gens should not spawn too close to each other (3 gen)
gens should not spawn too close to each other, but if there is no other way, the gens should at least not be easily accessible, example: on the saloon map at the "hang man gen" 3 gens always spawn when the stairs are turned in the other direction would (i.e. in the direction of the main building) then it would not be so easy for the killer to defend the gen, but since the stairs are directed on the side of the 2 gens, it is very easy to keep them with gen deff perks again and again , because the gens are also on the edge of the map
I have zero problems with a 3 gen, it's easy fix the gen as soon as the killer goes away and run away early enough to never get a hit do this over and over again with your mates (even if it takes a long time, there are always "% " on top of that), but still it's very frustrating in solo q, I'm not a fan of "voice chat", but in situations like this I'd like to instruct my mates to break the 3 gen because it's just annoying,
Hens do a well Video about that :)) I recommend it watch it
For example with plagues (the survivors are perma half life) I still had "fear mong" with me, which means that the survivors die if they make the gens because it's just on the edge of the map
Comments
-
Yes, let’s kill any and all strategy for the killer and force them to play a certain way so the survivor mains can always win and have fun. Killer doesn’t deserve any of that. Honestly, why do players even take on the role as killer? Let’s just replace them with bots who use 0 strategy and mindlessly commit to chases with the goal of playing for a 12 hook game since clearly all survivors want are easy wins and clips for their TikToks. I forgot only survivors are allowed to use good strategy.
8 -
You can't just remove 3gens.
So Survivors want:
- No more 3gens
- No slugging
- No camping
- No tunneling
- No NoED
- No whatever the next 'crutch' warcry will be.
So...What are Killers allowed to do, according to Survivors?
7 -
stop facing the wall when I'm trying to blind you for one hehe *click click*
4 -
This game is for better or for worse married to it's rng elements. This goes for the gates, gen layout, tile layout & proximity, map rotation, and lots more.
Both roles should look for the three-gen setup at the start of each trial, and plan accordingly. Solos are most susceptible to this obviously. A couple of maps are notorious for having them, and some of the best killers can absolutely defend them well.
0 -
It is on survivors to break 3-gens. Not breaking 3-gens is solely and exclusively the survivors' faults for not planning ahead and playing properly.
4 -
I hope you're not serious xD please, dear dbd community, think for a moment then write, look at the 3rd picture, they made a gene and I've already decided to protect the 3 gens and hook them up (because they all helped life and cannot use fatigue perks)
there is no such thing as "break the 3 gens from the killer" because the killer decides to do so right at the beginning of the round or not, I hung a survivor right on the 3 gens, of course I'll never leave my 3 gens, what's up with them surivor done wrong now ? oh right if you mean you didn't turn on the gene in 10sec when spawening then it's your fault
please dbd community first think then write D:
2 -
A 3-gen is a losing game of attrition for the killer. Person A on Gen A, Person B on Gen B, Person C on Gen C. Killer chases, IDK, Person A. Person D gets on Gen A. The killer can't protect them all.
1 -
some maps got build in 3gens and if the killer take full advantage well it tough match. Some maps got to many pallets like the game, the new map and a few more.
The maps are frustrating on both sides
1 -
correct! I've already described that above, but if you were to play solo q and your mates are somewhere else instead and you're alone on the gen, it's just boring and very frustrating, what you describe only works in a swf because they coordinate can
1 -
This was not a big issue ... until devs decided - somehow - to create perks that reward gen-sitting with huge synergies and anti-soloq behavior
Shame on them for creating these monsters!
1 -
i play a lot of killer and there aren't many cases where there is a really strong 3 gen setup. glenvale occasionally has 2 gens spawn behind the gallows + 1 gen on the gallows which makes it basically impossible for survivors to do anything. there are a few other maps that occasionally have a similar setup. it wouldn't be hard to better balance this. in a similar tone i think there are plenty of maps where generators are too safe, and make it way too hard for the killer to pressure gens.
4 -
Spacing out gens even more gives killers without mobility or ranged abilities more territory to patrol, nerfing them by extension. So no.
1 -
So... a problem with solo queue not having ways to communicate. Not a problem with 3-gens spawning.
0 -
Ah, the old "SoloQ players are not doing as great as SWF, break the killer knees so they can overperform as well" argument. Never gets old.
If you are so much worried about SoloQ players what you should be asking is for an in-game voicechat so SoloQ players can communicate and coordinate as well as an SWF group in a Discord server. Then we can talk about changing mechanics to address how both sides are playing in the current meta, not only to basically make killers unable to counter how survivors are playing right now.
3 -
No Eruption, no Dead Mans, hell, no STBFL and ffs no No Way Out. Oh and nerf Basement-Trapper! 🤣
Answer to your question: Be there so that survivors have fun when they butcher you.
1 -
They've said several times they aren't adding VC, for varying reasons both good and bad imo.
0 -
But they should. Voice chat is quite literally THE REASON that SWF is the top of the food chain in DBD.
The fact that the devs are choosing to ignore that is why Killers will forever hate playing against SWF teams, and why soloQ is the worst way to play.
All they need to do is add voice chat and they can then balance Killers around it, instead of pretending it does not exist and watching DBD burn.
2 -
I see you live pre-patch 6.1. As was proven by Hens. You can hold 3gen until server shuts down and survivors get auto-sacrificed. It just works now with 4 regression perks. Especially against solo players. The only possibility for this to NOT be true, is taking 4 BNP's and proof and all the other genrush things. Then sure - killer can't hold his 3gen. Otherwise it's always killers that hold all the cards.
60% kill rate. Today I played 15 games. I got out 3 times. In 4man SWF where average hours are about 3000. Sure killers have very hard time. They stand no chance at all. Especially soloQ outperfoms it all.
I play more killer then survivor, because soloQ sucks so hard right now I refuse to play it ever. For a very strong 3gen - you can play saloon, haddonfield - main, one touching the main just outside it and 2 gen-spawns a bit farther in the open (I have never seen less then 1 of those 2 gens spawn) - that can have anything between 0-3 pallets, both RPDs (2 in main with one connected to one of neighboring rooms - and all neighboring rooms can have gen in it), azarovs (just pick side), suffocation pit (just pick side), wretched shop (main and 2 behind main), eyrie of crows (main, next to main and behind the main), ormond (main and 2 next to it from any side) + all the random 3gen spawns. That's quite a list of maps with strong 3gens
0 -
ive personally grown to hate the three gen strat more and more with time. I hope they add an extra gen spawn so you need to do 5 of 8 instead of 7
0 -
3 gens is something survivors have to learn how to avoid by either using good info perks like Deja vu for a simple 3 gen removal start or Visionary for in door maps.
Yes three gens are annoying by with a good team they can get done the only time a full on complained was when RNG though having two gens extremely close together was a good idea.
But no 3 gens shouldn't be removed you just have to get used plus it's rare they happen with a good team and if the killer isn't doing a 3 gen build.
1 -
Again with the 60% killrate? Again I have to explain to you why that doesn't mean 60% of win games for the killer and even in terms of MMR a 60% killrate only means killer are doing just fine and that is why that was the percentage BHVR wanted to obtain?
And let's not forget to use personal experiences and specific situations to argue about something that affects a bigger picture, of course. But you know what? This time, get mine as well: Started playing Wraith again with no meta perks. Result: Everytime I got a game with SWF or well coordinated survivors I got destroyed, a 1k as much. So, being forced to, got a loadout with meta and who would know, now I can compete against SWF and do something in the games.
The funny thing here is that I don't even say they shouldn't do something about the current state of the game, but what you people pretend is to just address the killer side of this using SoloQ as an argument. That is not wanting balance, that is wanting to nerf killers for the sake of it. You want balance? Then both sides should be changed in tandem so one side don't get advantage over the other. Are SWF doing fine while SoloQ players don't? Then you should be asking for SoloQ players to have the same tools that allow SWF to do that good so they are at the same level, not pretend for BHVR to balance not taking in count the most efficient way to play the game competitively.
1 -
Again. 60% kr is 60% wr. At least by MMR. But also from surv perspective and win perspective (2k being rare outcome). So no. Killers are OP and it shows. And it's not just soloQ. It's killers overall
0 -
No, it is not 60% winrate for the killer for the simple reason a killer needs at least 3k for it to count positive toward MMR. The "1v1/1/1/1" only works for the survivors as it doesn't matter if their teammates survives or not, if you can escape you have "won" against the killer and are awarded positive MMR. For the killers, the MMR at the end of the match would be the sum of all the kills or escapes, so doing a 1k or 2k in a game is not a win. But let's do the math again:
100 games = 400 survivors, 60% = 240 survivors killed. Being generous and saying all killers did a 4k in 50% of their games, that would be 200 survivors, meaning the last 40 survivor in the other 50 games would be "0.8 survivors" killed per game, meaning 0 to 1k in all that other games. In fact, 240 survivors in 100 games are 2,4 survivors, so, 2k in most games with 3k occasionally in the best hypothetical case.
Of course, and again, this is without even considering against who the killer got those kills. Were they in a SWF? Were they using metaperks? Were they pilling on a hook to do try to pull off an almost impossible save instead of doing gens? We don't know, because BHVR never said under what circumstances those kills happened, just that they at last succeeded in take the average killrates of killers to the point they wanted.
But hey, at least I'm happy you finally recognized that your true interest is to nerf killers as you think they are OP and not really balancing the game. Again, if SoloQ players are in so much disadvantage compared to SWF, give them the advantages SWF have, and then make changes to both sides to balance the current meta taking in count the most competitive way of playing as it is how it should be done.
Post edited by Batusalen on0 -
well... people want gens not to be far apart because it makes it hard for the killer to patrol, but at the same time want smaller maps because big maps are also hard to patrol so it's hard to please both sides...
0 -
50% is balance. I want balance. Killers before patch 6.1 were 49% kill rate. Si yes they needed a tiny buff. We got instead 61% kr. Incentives and queue times and players count shows it was bad move, but so long as devs listen only to this killer echo chamber, so long the numbers will go down (and only 4-man SWF will remain, because solo stands no chance now).
Also 2k means your MMR did not move. So to explain the obvious to you. Killers will go up in 2 games out of 5 and not change their MMR in the 3 remaining. Survivors will remain on their MMR for 3 games out of 5 and go down for the next 2. See? Killers go constantly up while survivors constantly down. And you call that fair. And when killers get survivors with multitude of their hours and they rightfully suddenly can't win - then the response is survivor is OP nerf them. Guess what. It's killers that are way out of balance. And even though it used to be the other way around, when I want chill easy game with almost free win, I queue for wesker or some other killer (Twins are now bugged bad, so not them for a time being)
2 -
Being generous and saying all killers did a 4k in 50% of their games, that would be 200 survivors, meaning the last 40 survivor in the other 50 games would be "0.8 survivors" killed per game, meaning 0 to 1k in all that other games.
There, I already give you your 50% balance. Again, we are talking averages, which means some killers are doing better than that and other are doing a lot much worst and that also go for survivors. So no, killers are not going constantly up and survivors constantly down (hence the "best hypothetical case").
60% killrate is not winrate and killers are just at a good point at that percentage and that's why BHVR wanted it to be that. In fact, someone gave an explanation in another post of why 60% killrate is just 40% winrate on average for both sides as killers need 3k to positive MMR.
You think they are overpowered now because until they got to that killrate the game was survivor sided with killers under performing. Now, as they are doing as well as survivors, you see you can't win as much games and think they are OP. So no, it isn't because the killers are now OP or that the game has become killer sided, it's just that the game got to a good balance point for the first time by BHVR own words.
1 -
You cant space gens far enough from each other on small maps without making them bigger,,, you already know how not mobile killers struggle to patrol big maps, but at the same time i hate when no brain strategies like camping a 3 gen with cob, oc, eruption get rewarded for doin nothing and making the game a slow snoozefista
1 -
60% kr is 60% win rate. Having a draw does not mean killer lost. It does not even mean survivors won. If you think 2 out is win, then that just simply shows how ENTITLED you are. So you calling 40% outright full win and all the rest being draw just shows your colors. This exact situation would mean survivors NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER win, but sometimes they don't loose. So again. 50% kr to have fair games. And no matter how many times you repeat "but I did not win this game because it was just 2K" does not change that. It just means sometimes the game is tied and NOBODY won.
0 -
So, both sides winning 40% of the time in the best hypothetical scenario is not balance according to you, of course... what a surprise.
And again, AVERAGES, not all killers and survivors are doing the same numbers, and we talking that in average we have balance. so some people are doing better and some other are doing worst. It's not so hard to understand.
And no, it is not a draw because even if for the killer a 2k means no gain or lost of MMR, there is still 2 survivors who have won and two who lost by how MMR works for them ("4 games are taking place at the same time, 1v1/1/1/1", remember?). A draw for the survivor is the hatch, as the survivor will not lose or gain MMR and not made the killer lose either in that "1v1".
So, no, 50% killrate is the game being survivor sided. Now, with 60% it is 40% on average for both sides = mathematically balanced and that's why BHVR wanted it to be that percentage. Just accept it and stop trying to defend your "killer OP" point by changing and twisting the arguments you'd being using since I started posting in this forum.
1 -
many people forget that this 40% killer winrate comes with constant camping/tunneling.
remove camping and tunneling and killer VR will drop to 20-25% so the real situation of the killers is even worse than many people think
1 -
Ok entitled killer main. 2 out 2 dead means survivors won. ENTITLED! KILLER! MAIN! DETECTED!
Let's go at it from your entitlement perspective. 87.5% escape rate is fair, because 4 out is survivor team win and 1 dead means killer won - he actually got his main objective and killed someone. Survivors lost, because one of their friends died. You would never consider it survivor winning the trial of you or your friend died. Hence 3.5 escapes per game is balanced and everything else means killers are winning more then their fair share (trade mark).
Again. 2 out means 2 lost MMR and 2 got their MMR. In 2 games when this same result happens with 4 same people again but the other 2 got out. Does that compute to you that survivors overall gained ANY MMR? +10 -10>0 ? Or does the math have issues with you? Do you now get it? 60% kill rate means killers are raising their MMR just by playing the game without getting better. On the other side survivors just playing the game the same without getting any worse or any better against same killer will lower their MMR. Because math. Because anything above 50% kill rate would end up in that state. Do you get it now? Or do you require some additional math lessons?
0 -
Sure. Delete camping and tunneling. Make it impossible to do. And then buff killers. I am all for it. Camping and tunneling spoils the game anyway.
1 -
It's not my entitled perspective, is how the MMR works and how BHVR explained it. In terms of MMR, for survivors the game boils down to each survivors playing a single match with the killer, transforming the game from 1v4 to 1v1/1/1/1. This, by design, means some survivors would lose, and some will win, and a single survivor won't be affected by how their friends ended the match. Your use of my "entitled perspective" is not valid because the 4 survivors are not even a team in MMR terms, and the "win" conditions make the game for the killer a 1v4 while for each survivor is a 1v1 against the killer.
The funny thing is you know this, and I know that you know because it was you who told me in first place:
Killer plays 4 games in a single match. For each kill/win he gets, he is awarded some MMR [...] And this is from killer's POW. From survivor's POW it's even clearer. You escape or you don't.
This are your own words a month ago. Now, because it doesn't fit your narrative anymore, you claim that the 4 survivors "are a team" and 2 of 4 dead is not a win for any of them. And you are calling me entitled for saying the same you said because is how things really are... sure dude, you do you.
And for "mathematical facts" to be "fact", the premise of it should be true (and unbiased). You are talking about the same survivors winning and losing in 2 games, while the truth is some survivors would win more times than they lose and more survivors would lose than they win in all their games, same as killers (hence, again, 40% being an AVERAGE). And you can't use "math" as a fact with just two hypothetical cases that as much can be consider "casual happenings", but that can happen whatever the killrate is, as even with 1% killrate a survivor can win a game, lose the next, and have a +0 MMR.
But the best part is "60% means killer rising their MMR without getting better"... again, looking at what you said when I said to you "Agains who killers are getting that 60% killrate?":
Against 5% of best players. What it means is killer is able to win against tryhards (who can become 5% best without trying? So no. It's not against babies. Only if you say more then 97.5% of survivors are babies - which would also indicate that the game is in a bad spot if virtually nobody can become at least average good)
Conclusion: Your "math lesson" proves nothing, and the fact is the game is balanced now in terms of MMR as killers are winning on average the exact same as survivors. There is nothing more to say.
2 -
I did not change my narative. I don't have to. If you play more games, statistics will take care of it the same way as if "survivors were team". Sure they are not. But it changes nothing. My hypothetical case would become exact case if you do enough tries. If you have 1% chance to escape, then sure you can escape the next game. But odds are you will not escape next 99 matches. Those are the stats. That's that 60% kill rate. It means you as a survivor will die 3 out of 5 games. This will happen to you if you are 5% of best players (61% kill rate) or just a totally random player (59% kill rate).
But I see a little hint that you are starting to get it. Killer is unlikely to loose. Where survivors just win or loose, killer will take part of his looses and make them draws. And you in your entitled mind call that fair. But given that stats say draw is actually rare thing, this means killers are mostly winning and sometimes loosing with rare draw game. So again - killers ARE OP. 60% kill rate is NOT fair. Especially from MMR's pow. Because getting +20 in game 1 (4k) and -10 (1k) nets into MMR raise. Given what you said above you know this, but you choose to ignore it just to defend your free kills - which makes you informed entitled killer main.
0 -
If people want both sides to 50% of the time, the killer has to kill more than 50% of survivors on average.
This 60% KR = 60% win rate is ignoring the fact that a true win is a 3K-4K for the killer as a 2K is a draw.
1 -
You are ignoring draws as that is impossible to do as survivor.
To illustrate the point better - it would very much change if I said both sides should loose as often as the other side. Because in 50% kill rate killers would loose 40% of times and survivors 50% of times making killer just easier and have their losses unfairly removed - so we need 60% escape rate so both sides loose the game same amount. (This ignores the fact, that draws are actually rare).
So again - you can't just bundle draws into looses and call it a fair thing. Draws are actually much better and more satisfying then looses (obviously) - making it much more enjoyable to play killer then just constantly loosing as a survivor. So no. You can't just say let's match wins on both sides and be happy about it.
0 -
Survivors can draw with the changes to the mmr system that makes you loss or gain mmr based on the number of survivors who escaped.
0 -
This is a reminder to please keep all comments, especially ones where we do not agree, respectful and civil. Thank you!
0
