http://dbd.game/killswitch
This is why I have trust issues
About 7 minutes into the dev stream, they say that killers and survivors have similar width collision hitboxes which is widely well known to not be the case. Looping is fundamentally built around the fact that survivors have a significantly smaller collision zone that killers. Ironically, if they actually made the collision zones the same size, that would solve the problem of ridiculously long chases a hell of a lot better than the bloodlust system ever even came close to.
Comments
-
I have trust issues because you never know if that friendly killer is going to turn on you for an end game challenge.
I'm still traumatized. I can't believe a killer would kill someone. :(
21 -
I know you're being ironic, but I will say, I don't mind when a killer is friendly and then kills me during the EGC. I appreciate that they let me get points, and if they wanna kill me, I'm cool with that.
And yeah, @Dehitay, I noticed that, too. I actually pointed at the screen and was like, "That's not true, otherwise looping wouldn't be such a thing!"
1 -
Wait, they said the hitboxes were the same size again?
🤣🤣🤣
As for making the survivor hitbox smaller, that wouldn't really be possible. The hitbox is already about the same size as the survivor themselves.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/912742
0 -
The talking points are they are the same size. Admitting they are different only strengthens killers complaints about looping.
0 -
This actually surprised me as well. I was pretty sure that they had in the past talked about how the hitboxes were different, hence why killers gained less ground circling objects rather than in a straight line.
0 -
About two months ago.
0 -
It still doesn't solve terrible map design
2 -
1 -
Are we to say the pill for movement is the same width as killers then?
0 -
Chances are we're being lied to. I've got an incredibly strong suspicion that the capsule they displayed isn't for collision detection, but the zone for detecting if you're close enough to an interactable object such a pallet or a locker. I'm willing to bet $20 that the "slashable zone" is also the capsule for collision detection.
0 -
How difficult would it be to make them ever so slightly the same?
8 -
it's a mix of bigger capsules and basically badly polished and shaped objects (one of the biggest in my mind is the car in bad ham near the house, and the other car near preschool.
0 -
That one Statue and tree on the new sanctum map where Survivors can go between them, but Killers can't. Lol I guess every millimeter matters.
But no - seriously - one thing i've noticed as I got better with Killer. When I first started I would take wider births around turn's because my big brain muscle reflexed assuming I was bigger than survivors. Though now that i've improved and been applying my formula one skills with survivor into playing Killer, nothing can jump that window in the safehouse anymore. Also a big thing to notice is that when you stay the nearest into a object next to you to get the closest to the center of the turn your characters arm does clip into the object, because all Killer models are bigger than their actual collision pill.
0 -
110% movespeed killers can't catch up to survivors around small object loops until bloodlust kicks in. If my math is correct, the the killer collision zone would have to be at least 110% of the survivor collision zone assuming the loop was a circle and would need to be even larger for a rectangular loop.
Take a look at the image. Does that appear to be the case? While it is possible I did the math wrong, do you honestly think the difference in size is enough to make looping a real possibility?
0 -
you're right, looping huntress even around medium rocks in the swamp is deadly.
0 -
The movement capsules will stay different. The fact that Survivors gain a little extra time by going around corners has become a very important part of the game's dynamics. Changing them to be the same size would have a lot of balance repurcussions.
The Survivor's radius is 10% smaller, if you wanted to know. :)
9 -
That number I can believe because the math works out with it. But that's not what the visuals implied.
0 -
Never change
0 -
So for historical reasons I will bring this up.
Back several years when the Devs still did weekly streams. We brought up that looping was an issue and it was due to survivor hitboxes being smaller than killers. Thus allowing survivors to loop objects faster than killers. The Devs at the time showed us a picture similar to what Peanits posted above. They told us the hitboxes were the same size. That killers weren't able to make tight turns due to their 1st person camera and of course they will look into it.
Fast forward to today and another Dev tells us survivor collision box is 10% smaller than killers and because it has been that way for so long it would be bad to change it now.
I hope you would see why that would upset some of us old timers.
10 -
The Survivor's movement collision capsule is what I was talking about. To quote Peanits: "That is the SlashableZone, the thing used for hitting the survivors. This is not used for movement. The capsules used for movement are shown above."
4 -
I'm a bit confused. So just to clarify, are you saying that the collision capsules are the "hitbox" which comes into play where hugging corners is concerned (the slashable zone not being relevant in this scenario), and the survivor and killer collision capsules are actually basically the same size, but the survivor one is very slightly smaller which is why looping is a thing?
0 -
Probably the fact that those are only visual approximations. Trying to do any precise arithmetic based on those measurements is like applying Pythagoras' Theorem to a triangle which looks like it could be right-angled and expecting it to work perfectly.
1 -
Can we at least change the tiles that spawn objects that only Survivors can squeeze through as a result of their capsule being every so slightly smaller? Would be nice to spread those individual objects out juuuuuuuuuuuuust enough so Killers can squeeze through too.
1 -
that's not really a valid argument, we are talking about more than double the error.
For reference, here's how the two would compare visually speaking
EDIT: note that the fourth table's cells are not exactly aligned with the third one. This is because of rounding problems, and see how slight the error is. We are talking about 1 or 2 pixels, you probably wouldn't have even noticed it if I didn't mention it.
1 -
"More than double" makes 6% sound a lot more dramatically large than it is. You should never trust visual approximations when you're dealing with precise arithmetic. Your method is valid as an estimation technique, but not a solid enough basis on which to suggest that the supplied figures are incorrect. For the record, I agree that it looks strange, but that proves nothing when an equally valid explanation is that those visualisations just aren't pixel-perfect representations.
3 -
Fib, I think it would be better if you let a Dev answer properly instead of speculating on things.
If you think that I make 6% sound more dramatic than it is, then think about this:
My height is 1,80 meters.
If yours is 96% of mine, you are 1,73 meters.
But if you are 90%... you are 1,62m.
10+ cm is not a lot, in your experience?
EDIT: we are not talking about differences of a few pixels, please Fib, understand that.
EDIT2: here, that's how the capsule collider should be if it were 9/10 of diameter/radius
again, it's not a few pixels. Something is wrong, either @Almo 's statement or the capsule collider they used to make the picture, but I seriously doubt the Unreal engine has rounding errors of +- 6%.
Post edited by Nobsyde on1 -
We could be, though. We don't know how accurate or to-scale those images are, that's my point.
It seemed, from the way you worded your original comment, like you were suggesting Almo wasn't telling the truth. That kind of thing is concerning to me, because every day on the forums I see people misunderstand things the developers say and invent conspiracy theories using "proof" to make them look like they're trying to deceive their players. In my experience, people who are looking for reasons to be upset tend to jump on comments like yours saying things like "you're right, the devs are liars, they obviously don't know what they're talking about, how can we trust anything they say, etc."
If you weren't suggesting anything along those lines, I'm glad to hear it, I just felt the need to step in and provide a possible alternate explanation before speculations got too out of hand.
1 -
I already told you in the past that you shouldn't assume things, that's a bit rude.
As written in the second edit of my previous reply, there's something wrong, either on Almo's statement or in the picture used. That's not the same thing as implying that someone is lying, though.
In fact, I'm simply curious to understand why there's that big of a difference in what we see and what we feel in-game (in fact, I'm more prone to believe that @Almo 's statement is exactly right, but still, the picture says something else).
P.S. if someone jumps in on my comment to say things like "you are right devs are liars" etc etc, we'll address that when the situation comes. So yeah... don't do that.
1 -
I'm trying to meet you halfway here. Calling me rude when I already acknowledged that your intentions might have been different from how they appeared to me, and explained that my response had as much to do with concern for how others would react as it did to do with your individual perspective, is rather harsh.
4 -
I'm not calling you rude, I'm saying that what you did was rude.
I'm sorry if I'm very direct in what I say, but you have to understand that I took my time in studying if and how there were discrepancies between the information we were given (not to mention to show them), and having you trying to downplay everything to rounding errors, that I implied that someone was lying, or that I could fuel conspiracy theories wasn't exactly a pleasant experience.
Even the fact that you say that my intentions might have been different from how they appeared to you, when I just told you that you misread them, is still rude on your part, I've got to be honest.
But whatever, we are going off topic now, I won't comment any further on this. If you want you can DM me.
5 -
so basically that's more surface area to calculate collision meaning more accurate collision?
0 -
Sorry, but at the point where you're quibbling over the verb tense I used to accuse me of further rudeness, it seems like you're just determined to take everything I say in bad faith. I agree, ending the discussion here seems like a wise choice.
3 -
I'm not sure what you are asking, but generally speaking: the smaller the diameter/radius of the collider capsule, the less time you take to turn around objects.
If survivors and killers had the exact same diameter, they would turn at the exact same rate (..but killers move faster, of course), but since thatt's not the case survivors can optimise their pathing to gain a very slight advantage, compared to them moving on a straight line.
2 -
I was referencing his gif image not the image I posted.
0
