Best Of

It also shows how flawed the current matchmaking is. Usually tunneling in the past was something killers in the red ranks were doing, and most killers below that were rarely tunneling, because the survivors were also more casual below the red ranks.
I remember many times getting super-close matches where anything could happen when the last gen popped.

This is something that hardly ever happens anymore, because it is one extreme against another.
I have many times been matched up against baby survivors who stood zero chance against me, and I have also been matched up against countless comp killers who insta hard-tunnel at 5 gens left. It seems near impossible to get actual balanced matches nowadays, which is probably the reason why the game is growing increasingly toxic.

You play killer and do well a few games in a row.. Here, have a comp-level survivor team that you can't ever hope to beat, unless you play like the sweatiest comp player yourself.
Then you lose a few games in a row, and you end up against Little Timmy who just installed the game, and proceed to absolutely stomp his team, because your mindset is now instilled on tunneling.
Then you decide to play survivor soloQ, and you get matched with a lot of Timmys, where the game expects you to hard-carry them against a comp Blight, who eats them for breakfast, before you even get a chance to work on a gen.
And a few matches later, you get put on a team of super-cracked teammates who knows every little trick in the book, where you are matched against a Timmy Trapper, who doesn't even know how to place traps.
That is how inconsistent the matchmaking truly feels like.

So, with all of that in mind, this is where we go to the forums or whatever channel we like to use to relay our problems to BHVR, and start complaining about tunneling, genrushing and whatnot, when the real issue is the matchmaking itself.

Maybe in the imaginary other-world where killer mains only run into seal team 6 every game Tunnelling is necessary, in the real world that we actually live in you can win without tunnelling with ease if you’re paying even the smallest amount of attention

You are not dealing with 4 man SWF goof troops every match, going out of your way to win serves no purpose, stop hiding behind the idea of needing to tunnel in order to win

######### ######### ######### ######### ######### ######### caca poopie ass crack ass ######### oooo scary

in a game where you brutally murder people there is literally zero reason for this, give us the option to disable it, it doesnt even work properly half the time

Not everything is as severely biased as you want it to be. Almost everyone I know plays both roles and wants both to be in a good place.

Also, every recent attempt to do anything for survivors has been nuked by feedback. Fog vials, anti-tunnel, anti-slug, and anti-camp were all recent casualties. Ten upvotes on a mildly populated forum isn't changing this game.

They will run 16 second chance perks and take 7 hits for each hook state each, making it only possible to secure a kill if you just focus one guy. You will finish consuming his endurances and hastes just when they pop the last gen, if you are lucky

Does your KR actually reflect this hyperbole?

I don't think you need to be gatekeeping opinions behind stat requirements.

WHY ARE WE YELLING!?!?!

It really sucked watching every effort to change or refresh this game get derailed by faux CC outrage over and over. Like we couldn't just keep the fog vials decent?

Hello, I’m once again back with probably one of my longest posts in forum history because I just enjoy yapping fr

so as we all know, a lot of discussion goes around balancing and the state of this game on the forums. what's interesting is when the discussions that are had here have gained the attention of youtubers and twitch streamers, whom contribute to these discussions outside of the platform. one of the more notable individuals i've personally seen review posts and talk about them recently is someone named "v.h.s.x", who is predominantly a ghostface main. their videos primarily address opinions surrounding perks, metas, addressing ‘us vs them’ statements, changes made to the game, and discussing other content creators’ opinions. This is pretty standard of those who engage in community discussions, but what makes this case interesting is the perspective and perception of the forums when talking about some of the posts that are made here.

What my opening post is about today isn’t focused on the topics themselves, but what influence such content can have in these conversations as well as the reinforcement of ideologies based on how a conversation is interpreted. Dead by daylight, over the course of its years, has seen much commentary from many different types of players. Often times, you would encounter posts and arguments that have what would be considered a bias. Bias is the nature of our human psyche, since talking points are often made from personal experiences and interpretations of the subject matter. The issue with bias is that it can often reduce someone’s perspective the longer that its reaffirmed. While this is a given, it’s something that people often ignore or forget about when engaging in conversations with others.

A good example of what I described is in real-world politics. I think social platforms that harbor discussions about this game is a near one-to-one example of how political commentary works. Various ideologies, or cultures, coming together to talk about their experiences and how they personally believe the world should be shaped. Some conversations bring good and can be very insightful, other conversations bring bad while being equally as insightful but encouraging change or behavior that does not help progress society as it is today. The quality of conversations is often dictated by one’s understanding and own personal verdict. If you apply this in the game’s current setting, you can see the same formula in the way that things are discussed here.

But what makes this particular person so interesting is their approach and how the things we see in today’s world tends to be reflected in content like this. Now before I get into it, I wanna preface this by saying that just because I am linking videos and talking about an individual person doesn’t give you the right to go out of your way to flame them or accuse them of anything. The whole point of this thread is to invoke a deep conversation about a smaller creator’s content, real-world attributes, and what it contributes to the on-going discussion. If you’re personally going out of your way to invalidate someone for having an opinion for something as trivial as a game, your arguments also deserve to be invalidated just the same.

On dec 6th, v.h.s.x posted a video providing their own perspective to a thread created by kaneyboy discussing kaneyboy ’s OP and the people commenting in it. In particular I wanted to address this conversation because I think it was probably one of the threads that deserved way more attention than just 2 pages, primarily because it allowed everybody’s unique perspective to be showcased. I actually encourage the video gets watched because it is formatted as a more of a counterargument to a lot of the things that were said in that thread and I’d like to see what people think about their points. I will not provide a summary because that is not the intention of this post

As I was watching this video and a few of the other submissions they created on their youtube channel, something I noticed is that the content that was made is more from the perspective of a killer than anything. In this case, this particular video I linked even states in the description that the posts were “broken down from their perspective as a top 1% P100 ghostface main, while also pulling from my own experience of playing over 400 hours of survivor”. There is a lot of statements containing language like “survivor rhetoric”, “survivor opinions”, or “survivor mains”, which is also very common on the forums. This is fine, as this is their way of addressing a specific group of people, but when you understand the concepts within political commentary, you can probably see why this can be a point of concern.

Naturally, someone may develop a preference for playing a particular side of the game due to how they perceive the game or what they feel comfortable learning, playing as, or controlling. Based on what side you may play as more, you’re more inclined to generalize or group together player types by their behavior the longer you grow familiar with similarities in players. However, this comes at the cost of over-generalization and assumption superseding the context of someone’s statement, which can ultimately devalue their personal experience and reasoning. If you do this enough times, you’re challenging the health of conversations and the ability to make clear what is exactly an issue and what isn’t.

This brings me two questions: what is the true validity of most arguments that are made in the community when such biases exist? How can you have a productive conversation and steer something in a healthier direction when discussions become gridlocked by subjectivity? These same questions exist in politics, which is what makes it really intriguing to read.

The reason why I propose these same questions is because of the overarching factor of experience and bias. Dead by daylight, despite is simplicity, is a very complex game. Much like the human experience, you are dealing with a multitude of factors that can influence how someone thinks, behaves, and destroys and builds. Even though this game features obvious variables in its balance like perks, the influence of data, map design, etc., at its core you are exposed to the behavior of humans due to it being a PVP-centric game. You have to spend an exorbitant amount of time understanding player behavior in this game to be able to leverage any of the tools the game offers you, whether its objective focused or interaction focused. I personally believe this makes up a majority of the friction that comes with playing this game: players truly not understanding players and the reasoning behind a decision. If there’s a misunderstanding, it is generally due to an assumption or lack of information to draw an effective conclusion.

The ultimate reality, to me, is that you will never truly 100% know why someone does something, so you are forced to guess based on how much time and information you collected about the people you play against. And yet so many of our arguments are based off of the premise of what we assume to know, and appear to advocate for reinforcement of a foundation that is very shaky. There is a lot of “no, you’re wrong” and less problem-solving to find a middle ground among the community. This brings me to take issue with both videos and posts like these.

Not necessarily because of what is being said, but the reinforcement of what is being said as if it is factual and that an entire group of people wholeheartedly believes. It’s like saying “all people that like the color blue are sad and all people that like red are angry all the time. Red is scary because anger is volatile, therefore the people that like the color blue are the best to be around because red-likers are more likely to be violent, and that everything should be put in place to limit red-likers to keep us safe as much as possible while taking care of the sad blue-likers”.

You never question where the association came from, why someone who likes red may even be angry in the first place, or even question why blue-likers are sad and supposedly require protection. Not once are you encouraged to think about why things are the way they are and what can be done to improve the situation as much as possible. Instead, you develop vitriol through confirmation bias as you begin to pay more attention to things that “prove” the argument that was made. It’s even worse when you encounter individuals who don’t want to learn, merely laugh at it and distance themselves from it, are close-minded, or cast it aside as a non-issue rather than considering the implications. If you put monetary or collective incentive behind this, either as a content creator or as a community-acknowledged ‘leader’, this escalates confirmation bias further. This is what people start to identify as an “echo chamber”. If you read comments or responses to videos and forum posts, you may see what I’m referring to.

Both sides, killer and survivor, inexperience and experienced, do this, and I think it heavily devalues our ability to communicate as people.

Is this a big deal? Not really in the context of DBD itself alone. It is a game at the end of the day. But it is concerning when rhetoric begins to sound awfully close to what we already deal with in today’s age as a society and how we talk about things. Video games, however, tend to be very good at showing what someone’s thought processes and perception of life may be like behind the screen.

Before this post ends up exceeding some character count by accident, I’m going to cut it short here. Let me know what you think. And please don’t use this post as an excuse to ACTUALLY get political. The reference to political commentary was more of a framework to my point.