night_with_you
night_with_you
About
- Username
- night_with_you
- Joined
- Visits
- 244
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Orion said:
Why does anyone care? You still did what you did, this doesn't change that. If I have a 1000 € salary and someone else gets 1000 € as a lottery prize, is my money suddenly worth less? Is my effort now useless because someone else got the same thing in an easier way?
It is not "someone else" get a lottery prize, but "everyone else" get a lottery prize.
You work hard and get 1000 bucks, and by the end of the day, the boss says that any person who does not work will also get 1000 bucks. I hope you still feel okay with working in such a place
-
This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard about this game since I played from 2016.
Because you cannot fix the issue of event cosmetics, so you just gave away to everyone
But because you cannot fix the issue of legacy cosmetics, so you just ignore the request from the people who suffer this loss and call for their understanding.
TBH, I dont see any point that this serves "best interest of community". Anyone with capable mind would agree these words are just nonsense.
It is more like serving the "best interest of spaghetti code"
-
@BigBrainMegMain said:
I doubt they spend any resources in their DBD Mod department.
I feel like it is more like a periodic thing. I remember there was a time (around end 2018) when hacking BPs and items was so common that many players complained for it, so the devs decided to go very strict with hacking. I know that one guy got banned for just hacking 1,000,000 blood-points.
It seems now that devs go back to take-no-action status again. What is more confusing is that in the new update, in after-match stats they forbid you to click the person's name to verify their profile, which makes a valid video report literally impossible. What a dumb update.....
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/793096#Comment_793096
Actually, the statistics specifically show survival rates for solo survivors vs 2-man, 3-man and 4-man SWF. The difference between survival rates for solo and 4-man is roughly 7%.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the way you're talking gives me the impression that you don't play much SWF yourself, and this is stuff that you're assuming must be the case based on your own reasoning and things you've heard or seen. But theory doesn't always align with practice. Everyone I've seen comment on this topic who actually does play a significant amount of SWF seems to be of the opinion that Peanits' assessment is pretty accurate.
Actually, i don't know how swf using BT and flashlight to save each others is not practical, how killer location cannot be known by voice chat, and how playing swf is not more chilling than playing solo? Please enlighten me. If these are something you find not practical, i do suggest you find some truly good swf teammates and play more
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/793096#Comment_793096
Actually, the statistics specifically show survival rates for solo survivors vs 2-man, 3-man and 4-man SWF. The difference between survival rates for solo and 4-man is roughly 7%.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the way you're talking gives me the impression that you don't play much SWF yourself, and this is stuff that you're assuming must be the case based on your own reasoning and things you've heard or seen. But theory doesn't always align with practice. Everyone I've seen comment on this topic who actually does play a significant amount of SWF seems to be of the opinion that Peanits' assessment is pretty accurate.
About the statistics, i check it and you are right. But still I don't like it since it did not clarify lots of things. Like how you define escape rate. For example, suppose there are two match.Scenario 1 has one 4-escape and one 0-escape, while Scenario 2 has two 2-escapes. Both of them give you 50% escape rate, but they actually tell two totally different images. Also, they did not show if they control other variables, like player ranks, maps. So I won't regard it as a good statistics. Btw, their statistics show that rotten field is the best map for survive, would you agree with it?
Well, i have over 1700hrs on record and I do play a lot with swf who also have thousands hours on record. Among my friends, even those most survivor-side ones would admit swf is op. If you think any part of my reasons is wrong, please explicitly point out and use reasons and examples to against. Just saying "i don't think you play a lot, so your assuming should be wrong" does not really help your arguments.
-
@Fibijean said:
Specifically, what he said was "it doesn't make a whole lot of difference", and he's not wrong. You only have to look at the solo vs SWF survival rates to see that in the vast amount of cases, the gap is nowhere near as huge as most people assume.
I would caution you against this logic of "the devs clearly have no clue about their own game because they don't agree with me". I'm sure there are gaps in their knowledge, just as there are gaps in ours. But I assure you, Peanits is far from the only person who sees that the difference coms make, in the vast majority of cases, is negligible.
That's not to say that they don't have the potential to be gamebreaking, but it's important to keep it in perspective and recognise that very few survivors take the game seriously enough, and only the tiniest minority of survivor players have the game knowledge necessary to take full advantage of that potential. So in other words, I'm not saying it's not a problem at all, but it's not the widespread disaster that many people like to paint it as.
Actually, i think the way he express is worse.
"it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. If anything, i probably do worse..."
So by playing swf, you can potentially become worse? I think that it is a terrible excuse for swf or the person who say this has no idea about this game. I believe peanit does know well about DBD, so he just used a bad reasoning.
i think people who have spent some time in this game, both as killer and as survivors, have to reach to a consensus that swf with voice chat is op. I don't know how four brians collebrate together can make them worse than one lone brain.
For the statistics data, i think devs only show a general swf escape rate, it does not specify if it is a 2-men swf or 4-men or with voice chat or not. So it doesn't show you the real picture. As a killer, i am okay with 2-men swf, or 3-men swf without vice chat ( I do know some swf do that), but 4-men swf with voice chat in high rank, plus some ultra add-ons and offers, I definitely know it would be a painful game for the killer, even finishing with 4 kills.
Talking about people not taking seriously and messing around with swf, it is a perfect point to illustrate swf's op-ness. Since you know your friends gonna save you with BT or Flashlights, and you know the killer's location all the time by voice chat, you definitely have the luxury to "mess around". Or your swf just don't wanna live and just wanna try some spicy 360s and let killers kill, because you know you can go to "tryhard" mode in next game upon your own willingness, putting on 4 toolboxs, to get a ez win.
Do solo survivors have this luxury? Most time they have to take every game seriously but still get DCers, potato teammates, face campers, etc, trying best still get destined loss. meantime, swf is complaining being able to "mess around" make them in disadvantage. This world is truly a madness, isn't it?
Stop all hypercritics, please.
-
@Rydog said:
I would ordinarily side with the OP in terms of a developer rolling out unpolished or unfinished features, but a bit of audience inconvenience is the price of progress when it comes to this specific type of technical hurdle.
They can't get dedicated servers right if they can't find the points of failure and then iterate in a way that addresses those failures. There is no way to do that, outside of deploying them in a live environment with a substantial player population.
People have been clamoring for dedicated servers forever. So do you want them, or not? That's what this all boils down to.
i feel that the current stage of the servers is that they are uncompleted. For example, the hit-through-window, which keep bother ing players in the entire history of DBD. That is where you need your own technicians do the test as well as modifying the code, and finally find the balance. Only when the work is mostly completed, you push the update to the public so you can optimize it under a living environment with substantial population. You need large population only because there are some minor bugs which can only be detected by a fairly large amount of test. Hit-through-window definitely not those "minor bugs" cause it exists constantly.
Above is my personal knowledge about developing an app. I could be wrong. That is why I suggest the devs at least notice your players and tell them why you are doing this. But what we got is devs force the servers on without say anything ahead, for two times. And even during the test, they dont say when it will end, which made me, who unfortunately suffer the bugs, have to come to the forum spending much time filling a complaint and bagging for more information. i don't know if it is a right way to develop a game, but definitely not a good way to maintain a good relationship with your customers, which is ironically what they claim that they are improving on.
-
@HellCatJane said:
Got to love it... You get told to leave feedback and then get told to take your feedback off the forums because it's disagreed with....
There's no reason to attack the guy for complaining.
The dedicated servers may work great for some, but they are terrible for a lot of people.
Anyways, I'll discuss this.
They don't put it on the PTB because they flat out know that no one is going to install or run the PTB just to test dedicated servers. Other changes, sure/maybe. But people hated playing the dedicated servers there, so they went back to live. The dev's are aware of this.
As for money... and expecting them to use it for purposes of testing and debugging the game.... ehhhh... I don't see that realistically happening. Why pay for something when you can force it for free? And thinking about it, they were the ones that supposedly tested MoM before they released it... thinking it was great and balanced... They clearly need help in my opinion...
However, I definitely agree they should have a notice of changes and communicate way better to their consumers/playerbase. I really dislike that they seemingly change stuff on a whim, and just do not communicate it. (And yes I am aware they can do whatever the hell they want to, that isn't my point at all.) Like matchmaking and stuff, you are playing and suddenly out of no where it's so borked. Like they really screwed up not too long ago, then after it became apparent they were like Oh yea we did that. We are aware etc. Its frustrating that they didn't say, "hey we are changing this. Let us know how it goes"... as opposed to changing things for the worse and finding it out the hard way. Then a "oopsie" later on...
They know we want to be communicated with, but still don't bother... it is incredibly frustrating as a consumer, especially when the game itself has several bugs/issues that need to be dealt with and addressed. That's just how I feel about it.
Finally find someone who can reason with.
Many people in this thread have a mindset that saying "you buy the game, so agree the items, so suck it up" or "I am fine with the servers and happy for help test, why don't you blame yourself", which made wonder if I am really argue with other players who are acutally customers of this game and look for a good product and service.
I remember when in the past, how angry and frustrated people got when devs said "go play something else". Nowadays, it, however, becomes a legitimate argument to refute others who disgree with devs.
Devs, I would not say that you did a pretty good job on your game. But you definitely did good job on manipulating speech to make yourselves look better on the internet. No offense, it is a pure salutation
-
@MisterCremaster said:
Hey look, another person who is not a game engineers telling the game engineers what to do. BHVR doesn't come into your work and tell you how to hold the spatula, so why don't you just sit back and let them do their job too?
Hey look, how about this? Next time you go to restaurants, when you find the chief is cooking dirt for you. How about you just sit back and shut your mouth up? Cuz you are not chief, how do you know that dirt cannot be turn into delicious food.
People know the thing is bad does not always means they are omniscient about the thing, it is just because they have eyes and brains
-
@Madjura said:
What are your region and platform?
1). put it on the PTB and let players to decide if they wanna try it.
Fun fact: The first time dedicated servers were enabled on the PTB they were so incredibly bad that they had to be disabled again within a day.
I am in U.S. and living in the same state as the servers.
I know it was super bad when they test it first time on PTB. So that is why you need to limit it to the PTB. If it is bad enough that no one even wanna to try it on PTB, then maybe it is time to hire someone to finish the dirty job for you.
-
@Fibijean said:
Firstly, there is no way they have the money to hire testers equivalent to the size of their playerbase. The reason they need to test with a group the size of their playerbase is because they are probably trying to test things like server capacity and how the servers perform under stress.
Secondly, by playing the game knowing that the servers are currently live, you are in effect opting in as a tester. There was no agreement between you and the developers, to my knowledge, when you bought the game that stipulated they had to consistently meet your experiential expectations as long as you were playing the game. You are not entitled to anything.
Thirdly, if the last test is anything to go by, it will be back to normal in a few days. So maybe just take a step back and calm down a bit. Play something else for a while if you're not interested in being part of the dedicated server tests.
For the bugs most people complain about, there is no way that they are caused by the size of people in the servers. For example, I don't think less people in the servers will make less hit-through-window happen, since same problem happen on P2P connection. It should be caused by the same bad coding. And devs had tested it last week, and within a short time, which nearly impossible for them to fix anything, they put up the servers again. How can you convince me it is all about capacity of the servers?
Also, let's not get into any legal term or agreement. It is their game and they can do anything to it. I am all for it. But I am talking about a what a respectful company should do. In your logic, any company can sell an unfinished game and just say to the player, "sorry we did not meet up your expectation, but you bought the game, so suck it up". But in reality, PTB, beta test, alpha test, etc. do exist for a reason. They are showing that some companies do care about their player's experience as well as just selling them an "agreement". Tons of other game companies offer free choices, like PTB, to players. How can BHVR think they can skip the things just because it is not in the "agreement". Well, they have rights to ignore me, then I have the right to boycotting and not respect them.
And I am sure some people are happy to help the devs test the servers. But some people are not. And I am sure devs know their are tons of bugs in the servers which may cause player's frustration. So why dont they just notice and ask at first? Again, stop talking legal or not, it is one simple thing, which literally cost nothing but can take care each one of your customers. But you choose not to do it, so tell me, why devs deserve any defense
-
@premiumRICE said:
Servers work fine to me.
I am happy it works for you. But it does not means it work for everybody, or the way it is implemented is correct.
For example, I am happy to give some coins if some homeless people kindly ask me. But it does not mean they can directly walk into my house and take my money.
Same thing for the devs and servers
-
Remove the servers immediately, please. It is very disgraceful to force all players to test your uncompleted product without previously informing and asking for their permission.
If you want to test your servers,
- put it on a PTB and let players themselves decide if they want to try it.
- If u have a hard time finding enough volunteers, just pay for a group of players testing it 24/7. Stop take advantage of your player base as free labor to finish your unpolished work
Devs, I am losing respect to you.
-
@Emhyr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/585274#Comment_585274
Well thanks for your help, i just hope i can play all the killers and yes it is REALLY hard to play mid tiers killers at high ranks (can't reach higher than rank 3 with mid tiers). But even this is said, some good streamers reach the rank 1 with this kind of killers so... i try.
I post that because it is really important to me to play fair, to let all players have fun and that's why i don't tunnel and camp. But i've seen this method too much recently and it's making me really angry and frustrated that a lot of players don't play the way the game is made to be play... It's the only thing, i want to talk about some practices i don't like.
Yes it is counterable and yes i could play with others method that will work but i don't like to play like that.
Well, I am glad to help and sorry if I was a little offensive in my formal post since you sound like a nice guy. But most people play this game for win, which entails them using any strategy like looping, body lock, tunneling, camping, etc.. "play fairly and make both sides happy" is really a just a sweet dream. According to my experience playing both with and against veteran swf. Using mid-low tier killer with "healthy" playstyle won't earn you respect. Instead, probably they will think that you are pathetic and the game is boring.
Also about the streamers, what they always show you is their "bright" side in their video. They only show you the match where they dominate the survivors/killers, but before this match, they might have experienced 500 matches where they dodged swf, dc, got triggered, or be dominated. You just never know. I do admit in the past some streamers achieved rank 1 using mid tier killers without add-on and no tunneling/camping. But under RECENT EMBLEM SYSTEM, i haven't saw anyone live streaming the WHOLE PROCESS using mid tier killers (no add-on and no tunneling) from rank 20 to 1. So you should not be bothered by unable to use mid tier to reach high rank. it's not your fault, but just because the game sucks at balance and rank system, and, unfortunately, devs don't understand how the game played at high rank and how the swf things work. So even devs themselves don't care, why would we, as players, concern so much about "fairness and health" of this game. Let's make ourselves COMFORTABLE FIRST!
-
The way you talk really makes me doubt that you are actually a 1600hrs players.... anyway, let's talk about this "abuse"
First, it is not called "abuse', since the survivors did not exploit any bug or violate any rule. It is simply a combination of a skill and a swf strategy, which is very efficient to counter killer camping or tunneling. Whining devs to nerf DS is, at my view, not what a veteran player would do.
How to counter this "abuse"? Most easy way is to learn how to truly "facecamp". Believe me, if you facecamp correctly, no one can block you from grabbing the unhooker. That means survivor have to sacrifice one to unhook one.
The another way would be just simply hit the bodyblocker and the unhooker when they rescue the hooked one and keep chasing whoever you want after the unhooking. Remember, survivors have spent 3 people doing this unhook, leaving only one on the gens, and 3 of them are injured and one gets chased as the result. The rest two also needs time to get healed and get back on gens (unless most gens have finished or gate has opened, which means you already lost no matter the DS or bodyblock). So survivors waste tons of time on doing this rescue in exchange you suffer DS and the following chase. I would not think that this would put you at huge disadvantage. If you lose the game, you must have spent too much time on following chase, which is because either you are not good at chasing or you use a mid-low tier killer.
This actually leads to the essential balance issue of DBD: SWF is too strong for most killers. If you are using mid tier killer without crazy add-ons to against high rank SWF, you will lose for sure, no matter how good you are or how hard you play. As long as they are not too dumb and have a good communication, they don't even need flashlight or any "abuse" to dominate you.
So if you want to grant a win against a high rank swf, just use nurse, billy, huntress, spirit, and put on ultra rare addon and mori. If you use other killers, I have to foresee that you will lose for sure.
-
I would not totally agree with you. Your situation is that you are against a 4 men SWF plus they are all your friends who may be familiar with your play style. So these two factors can make them counter play you super easily. Just saying that dev dont let killer to kill is a quite biased views.
It should be "devs would not let killer to kill the SWF" and it not only happens in this PTB but, sadly, is always true for all past year's updates.
Here is the circle of DBD: Killers got bullied by SWF, so they begin to dodge the SWF to bully the solo survivors, desperate solo survivors then begin to join SWF so they can bully Killers. Result: we get more and more SWF and more and more billy and nurse.
Devs just never know how to balance SWF against solo rather than killer against survivor