SandMan212
SandMan212
About
- Username
- SandMan212
- Joined
- Visits
- 29
- Last Active
Comments
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066410#Comment_4066410
I've even playing killer today, about 10 matches so far, and there hasn't been one single Fast Track, so I think people are already realizing the hype isn't real.
This is a pariculalry interesting case of social media idiocy, and a whole lot of noise over something that's not much. If they nerf it, it's proof that outcry matters more than reality. And only one side's outcry, as Ghoul remains despised.
this is subjective and requires multiple opinions. cant call people idiots based on your experience alone
-
@HoodedWildKard said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063503#Comment_4063503
You kind of missed the point of what I said earlier. Going after the person who was hooked isn't the right move now that BT is basekit. You get the people who are trying to unhook them. The unhooked person isn't a viable target until after they are unhooked. Add the bt and they require 2 hits to down after the unhook is complete. The rescuer on the other hand is more vulnerable. You can get a wound on them before or when they unhook, then you only need to get one hit and you've secured another hook
Rinse repeat and you'll get at least 1 kill.
except this isnt how it works. this only works in a endgame scenario with three people. if you go for them, the person who is unhooked can body block to the exit gate and only specific killers dont have problems with this. and since haste also lasts 15 seconds you either hit the survivor who got unhooked as well and attempt to down them when they body block OR you fight for the unhooker whilst going to the gate. and this doesnt take into account that a smart survivor wont let you just "hit" them before they go for a unhook theyll make sure you only can even attempt to do so whilst unhooking.
but obviously you didnt read what i said. -
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
Batteries included is the closest example you're looking for.
Survivors are "punished" for doing their objective and the killer gains 5% of permanent haste, which is on record as one of the most game breaking effects this game has ever seen. I think it actually breaks the fabric of reality, since 3% was enough to be life altering for some people.
They're not good perks. Turns out, having a condition that you're losing the match isn't that great.
Because you're not comparing it to anything. By the time the killer gets 4 hooks, survivors with 0 perks at all can already do more than 20% of a gen in basically every scenario, without hooks.
This community blows my mind sometimes. People scream as though 4 gens are done in their first chase every game to defend having to tunnel like their life depends on it, then as soon as something like this gets changed slightly, suddenly every match is 12 hooks or bust. It can't be both, and we know hard tunneling is meta for years (see 9.1 PTB meltdown).
heres a difference though. most killers in this game that are already strong dont need batteries to get value. and in most cases keeping the survivors in areas youre protecting (normally not places with done gens) isnt a good idea. and only more of the weaker/slower killers can manage to get some value SOMETIMES from this perk. and it can be pretty good, thats because the perk specifically is self aware of its state. it rewards the killer for losing, so in trade it gives little to nothing in return besides the potential to make a play off the little bit of extra haste you have. and even then, if the survivor is smart they can still manage to counterplay the haste as long as its not overwhelmingly stacked. and if it IS, that means the killer is trading OFF slowdown and perk diversity for a niche build unless its like two killers. and batteries is specifically a perk that doesnt benefit many killers in general. either it does nothing for them, does very little, or some other haste perk would be better. its a weak perk. its a equivalent to OLD fast track. it CAN do something but since it rewards you for losing it doesnt do too much and thats fine.
thats the trade off. and NOW, only 5 generators can give this bonus since they removed it turning all gens on in endgame. its a situational perk that only helps some killers and doesnt help the stronger ones. thats why its not game changing by any means.
the difference between this and fast track is what the counterplay between these two encourages. fast track encourages the killer to tunnel someone out to not benefit the others. even if you can argue fast track isnt a good perk, if a killer knows its in use theyll just tunnel harder to make it so its a wasted slot. batteries has counterplay in the sense of just not going to completed areas if possible. and if you notice a killer is moving really fast you can attempt to drain out the haste by playing close loops and pre-dropping till its over. and batteries normally doesnt do enough on its own to make a difference. thats THE difference here. batteries is inconsitency that can lead to basically no value or some decent value. fast track is a perk that either isnt needed because the killer isnt getting hooks and theyre losing OR it comes into play to help you the most when youre losing. and batteries needs a build around it to have consistency, meaning you lose things in trade. whilst fast track doesnt really need a build around it for value. you just need multiple people to bring it.
also the point of fast track is the more people who have it the more value you get. a killer only getting two hooks is enough to get a lot of value from it alone and give the team value. and yes survivors DO a lot of progress without fast track. but the point is the more free, consistent value you get the more effective something is. its why exhaustion perks are so good because you dont need to do anything skillful to utilize them well and get value from them. having a perk that is literally the embodiment of "reclaim 1/3 the time a killer spent chasing a survivor and put it into a gen depending on if youre a swf" is INCREDIBLY useful and im tired of people pretending thats a good design. itll either be super busted or useless because rewarding people considerably for losing is bad perk design for every role in this game. hell, even i use batteries a fair bit on my main and i would sell it immediately if perks like fast track were removed.
this is a side note but i genuinely hate how obviously free survivor perks are in comparison. obviously the best perks on both sides are the ones that reward you for losing or reward you for existing. survivor perks are literally ALL primarily this for the meta builds. i really want someone to tell me there is not one single survivor meta build that doesnt compromise primarily around at least 3 free perks that reward you passively.
and although killer perks that are free do exist, theyre either not very good because if they were it would be a problem (like batteries, which is designed to be inconsistent) or they were left alone forever with a band-aid fix like NOED and it was called a day. this doesnt make it fine for survivor or killer but theres still a considerable double standard. i want both NOED and perks like fast track out of the game. this perk design is horrible horrible stuff and i hate the concept of a reward for losing. compromised gens are a bad design, most exhaustion perks are a bad design. noed, bam, a lot of those perks are bad design. fast track is a bad design. these perks arent healthy designs. they all reward you for losing or passively reward you for existing and im sick of them. this aint even about specifically one side in general i just think this kind of perk design is horrible. -
@Shinkiro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063504#Comment_4063504
its why onyro, a mid-low tier killer has a super high kill rate even though she isnt that great.
It's high because of the extra objectives survivors have to execute for counter play, you'll notice there's a recurring theme that these types of killers do better than they realistically should because seemingly alot of survivors either dont understand or ignore the mechanics leaving the killer in a better state for the game.
its also a reason why their data has lead to killers who dont need nerfs, getting nerfs.
I agree, but its not the data, its BHVRs inability to take context and nuisance from the data and failure to understand how their own game works and how it is played, so they don't base their conclusions on reality. The data needs to be used correctly and that's on BHVR's incompetence in this regard, but that's not the fault of the data itself.
There's plenty of examples on this, such as the infamous gideon slugging statistic confusion.
i wasnt saying onyro is good. im saying her data is biased due to how BHVR actually processes their data. the point is, a lot of things that arent really fair are going to sneak through and this happens a fair bit. the thing is, if the data is biased, even if WE as players use it, its still not refined enough to be trustable. its just as much about how badly BHVR uses the data, as how badly they process it.
-
@Shinkiro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4061981#Comment_4061981
Data is objective actually. If it fits within a desired outcome then its valid, as much as some people will dislike that fact because it doesnt fit their bias opinion. Emotional, bias whining is the furthest thing from objective there is and worthless when it comes to decision making.
ok, this isnt wrong for kaneki. I dont believe hes even that strong. BUT I do have to point out how data is as objective as the standard BHVR sets for results IS. and in a lot of situations things most people consider a win/loss BHVR doesn't. its why onyro, a mid-low tier killer has a super high kill rate even though she isnt that great. thats the bias of their method. its also a reason why their data has lead to killers who dont need nerfs, getting nerfs.
-
@HoodedWildKard said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063422#Comment_4063422
You're skimming a lot of detail here. This only works if the hook happens to be close to a gate. And if you go for the hook closest to a gate for an endgame hook then more fool you.
Most times I've dealt with this situation, the first unhook baiter takes the hit, loses part of their speed boost the unhook animation. (It's often good to wait for a fraction of a second. Because they'll often cancel the animation and you can mind game them. Most killers in this situation are stressed out and just swing to eagerly) then 90% of the time they are too far from a gate to get away and have to run away from the hook to avoid being downed. Putting you between them and the other 2 survs.
A lot of people in this thread making it sound like killers always get constantly slapped in the endgame. But this simply isn't true. Nowadays I very very rarely lose a hook standoff in endgame. If you've been playing right then there should be vey few pallets remaining making the chase much easier and you have the opportunity to herd a survivor away from the gates. When I'm down to 1 gen even I actively avoid hooking near gates.
This is all assuming you are playing a bulk standard m1 killer with no ranged attack, antiloop or traversal. Most killers have myriad of ways to mess with endgame unhook attempts. There's plenty of counterplay available in these situations. Asking for free kills by mechanically weaking survivors in endgame is not the way to go about getting better as a killer.
okay, but theres still more to boil down here. I can already point out just why this is worse even so. old BT would give you roughly 30 meters worth of distance where you can't get hit and that goes quite far. Currently it can go to almost 40 meters of invincibility and speed. thats just a 5 second boost.
Thats the problem though, if your only goal as survivor is to reach the exit gate, ALL you have to do in endgame is two things.
Be in a swf and go to the door thats opening.
Either get there or go down.
After this, even if you get picked, your teammates can make the hook much harder to secure far away. And even if they dont succeed, RNG dictates how unfortunate you might be. Some situations you might still get hooked far enough to where it isnt super secure. But purely by just running to the door, it can lead to situations where the killer has a much harder time to get you out. And this isnt accounting for BT. If you (the survivor) get unhooked relatively 50 meters away from the gate, against most killers you almost always will escape if your teammates are remotely smart. The only exception is S tier killers.
Before hand, you would have to force the killer into a super uncomfortable situation to get this potential value and it was skill expressive. Now, you just have to be kinda lucky. Since most maps arent that big. So as long as youre in some general area near a door, you have a lot more potential to get out than you used to.
A part of me is a killer main who finds this to be a problem and another part of me finds it really funny from a survivor perspective. believe me, i love BT as survivor right now. I still dont think 15 seconds is fine for the "crunch time" part of the game where killer is supposed to have a edge. -
@EntityNea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063432#Comment_4063432
I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm trying to explain to you that basing matchmaking on whether a person is queued solo or together with others is not a good metric to decide how strong the group is. Yet your responses keep being emotional, assumptious, and based in misunderstanding.
You completely missed the word "if" in my initial sentence ""Because if SWFs are more powerful", and you jumped straight to responding with "so you admit there's a problem."
I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion. I'm telling you that the lack of a proper MMR system is the problem, while you're stuck blaming SWFs for existing. Like.. What should people do? Stop having friends?no. this is also your assumption here. im not saying "remove swf" im saying "bring up the power of the game around swf, so the game can be more fair for everyone." I'm not saying remove it.
also, when i point out that matchmaking im pointing out thats the current standard, and that trying to move current SOLOQ/SWF onto a new MMR system wouldnt work because the power potential of the two heavily influences your mmr and how much stronger you are/arent without it. The point is, this IS how MMR works in the modern day, right now. I'm not saying it SHOULD be like this, im saying it IS like this. And its unfair to everyone involved including the people in the SWF. You would know this if you saw how MMR works in this game.
Also, you cannot blame me for getting a little mad when it looks like youre just ignoring what im saying and making passive aggressive comments toward me. No wonder im a little upset about that. Like, there is proof that you're not really reading what im saying when you said "What should people do? Stop having friends?" I never said anything even close to this in ALL I said. Not once. Thats why im a little upset with you, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying basically at all. And all the things I tried to make points with, you basically said nothing about and just… complained about something I didn't talk about at all. Or either that, make up a fictitious extreme scenario to get mad over. (Ex : The Narrator telling you what to do/Claim I want people punished for playing SWF) -
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063434#Comment_4063434
It is more a dislike for a certain type of Killer players. Exactly those who think that just because endgame happens, the Killer now deserves a Kill, because "there is nothing else left to do" or they did not get a Kill earlier.
The reality is that the Killer player had a whole game to kill the Survivors and did not manage to do so. And usually this also means that the Killer player did not really play good the whole game. And yet they demand a Kill in Endgame.
And I know that someone will now say "Yeah, but the Killer was playing nice, this is why they dont have a Kill!!!111"… Yeah, no. The overlap between people who tunnel (and should get Kills early) and the amount of people who complain about "free escapes" in Endgame is very big. We are most likely looking at a Killer player who tried to tunnel, failed and then still wants his "earned" Kill in Endgame.
But I admit - yep, I dont like those kind of Killer players. But I dont mind that Endgame is killer-sided (because it is) and I am totally fine with being left behind on the Hook in Endgame or leaving others behind, if it is not reasonable to try to save them.
at any point in the game, the killer is trying to kill you. even BHVR themselves stated endgame is the point where they want the killer to be getting survivors out of the game. in a ideal equal game, they want a killer to get two people out near the end and two survivors escape. that is their "balance" goal. the point of the game is it SHOULD steadily work up to this point of the climax of the game.
so when you state "oh well killers just want free kills… smh smh…." thats not the point. the point is the crack-down part of the game where its intended for killers… to KILL… is the most safe point it has ever been for survivor to secure a escape ever due to base kit BT being extended. i explain this and you willingly ignored it, but let me repeat it for you. before and after this change, going for the unhooker was optimal and a decent idea and might get you them on hook. going for the person who got unhooked, although not consistent, could work if the team wasnt optimized enough. and since they didnt have as much time as they do now, its realistic to catch them. with how this is now, its considerably easier to abuse basekit BT and body block with it than it has ever been before. this is fine in most of the game because you can just ignore them and not hard tunnel. but in endgame (the time where youre told by BHVR you should tunnel) this is a problem.
it is not that the killer "deserves" a kill. its that its unfair on the killer to get punished in a situation where theyre doing what theyre supposed to be doing. And the point is, its becoming harder and harder to do this effectively. Before the BT buff, it was either a 24-32 meter range a survivor could not take damage. Meaning the killer if smart, had counterplay. This has gone above that to almost 40-ish meters with the current changes. That 5 second difference is huge and makes endgame escapes a lot easier. I should be asking you what makes YOU think survivors are entitled to get a escape for being hooked in a situation where they are SUPPOSED to be getting picked off one by one, by BHVRs own standards.
in dbd, what dictates a survivor or a killer win, is pretty similar. for survivors, a 3 out is a win. getting 3 kills for killer is a win. a killer getting one kill at the end barely isnt a win. and btw, is also the least optimal situation for the killer. the thing is, the more survivors alive the less guaranteed a killer is to secure a endgame kill. if a survivor team is playing well, the killer will barely get one kill if they are not performing well. EVEN with 10 seconds of enduring before hand, it would be very very hard for a killer to get that save. in this situation, the game is working as intended. the survivors work as a team and overwhelm the killer by sheer numbers and get a 4 man. In current day, even ideal situations for killers in the past to get at least a tie, is no longer effective. Thats the reason. -
@Aven_Fallen said:
When you lost games because 15 seconds in Endgame you were already losing at this point. But I guess Killers still want their pity Kill in Endgame.
such a short comment but its filled with so much dislike for killer in just one sentence.
the point is in a video game, you try to win. at the best, people try to at least tie. anything to avoid a loss. in endgame, this is a situation where if you get 1 person out by that point normally in the past you could at least get one more out. and get a tie. this was never a for sure thing to work, since organized survivors can make use of old endurance and body blocking to get someone out.
the reason its worse now, is because 15 seconds of haste + enduring makes it way way safer for the survivor to have basically no backup and get a lot closer than they would before the change. and with good survivors, it can make a endgame kill very very hard or next to impossible. mind you, BHVR themselves stated endgame is the only time they intend the killer to secure kills. yet survivors with consistent control can work around this.
now, the thing is about this is in a lot of situations you can just go for the unhooker. the problem with current base kit BT is that it enables the UNHOOKER to body block for the person that unhooked them relatively easily. so not only does that person get the ability to take a hit and get defended by their team, if the unhooker is attacked they can ALSO get a immediate body block from the person they unhooked.
the point is, for a lot of killer the way BT is in endgame right now is it is a lose lose situation. it more or less means trying to camp in endgame to secure a kill, which is intended, isnt very viable to do. and even if you try to go for someone else which WAS what was originally encouraged to do, thats also no longer consistent. hell, most perks for endgame that prevent tunneling turn off for a reason. its intended for you to tunnel in endgame to get someone out at the end. but not only is tunneling not nearly as effective, doing the opposite is ALSO not effective. thats bad design. -
@EntityNea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063253#Comment_4063253
Again… The problem is that matchmaking MMR does not exist.
Because if SWFs are more powerful, then as a result, they would get a higher MMR, and thus match against higher rank killers. But we don't have any system like this, which is the problem.
Continuing to cry over people queueing together does not help.
And if you want to "punish" people for playing in a party by giving them higher ranked killers, then you'll also punish friends who just play together for fun as well.
"People play for effectiveness now. That has been the case for years."
You're drawing everyone over the same line. It's sad that some people forget how to have fun in games and play just to win. But saying this as a general statement is not fair. I have several different friend groups i play with, and I also play solo. Out of all of my friends, none of them play for efficiency. We all just mess around and have fun. You should try it too sometime.So you admit there is a problem. With swf in the state it's in, people who play swf often will be in higher mmr. They'll more than likely have a harder time since currently dbd lacks the ability to give information. And that's unfair to the survivor to be put in a mmr they can't maintain 24/7. Since how mmr works now is that swfs get into higher mmrs. Even if mmr was better, this would still happen slowly over time.
Thanks for basically repeating what I said. Basically all the other stuff you said is whataboutism and putting words in my mouth. Cry about swf? I'm not asking for a swf nerf. I'm asking for a foundation to have proper game balance on. I never said I want swf gutted. If all you can do is make stuff up then don't even bother trying to debate.
But moving on, you're also not everyone. People do play casually, some people don't. The overall idea of balancing swf as a basis and a standard, is to close the power gap between soloq and swf. So more casual players will struggle less, and tryharding as a swf won't have as many advantages as it does now. And killers can be properly balanced around this standard and killers could have a easier time learning the meta game of this game. The whole idea of this a is to make it so it's just more fair, and there can be more diversity in players. And you won't feel a need to sweat as much as you used to. The biggest difference between the best and the worst is the meta game. The reason SWF is so good is it ignores a part of the meta game. So the best way to fix the gap is to make it so everyone can do that to some degree and balance the game around it. Thats not a shocking revelation. And by doing this, it means people who play casually also have access to this, so people who tryhard no longer have a overwhelming advantage of both being rare and also dont have a advantage over most killers that are just new. Because the game adjusts for this.
All you're trying to do is belittle me for wanting a balanced game. Trying to passively claim that because you're a majority (in which you know nothing about me) and that makes my opinion invalid. Genuinely, you should stay on topic instead of being a child and getting personal over me basically saying "I want game to be more fair." You're wasting both our time at this point. If you can't grasp the concept people have fun in different ways, hop off. Seriously. I wasn't even saying playing for fun is invalid. I'm saying in this hostile cesspool of a game playing purely for fun is super hard. Because people feel like they need to try hard, because most people have the most fun when they win. And that'll always be what people want to do. If everyone was playing at a closer level the game would immediately become more tolerable to play.
There is no world where swf and soloq being the same strength or at least close is a bad thing. Either swf is slightly weaker because things are balanced around it and therefore the game is more consistent and enjoyable, or soloq becomes more tolerable.
-
@EntityNea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063007#Comment_4063007
The question here is:
Do you want a horror game with a narrator in your ear that tells you exactly what's happening:
"Survivor Meg has line of sight of the killer at the killer shack!"
"Survivor Meg is in a chase!"
"Survivor meg has lost sight of the killer near the tractor!"
… What fun would the game be at that point?
Personally, I already preferred the game without the new UI icons. I don't like being handheld in games. But at least I understand why these UI icons were needed. But… asking for even more hand holding is a bit silly. We just need a proper MMR system so that people get opponents and team mates in their skill range.This game stopped being a horror game the moment looping became normalized and off hook endurance became weaponized. People play for effectiveness now. That has been the case for years. And that is not going to change anymore, this game isn't casual. Also, I find it to not be "silly" at all. It's unfair to both soloq and killer for swf to exist in the state it's in. Bhvr treats swf as if it's the same as soloq and this leads to massive learning curve issues on the killer side and enabling swf to have said narrator at all times. A lot of people on dbd would love that narrator you're talking about. Because they wouldn't care about how goofy it is, they want to win. Even so, you're exaggerating. They wouldn't add a narrator, they'd more than likely add a talking wheel to share information and the ability to observe perks in the pre-game lobby. These could easily slot in on the side of the screen as being over survivor heads. Also, once again, swf would just make mmr harder to balance. Why do you keep going back to this being a fix all thing. I already explained in full how giving so much control and not a truly accounting for it in balance is a problem. This would lead to bloat in mmr and would still make mmr unstable. If anything that's still a part of the problem. You want people to be in a swf, be In high mmr they don't need to be in, then wonder why they're getting stomped? The point is if swf is to be the standard, then soloq has to be on its level. For the sake of being fair to everyone who is playing.
-
@EntityNea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062693#Comment_4062693
That issue goes deeper than "SWF vs Solo".
That's an MMR issue - the fact that BHVR doesn't properly match people.
You're talking about hardcore tryhards - the game should detect the playstyle and winrate of these people, and match them with hardcore tryhard killers. Yet the game doesn't do this. So innocent casual killers suffer from these tryhard SWF groups.
As of now, i have no problem getting all the information I need when I'm playing solo.
The main difference imo between playing solo and playing with friends is that in solo queues, you get random survivors who don't know what the hell they're doing - which again is an MMR issue. I shouldn't get people with 10 hours played in my matches, yet it still happens sometimes.
Edit:
Also I don't understand how you're calling that "getting the bare minimum"… How much hand holding do you want when you play this game? Do you want a narrator that tells you exactly where the killer is at all times? Then what would be the point of the game?The point is swf basically functions as a narrator that tells you everything you need to do. And sorry, this is just a deflection from the main point. Just because something isn't super common doesn't make it fine. And it also doesn't change my statement of how mmr works. Yes, it's bad in general. Swf still boosts strength and messes with mmr because balancing soloq and swf as the same thing isn't fair for the killer end. Not to mention, the fact that swfs ARE rarer just means that it's even more unfair for killer, since they are conditioned to not learn how to face them . Its partially why the learning curve in this game is so bad on the killer side. You are facing two things at any given time. And about your solo matches, the point is not about you alone getting decent info. It's about a steady stream at the ready at any given time back and forth. Just because, once again, you manage the bare minimum doesn't mean that things at their worst are suddenly fine. The issue here is you're trying to push balancing issues solely onto mmr. When that's just not the sole reason.
-
@EntityNea said:
Playing solo already gives you a lot of information that you didn't use to get in earlier versions.
All the survivors have icons on them that show you exactly what they are doing.
So you know exactly who is being chased, who is on a gen, who is healing, doing a totem, etc... If you want exact killer location, bring a perk for it. Combine that perk with the UI information to figure out where the killer is. I like using empathy for this when I play solo.
As someone who plays both solo and SWF, this is not a problem with the game - if this is a problem then it's a problem with lack of knowledge of how to gain information from the person playing the game. It's a matter of learning the game better, rather than requesting a "fix". Because adding all of those informational survivor icons was the fix.
Also... Not every SWF has good communication skills. You don't know my friends. They will tell me to go north... Where the heck is north?!
Solo q doesn't give you exact locations of people, what they see, and what they are preparing to do. And swf will always still have the potential to be stronger. That is undeniable. The issue here is swf and soloq are being balanced around the idea they're the same thing with the same limits when they aren't and that is a balance issue, dead stop. And please, just because you're not good in a swf doesn't mean other people aren't. I'm in multiple servers where people literally categorize maps. I've gone against swfs and streamers who have literally everything planned out. I hate the excuse of "because it isn't super common that means it's fine!" No it isn't. Not only is that limited by personal experience, that doesn't acknowledge the potential problem. Especially since your first starting point is people FINALLY get the... Bare minimum??
-
Ok, I'm going to condense what I said if you don't want to read the other though. Why's suddenly trust bhvr stats when it's been a core problem of balancing since the beginning. Who said kaneki was necessarily fine either. The reason swf is bad is bhvr treats it like they're regular survivors when they aren't, and bhvr specifically added perks to specifically benefits mainly swf. It's unfair to solo q and killer because swf throws the balance on its head and messes with the mmr. Two survivors could be equal skill but the one in swf is going to get their win considerably more than solo q, that's just the truth if they're actually trying. And a killer can get a lot of solo q matches then suddenly get a super strong swf. If they're playing anything below A tier they're going to struggle and probably lose automatically. And the bad part about this is since swf and solo q is treated as the same thing, it means going into swf can bloat a survivors win rate if they're not that high, or it can lead to games on killer that feel way way harder despite not being in a higher mmr. And also, most try hard swfs are in high mmr anyways, so for sure you can say they're rare but dedicated players will see them a lot more often than most of the player base will. Stats don't account for just your experiences. I cannot for the lift of me, understand why you are the most upvoted person here despite being the comment equivalent of "Nuh uh" and "My dad said so." And people just agree with you despite you saying nothing, and agreeing with the people who made the problem.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
Absolutely not. Their data shows that SWFs are not very common and they perform about as well as solo. Adding checks and balances for it would only increase paranoia as well, which has always been rampant. Everything gets blamed on them regardless of what happened.
If we were concerned about fairness, we wouldn't have Killers like Ghoul running around alongside a reinforced 60/40 KR.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062256#Comment_4062256
Literally. BHVR doesn't want to police it and players are too scared of it, but having the option would solve all of these claims. Realistically most people would mute it and continue talking over Discord anyway.
Except this makes no sense. Swf will always naturally have a advantage over solo q. People complain over lack of competence in solo q constantly yet apparently it's not any more consistent than swf when people point out that swf is stronger. Also, why are we basing this off BHVR stats when they have been the source of dbd turmoil for years. They are ALWAYS biased and don't have enjoyability in mind. They are raw stats. Multiple killers who are weak are currently staying weak because bhvr views the stats as acceptable and that is a pretty good reason to not trust their stats. And the opposite scale, super strong killers who need nerfs aren't getting nerfs because they're "fine." Super sweaty swfs are rare, that doesn't mean they're fair by any means. And the higher in mmr, the more you'll see them. I get matched up with 8k hour 3-4 mans way too often. I get curb stomped or barely pull off a 2k every time IF I'm running a A+ tier killer. This doesn't make S tiers fine, and it doesn't necessarily make SWF fine either. The problem with swf is they have way more potential than solo q. You can use way more risky high value perks than solo q. You can coordinate things that can make huge differences if you know what you're doing. This is blatantly super super strong for swf. And even if we can argue SWF isn't busted (which I think it can be with the right perks) SWF still sets a unhealthy standard to balance around. Because people can be on the same tier of skill, be in the same mmr, and it just so happens one day someone is in solo q and someone isn't. Guess what, two similar skill people are going to be performing wildly different because dbd doesn't treat swf as a seperate thing from soloq. That's a considerable problem. And it's unfair for both the solo q player and the killer because games in your mmr can become a lot harder all of a sudden even if your chases aren't any harder or your teammates aren't seemingly doing badly. The control of things you don't know if you're in swf or against swf, is gone. It's also why B tier killers are uber-######### almost as bad as lower tiers since they're good enough to consistently win against soloq and feel good, then the moment a swf strolls along that is actually trying you're probably going to lose.
-
(this is meant for the main post i just forgot to react to it)
i mean isnt this something you could weaponize against chucky too? oh its something that kids like but twisted, so only kids can like it. thats not how it works necessarily. people can still be creeped out by dolls or robots even at a adulthood. fnaf has for sure been leaning to kids as of late but in its past and (kinda) today has still maintained its adult audience, too. its been described as a "kid-friendly" game not a "kid-only" game. its like most PG media where its going for a mature story but shows considerably less mature themes, show and not tell. just like stranger things, and DnD, this chapter is still aimed for the ADULT side of the community. and kids who show up shouldnt be playing DBD but are because their parents didnt take the time to read.
on another note, designs being interesting is a opinion and im not changing your opinion. i just think springtrap is kind of a cool killer idea.
= -
and to add onto this, all BHVR can do as a company based on demand and giving stuff is putting their money with their mouth is. if they still continue to openly support LGBTQ+ and go out of their way to do so, i will continue to support them. i understand as a company its not possible to become a large business without some sort of controversial collaberation. its ALWAYS something that happens in video games.
also, if the fnaf fanbase pulls in people that are kids, that is not BHVR's fault. its the parent's fault for not double checking ratings or to check to see how hostile it can be. thats just not their fault. and you can say stuff about other PG licenses too. like stranger things. -
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3918003#Comment_3918003
It is not obscure, I was using that to mention future licenses.
It is problematic for two reasons.
For one, the creator. One need only look at the US to see what he has undoubtedly helped create, what he supported. I cannot support that being in a game that has long championed LGBTQ+ inclusion.
For two, DBD has a very predatory and expensive monetary system. It has always kind of rubbed me the wrong way, but I've turned a blind eye because, well, I figure we are all adults, or close to it. We should know what we are getting into, with the expense and FOMO and stuff.
But FNAF is, maybe not at first, marketed towards kids. This is going to bring a LOT of children to the game and I cannot support that sort of predatory monetary system being used to exploit children.
I understand if other people can overlook it, but that's how I feel.
i have to point out it is very very hard to maintain a stable game and company in a world where many ips are owned by many other companies and many other people. Disney, the company that owns alien is a problematic license since they very obviously take advantage of LGBTQ+ people in their films and have other motives in mind. They are a company of people which at the top are hostile towards LGBTQ. But BHVR as a company HAS to collab with them because they own a huge IP that is beloved by both LGBTQ people and other people.
The same goes for Scott Cawthon. He did some pretty bad things in the past and it hasn't been long enough to really say he can be let off "scott" free from his doings. But he still hasn't donated politically since last election. And none of here have actually talked to him, but BHVR has. And although scott has in fact done harm, hes still done good for the LGBTQ community after said exposure. Its very very hard for me to tell exactly if hes covering his tracks, actually just mis-informed, or the average naive person. But i think hes a LOT less harmful that Disney is. Because if even one person at the head of disney is republican, they will be donating way more to bad people. and unlike scott who can be deabted if hes bad completely or simply misguided, they are not. and there are multiple of them. its completely fine to not support the fnaf chapter, but saying its the worst controversial chapter is not true. its just something people bring up about fnaf to use as ammo against it whilst not talking about other bad-actors that they like.
thats not to necessarily excuse it though. disney is a massive corp that doesnt even need this dlc so boycotting couldnt do anything. but the same thing works for fnaf since its huge and scott doesnt even need to this collab either. im just saying im a lot more comfortable as a lgbtq person buying a fnaf chapter than i am some other things in DBD. because at least in this case its not exactly clear cut.