last thing I remember from the devs as to why linked sets are linked, but I wish they would make less linked sets.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616763#Comment_3616763
Not really.
UI was good start but that's all we got.
We still don't know what perks our teammates have. So this could help for some play styles.
When killer forces your teammate to leave gen, you don't know what gen they were working on it. Unless you bring perk for it. But guess what? SWF teams can share this info for free with each other.
I am not even talking about terrible matchmaking. Like game is sure i am good enough to handle 12k Hours Blight player and giving me +500 hours teammates. It makes so much sense indeed.
You guys are almost giving nothing to solo players but then believing it's player's fault when they are not effective as SWF teams. I just disagree with your Design Leader, i really hope he and team takes this feedback. Because looks like most of people just disliked his answer.
This is the exact issue though.
The game wasn't designed to handle that level of constant real time information generation and passing in real time that SWFs have freely. Under normal circumstances to have that there is supposed to be a trade off of at least one perk slot because you aren't supposed to just have a ton of information without being worse off at another aspect.
Nothing the devs can give survivors is going to fill that kind of gap. HUD changes plus perk changes are literally the best they have to offer without just giving you in-game voice comms and as much as it sucks to be told that the problem isn't a lack of tools but lack of player skill it's true. The vast majority of players in this game aren't actually particularly good and aren't actually even aware of how much information is available to them. New and low level players do not understand the HUD most of the time and higher level players actively ignore it until something bad happens.
Pair that with the fact that players in solo Q often treat the game as 1v1v1v1v1 rather than a 4v1 and you have an experience that is going to be overall less enjoyable than playing with your actual friends or at least a coordinated team. So yes, at this point it is the players' fault because no amount of mechanical intervention is going to make up for having weak players, selfish players, inattentive players, or people refusing to use the tools they have access to over something else they are already using. Like folks constantly ask for versions of Kindred to be basekit, but absolutely despise even considering that they should just run the perk. Even when perks are changed to directly address fundamental game flaws like the buff to Deja Vu people actively refuse to use it when it can help them in the short term. You can't out design reckless player choice.
-
@MoNosEmpire said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3611853#Comment_3611853
I know all of this and none of these are issues, it is the trap timer not pausing when being followed in stealth.
Having the trap time not tick down while being followed in stealth would be dumb and completely remove any threat the power has which removes its entire point.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
Hypothetically, if both the Survivor team and the Killer play to their absolute theoretical best, what is the outcome of a match? 4E? 4K? 2K since 60% kill rate is the average?
I understand realistically it may be impossible but for the sake of discussion assume both sides play to the max peak ability possible.
If the idea is that both sides are playing perfectly then neither side wins in a proper way. Instead the server closes out which counts as a killing scenario for the Killer.
Meme answer aside, if both sides are playing at the highest level of skill then usually survivors should win as they have numbers advantage and less mechanically demanding objective and gameplan. Survivors can snowball the game in their favor during the early game when most every killer is at their weakest. It's hard to make a comeback when survivors burn through gens without resorting to something like slugging.
That said if the killer does gain control of the game then survivors are in for an uphill battle. Late game resources theoretically should be low and the killer should be fairly setup if they've managed to slow the game down. At that point it just becomes forcing that first kill to get the game into a 3v1 scenario which lets the killer start to really snowball due to massive amount of pressure losing a teammate generates.
-
I've never really seen the point in winstreak challenges in DBD as the criteria for what even counts as a "win" in this game in relation to killer gameplay isn't standardized. Like every person who does one has their own little rule set and way classifying what they'll consider a win or a loss and while some are extremely strict others are extremely loose.
When you can just tailor the rules to suit your desired outcome I don't see the real value in it. I also don't think they say much about the overall state of the game because the results aren't necessarily repeatable by the majority of players. No matter what game you play you're going to have outliers that are over performant, but you can't really balance around the most extreme edge case player. This especially true when you're dealing with challenges played under arbitrary user defined rules. It would be one thing if this were even a semi-codified universally accepted rule set and the results were consistent across multiple players of varying skill levels. That generally isn't what is happening though and most people who play this game aren't remotely close to that level of skill.
Survivors not having streaks of the same length makes sense as in the case of survivor the understanding of what constitutes a "win" is much more concrete. You have to escape and generally speaking DBD is a team game until it isn't which is how basically everyone plays survivor. There are more points of failure that can come into play no matter how good a singular survivor is that can just flat out result in death. So a winstreak is much more likely to be broken earlier than a killer's who's qualifications for winning are much more nebulous and depend solely on their individual skill rather than a team's collective skill.
-
@GeneralV said:
Freddy's rework will always be the one change in DBD I hate most.
And what makes that whole situation infuriatingly worse is that it wasn't needed! Just a few QoL improvements and he would be perfect. Why change the whole thing when the solution is far easier?
BHVR has the chance to fix that, and I'm begging for them to take it. I desperately want my favorite killer back.
They changed it because he wasn't actually good and didn't have a power. His power was that he got to play the game and passively just made the game horribly slow and unfun with a specific set of addons. Now they did him dirty by giving him a power that isn't particularly interesting or good, but he needed more that than just QoL because fundamentally his original power shouldn't have shipped the way it did. He needs to have his power addressed again to make it more exciting and useful, but I'm not even sure what to give him because simply put I don't think the remake really did a good job showcasing the powers of a dream demon.
Freddy's one of the few killers I would have personally took a pass on adding to the game if I couldn't get the 80's/90's version.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3602636#Comment_3602636
just something i want to say, crate of gears+bag of gears is 19 seconds to search a jigsaw.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3602366#Comment_3602366
pig's traps should be death sentence that has high probability to kill. i think issue that most people have with her head-trap is how cheap the kill is. what I mean by that is there is no back and forth with her traps when trap is active. your forced to search the boxes and if you run out of time, your dead. when people die to her reverse trap, they feel cheated in the death because they couldn't change outcome of trap kill. the gameplay design is trying reflect the lore of character where once experiment begins, your dead. the character design is cool but it is little bit.. i don't know, brittle? the design works but the gameplay towards trap is a bit dry.
1 down is 1 kill. that is why i think pig's chase is very bad because of how one dimensional the trap towards the kill. my guess is counter-play is suppose to be that you don't go down to the pig... so pig cannot put reverse bear traps to mori you. I am curious to how they will approach changes on the pig because I feel like her kit is strong fundamentally but it has bad numbers that make feel bad to play/weak.
You can try your best not to go down at all or your team can trade speeding through gens for overall safety by stalling gen completion to let a person get their trap off without being pressured. People forget that by default the traps aren't immediately active and pose no threat to you until a generator gets completed while it's on your head. The trap wasn't meant to kill as consistently as it does as it's primary function is to make survivors slow down on progressing their objective to circumvent the instant death risk. People tend to just try finish games as fast as possible though which makes it more worthwhile to force head pops.