Best Of

honestly idk if this is a hot take or not, but in a horror game where your darkest nightmares come true that you have to face, i think it'd be time to man up and face your phobia because all it is is just another killer design. im terrified of clowns and i absolutely HATE going against clown (not even just bc of bottles) but i know that him being in the game is for the best. his design is HELLA cool and so is his lore, so if there ever is a spider killer, i'd be so excited to see the design and lore the devs come up with.

To add some more context for this:

• The longest survivor winstreak where the win condition was 3 escapes was 202 games. Even in that streak, each player died at least a couple dozen times. People love claiming "oh but there are 4 survivors so it's basically like an 808 escape streak" but since they still had a bunch of deaths it really isn't "basically an 808 escape streak"
• The longest escape streak for a single person was around 500, but that was in a much earlier version of the game (the person who did the streak stopped around 2020 iirc), but that was a streamer and was done in an SWF with the goal of getting that streamer out, even if the rest of the team die. They didn't intentionally lose games to get him hatch, he didn't play with rat strategies, but it's still a very different objective than getting 3+ people out

By contrast, one particular blight main has gotten a ~1950 win streak as blight twice. That's 3900 games with only 2 losses

It may be surprising to learn I used to have a Myers PFP.

And it may be equally as surprising that Steve is not my favorite Stranger Things character.

i watched stranger things for the first time when I saw Steve i had to remind myself that you aren't literally him

I can get behind this. Tbh the only time i think seeing the lobby is a good idea is when I play survivor it allows me to see what items other survivors are running. If I see 2 other flashlights then I'm not bringing mine. I'll switch to medkit or toolbox

But that's a minor bonus. Tbh seeing the lobby is 99% of the time going to make the game worse. People lobby dodge, killers switch to lightborn if they see 2 or more torches, the stremsniping issue. It just turns the lobby into some kind of pre match mindgame and that isn't healthy. I remember back when you could see survivor's prestige levels prematch. And you basically guarenteed a bad game when you ran a p100 survivor. The only killers who wouldn't dodge were ones who were confident enough to take on a p100 and usually ended up winning

On whom exactly? Cause you're getting steamrolled.

What's that animal Australia lost a war to?

An Emu? An Emu would fit into DBD really well.

I mean she is still garbage and pretty much F tier in every ranking, just not unplayable anymore, and thats only because they removed the vault immunity to the scanlines. Pixel Bush made a great video on it, I would recommend it.

Reinterpreting the quote doesn't make the evidence fall.

So there is an evidence argument and an argument about quotes.

Let's deal with the evidence argument first.

You say the following:

The devs themselves have said that they aim for a 60/40 for balance on both sides. This is what they said. Theyve aimed for 60/40 for YEARS these are the people who have alllllll the data, and they've been sticking to their guns for YEARS. Im pretty sure theirs a GOOD reason why they are saying 60/40 is balanced after reviewing ALLLLLL their data for YEARS.

What in the F*** are survivors doing to pull almost 10% past the intended escape %??? the swfs in high lobbies are popping gens like popcorn. No way in the world should you be able to pop a gen in 24-26 seconds with 2 people AND have coms.

In this post you are appealing to knowledge that BHVR has that we don't (allllll the data).

I respond - This goes both ways.

If you're going to believe BHVR must be right on these decisions because they have the data we don't, then their decision not to nerf perks and/or SWF must also be because they have all the data.

They also never have said that the 60/40 is a rate that applies to every single scenario, but an overall target, and its not their only game balancing metric.

Basically, if you're going to appeal to what BHVR must know, that must remain consistent. Nothing I said above is incorrect and the quotes you'll later provided about overall averages back me up.

You respond: also i never said they were right about all there decisions because they have all the data. I said I'm pretty sure theirs a good reason they decide to balance the game around 60/40, since they have for years that doesn't mean they cant make a bad decision.

So what you are doing here is antithetical to a good discussion. Of course BHVR can make bad decisions, you're highly unlikely to find someone who disagrees with that notion here - but arguing that the decisions you like must be supported by data we don't have is a dishonest framing, it's creating a different standard for what you argue vs your opponents.

Which is what I said here in my next response to you: To have a discussion, you don't get to be selective about that. If you're going to argue that BHVR reached a decision based on data or their experience than that has to apply to discussion of all game elements, not just the ones where you happen to agree with them.

All of this remains true on the evidence front. Which immediately leads to the happy/unhappy issue.

I'll go to my quote: I'm not pretending to know what goes inside BHVR's heads. You are using these posts for them to say they are happy with the numbers. At no point do they make an exception to that statement.

You will respond: This is why i asked you where did they say they were happy with all of the numbers? You couldn't quote it because it wasn't there so you move the goal post and ask me….

The issue here goes back to your original quotes about BHVR and all the data.

This is where the happy/unhappy argument comes from. If something is justified because BHVR says they are happy with it (60/40) because they have all the data, then that all the data point remains true for other arguments and there must be evidence that they are unhappy with the 48.3 for the argument to have any meaning. Your conclusion of 48.3 having any meaning in connection to BHVR is only backed up if they have a problem with it. It's your argument (to be clear: to rely on what data BHVR must have), not mine, thus the shifting the goal posts argument is on you because you aren't backing your own position anymore.

To put another way, there needs to be a logical flow from your evidence to your conclusions and there isn't.

However, if you aren't relying on BHVR to be evidence, then the whole issue is moot anyway which is why I say you concede the argument.

-

Now, onto the quotes and redefining words.

You first use the word balance in the section I quote above - as a single word, not part of the quote. Later you will argue about people trying to redefine words, but balance can mean different things.

So for example balance can be used to mean - a situation in which two opposing forces have or are given the same power (Cambridge).

Under this definition, BHVR is clearly out of balance, they have a 60/40 split. Think of this like scales, typically we expect them to be even, but in this case they are not.

Now balance can also be defined as: to bring into harmony or proportion (Merriam Webster)

Not under this definition, BHVR could be in balance, because we introduce the concept of proportion. Again to use scales, one side could be weighted to be heavier if there is a reason for the scales to be offset (note the use of offset, we don't presume scales are balanced offset, we say it). However, to use balance in this way, you need to clarify that (and if you want to go further, balance can has lots of subtle differences in meaning if you want to dive into dictionaries)

@Firellius, myself and I reiterate this point - Firellius has more on the topic but I'll focus on my quotes - They never say '60% is a balanced rate'. It's relatively balanced (not absurdly broken like a 70 to 80 would be, while still keeping the killer a 'force to be reckoned with') and its their intended balance - not a normal balance metric, but what they go for.

You respond to me: Balance is subjective, 60/40 to the dev team is balanced. It was literally word for word stated.

To which I respond: This depends on what you mean by the word balance. Many people, most I think, use it in a non-subjective way

Balance can also be used with attached conditions, such as BHVR does, but that does not mean the game is balanced in the sense of being 'even'.

Here I'm trying to see it from your point of view. You could be using the proportional definition, but like I say above, I don't think that's the way people generally use it (i.e. its an objective word, not subjective, but you're using it in the less common way of being subjective).

But also, as I said, no one disagrees that BHVR has a 60% KR (you mention this in your last reply, no one ever disagreed with this that I can find). Many disagree with the numbers they've set or that it's balanced in an even sense (i.e. why we get phrases like 'relatively even'), but everyone knows that's the target for BHVR. This goes back though to whether you want to tie your argument to BHVR's standards or not. If you don't, if you're not arguing that we should trust BHVR, then the whole point is irrelevant.

Anyway, that's my run through, with quotes, of what progressed. I think things break down entirely after your 'I fixed it' post where I believe your changing of the quote from Firellius is extremely dishonest and bad for the discussion.

-

My point isnt that coordination makes everything better. It’s that gen speed multipliers scale unusually well with coordination compared to other mechanics, which is why gens feel especially fast in swfs.

I don't want to just repeat what @FerrousFacade is saying, but of all the strategies that SWFs can employ, gen rush seems the least unique. Compared to other mechanics, it seems to be one of the least improved by adding coordination.