Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
why is bhvr farming negative reputation?
Comments
-
To be fair, new issues that crop up are addressed.
The issue is that we still haven't gotten confirmation either way on 60 FPS.
0 -
Maybe it was but yes the rest of the point stands lol.
0 -
Plenty of survivors have said positive things.
0 -
And killers!
0 -
Well find a nice small map.
Get multiple boons.
See how much fun it is.
I had 3 CoH on Ormund. Suffice to say i Facecamped that 1 survivor i managed to down.
0 -
CoH is not the only boon, and is the least fun one to play around. The current implementation of boons as a mechanic also needs a little work.
Neither of those prevent positive comments from being made. I and others have had positive things to say about boons, and more constructive feedback than just "they'll never work delete them".
1 -
Maybe it shouldn't take years to implement simple changes, then. . .
0 -
Because they are the monopoly, they can do whatever they wish with zero consequences. That's how monopolies work, it's not like you have another game like this to play.
0 -
It’s hard to know if they are or aren’t, on account of BHVR’s mud-like transparency
0 -
Since there's no reason to assume that they aren't, it's still kind of a non-issue.
Given how this community reacts to transparency, I also can't really blame them for being a little more guarded. Guess we just can't have nice things on that point.
0 -
You don't act like you listen to feedback, tbh
I mean, people have been saying how Survivor is too easy and Killer is too hard for ages, but we've never heard a word
Post edited by Frontdoor6 on0 -
Depends what you are being transparent about... If you come out saying "we are going to nerf all killers to m1 only over the next year because new players can't deal with powers" Then how do you expect the community to react?
1 -
Proving my point exactly.
0 -
People are not just allegedly quitting the game, they are actually quitting the game. Their usual ploy of "oh ######### we are bleeding players, put the game on sale for 50% off!" isn't working as well as it once did.
1 -
Saying nothing and doing the update without any feedback just makes the backlash worse imo since they wasted development time on something that may be universally bad for the game and disliked.
As we have seen,, once they spend money on something it is going in the game like it or not.
1 -
What's the alternative? Running every change by the handful of people who are inclined to give feedback and letting them have absolute power of veto over everything?
I'm glad you said that, actually. That's the real problem here- transparency wouldn't translate into """the community""" having any actual power over what they do and don't add, it'd just make people mad a little sooner than now. And it would make people mad no matter what- I'm sure you remember how frothingly, incandescently angry people got over the DS nerf, even though it was unambiguously necessary and a good idea.
Nobody actually seems to care about transparency from BHVR, they just think that if BHVR mention something before doing it and they don't like it, they'd have the ability to change it.
0 -
Plenty of people they can talk to or hire who objectively know more about the game then bhvr do.
I hate to say it, but streamers and youtubers that play BOTH SIDES should be hired, hell they give feedback for free ffs but are ignored. The reason they are ignored is because they don't care about what generates the most money the fastest way possible (revolving door / free on epic games) and rather the longevity and fairness of the game.
The DS nerf was just a side grade and people are starting to run it again after moping in a corner for a while. it took them 4 years to finally listen to feedback and from what i saw the change was universally accepted when you cut through the rage posts from low rankers.
If they were faster with updates and were actually open to trying things and reverting them if they don't work out, then we wouldn't need to know their plans ahead of time to stop them wasting money.
Its fine to force something down our throats as long as they say they will and take feedback into account to make it fair. I think anyone with half a braincell would have warned them about COH and the boon mechanic in general but here we are, having to wait a year+ before they change it to be fair (or when the killer numbers get to low as usual) where they will do what people have said from day one.
0 -
Even more useful than hiring streamers and youtubers that play BOTH SIDES(!!!) would be to hire and listen to people who understand how game balancing works and who aren't going to have the bias of only really knowing how things work at their level. The input of players like Otzdarva or whoever is useful, but you say they're giving their feedback for free and are being ignored- again I ask, as opposed to what? Doing what they say is best for the game because it'll improve things at their level? They aren't the only players and new additions/changes have to be weighed against all levels, not just the top.
Of course, that's somewhat irrelevant- you'll notice we've moved from transparency to listening to feedback. That's a completely different beast to transparency- if they'd announced Circle of Healing in advance of it being added to the PtB, everyone would've started yelling about it, and they would've put it in anyway, because people on the internet don't control what gets put into a game they happen to play, and nor should they.
And let's look at how people are yelling about boons now, shall we? Now that they're in the game, what's the feedback that BHVR should supposedly be listening to? At least on this forum, the bone-headedly stupid idea that boons should be broken entirely when snuffed is a very common one. That's not feedback they should be listening to, nor is it the only instance of the majority census being wrong; I again point to the DS changes, a very serious percentage of people were mad about that and BHVR smartly didn't listen to it.
"Rage posts from low rankers". Ah, now we're getting there- it's not that they should just "listen to feedback", it's that they should listen to what you think "high rank" feedback is. Got it.
BVHR make bad decisions but the fix to that obviously isn't transparency - because if they just announced their bad decisions sooner people would simply be mad for longer - and it can't just be to """listen to the community/feedback""" because that raises the question of which feedback, when a very vocal majority of it tends to be either unhelpfully hostile or just utterly wrong. It's easy to say feedback from "high ranks", but that doesn't automatically mean their feedback would work for all ranks of the game.
And then we cycle back around to having no evidence that they don't listen to feedback, now that we understand that doing so wouldn't automatically translate into changes being made to the game. No evidence that they don't listen to feedback, and a generally acceptable level of transparency given how hostile the community is regardless of the quality of the thing they're responding to... what's the problem again?
0 -
I really don't understand why you want to balance around all ranks. The game would naturally become balanced around all ranks after balancing it at the top lets say 30% because we have this handy dandy thing called SBMM where bad/new killers will go against bad/new survivors.
I see what you are saying. Forums are generally filled with people who are not happy with something because like with reviews, people don't generally bother writing one when they are happy with the product. There is also a large varied pool of skills and biases.
This is why i still think they should reveal future plans to streamers / youtubers that play both sides equally as you will get a healthy mix of bias and understanding of each sides view. This would result in compromises that everyone thinks is fair and in the end would lead to a healthier game. I am not asking them to reveal it to the general public on the forums as yes, that is pointless. But they do need a group of people who know the game to point out the flaws in their ideas.
The Fog whisperer program should have been used for this, but they got turned into pure marketing and nothing else.
Again, SBMM takes care of the lower ranks and new players who will eventually learn while keeping the top who already know the game inside and out interesting. We should not be concerned with little Johnny with 20 hours because he should be getting Billy with 20 hours as a killer.
0 -
If you take feedback from everywhere, then why did the hillbilly rework make it to live servers? There was zero reason for it other than to nerf his overperforming addons. Now he has an unnecessary mechanic. Around that time everyone was saying that the hillbilly nerfs were unnecessary, and funnily enough you guys even proved yourselves against it as well by saying that he is already punished for misusing his chainsaw.
And the nerfs when through anyway. Now he feels janky to play, has terrible addons, and has an unnecessary mechanic. If you take feedback from everywhere, then why did those changes (among several others) make it to live servers even though most people were against them?
1 -
It's not that I want to balance around all ranks, that's just how game balance works. You can't keep things that stomp on newbies unchecked simply because they're only moderately powerful for tournament level players, and you also have to keep an eye on the middle of the ladder too, because they're all players who matter and whose experience is meaningful. Obviously you can't over-balance for any one demographic, but they all should be taken into account.
Regarding a group of people with an understanding of the game to bounce their ideas off, I do agree, but we don't really have any indication that they don't do that to my knowledge? if they've ever said for sure that they don't, alright, I agree with that being a method that'll help the game grow healthier, but it's very different from "transparency" and "listening to the community".
I do empathise with the idea of SBMM catering for lower ranks, but it doesn't do that on its own. The game itself still needs to be balanced, and their ranks are still important to take into account for doing so.
0