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!
DbD Consultant program
Comments
-
I agree this consultant program doesn’t really benefit anyone. Also I hate to sound really negative and rude, but I think it’s a waste of money and resources. I mean I’m sorry I just really don’t agree with some of chosen consultants cause I feel like some of them had made questionable choices and decisions. But I will also say that they are trying to fix that issue. And add more experience players to also help out. Also sorry for contradicting myself but I do hope that they will straighten things out.
1 -
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. I'm glad to hear that this has been a thing since (near) release.
This is the type of thing I'd love to be a part of personally. Here's hoping I might be one day.
Why was the decision to make it public made after all these years, out of curiosity?
0 -
I don't think anything is going to change with the program. BHVR has a long history of doing things that either nobody was asking for, or making and keeping changes in the game way too long despite overwhelming negative feedback. I really have no hope that these types of things aren't going to happen anymore, or even happen less frequently. Just look at what happened recently with the boosted maps that nearly everyone hates. BHVR specifically implemented the map prevention feature to NOT have the same maps over and over again based on community feedback showing that people don't like playing the same maps repeatedly, and then in mind-boggling fashion they think that boosted maps (sending people to RPD sometimes 6, 7, 8 times in a row) is a great idea.
3 -
The Program IS good. And it benefits the Devs and also the players. Because there are some solid people in the program (from what we know).
What might be problematic is making it public, since it might draw negative attention to people who are in it. Sure, everyone can decide for themselves if they want to be open about it, but I have already seen some communities from Streamers questioning why some people are in the program and why their favorite streamer is not in the program.
1 -
This is extremely false. I know people love victimization and fetishize it like crazy but to pretend the devs were insulted in this place where any sort of criticism towards them meets you with quick censorship (the moderators sometimes even edit your comments to make it say whatever they want it to say, extremely creepy thing to do) is ridiculous.
Moderators wouldn't stand it for a second if anything negative was said about any Dev even if the Dev in question does or say questionable things.
So I don't get hwy lie about that like to paint the Devs coming here as victim and evil strawmen insulting them as the reason they left. There are explanations for everything really so no need to lie!
0 -
Like I agree that it's a good thing they have this program but I'm not convince it's making any difference. As we learned this program isn't new, it been around since the beginning. If this true then why did we get things like the twins rework, skull merchant, eruption, ECT? To me it's either because none of the consultants rose questions about these decisions or they did and devs just didn't listen to them. If it's the first then I question the quality of consultants they have hand picked. If it's the 2nd then I have to asked what is the point of even having this program of you not going to listen to the ppl you picked and hired.
Lastly I also agree with you about making this public. In my opinion i haven't seen anything good come from this announcement. In fact I agree alot with Spookyloopz had to say in his stream where he announced he was leaving the fog whisperer program.
1 -
I suspect they felt they didn't have a choice making it public, since there's been alot of pressure lately (notably from content creators) to use them as consults. I guess this was them saying they do in fact have consults.
0 -
Obviously you weren't here then and have no clue what you're speaking about anyone who was around know I'm right, peanitz used to be a regular just like you or me back then on here, the devs used to come out and talk on here alot and respond to engage in conversation and people would troll them and be rude and get banned and make new accounts and come back I'm not lying and I don't care if you believe me or not you're just showing how little you really know by what you're arguing about, those developers are long gone anyways they've left for different projects, not queen, McLean, horvath, almo, etc... the original team we used to speak to is gone besides Mathieu.
2 -
Kinda tosses Fog Whisperers' under the bus, many of them were under the impression the feedback secion in their section of the discord was being looked at and listened to. Especially people like Otz who has put countless hours of his time (along with others) into trying to make the game a healthier spot, even to the detriment of his health at times. What's the point of having these sections when clearly they're being ignored in favour of these consultants? What is the key factor determining your decision making on character profiling? The factors listed are very vague and from what i'm seeing this is a cop out to avoid employing full time staff on a good wage to contribute more meaningfully. There are plenty of qualified people out there who fit these areas listed, and yet they've been hidden from the community instead of being more open as you where in the past, when the game originally was developed.
0 -
On the flipside, Otz has spoken before about how much he hates that he gets the blame for perk nerfs like Scavenger and STBFL. I actually think the people who have put their hands up and said they are a consultant will come to regret it. I think it's great we know about the program but I think Hens, Tofu, Lilith, and anyone else who has said they're a part of it will eventually wish they hadn't.
1 -
I see absolutely no benefit in making information about this program public. In a way it's kind of creating another Us vs Them (Fog Whisperer vs Consultant) scenario.
It's also creating additional avenues of potential harassment, people who are unhappy with some game changes now have additional targets to blame and harass.If X gets implemented which is chastised by most of the community, people will ask the consultants why they didnt speak out about X to the devs.
The consultants would probably reply that they did speak out against X but the devs ignored their feedback. Congratulations, now consultants look like PR figureheads to give off the illusion that the devs engage the community. Sounds like Fog Whisperer in another skin.1 -
I don't worship the devs but there's a huge difference between giving balance ideas and attacking peoples personal character with name calling and overboard comments that just have no business being here, I would rather have a forum where the devs are more active instead of just community banter
Post edited by Rizzo on2 -
I can absolutely confirm what @The_Krapper said, people were VERY rude towards the Devs and very insulting. Even in topics which were not even about balancing. Some Devs were here quite frequently, answering to all kind of topics and I can totally understand that they dont want to use the forum if they answer to some lighthearted fun Thread and someone quotes them, insulting them for something they did.
This has nothing to do with worshipping Devs or anything. But there is a huge difference between telling a Dev in a respectul way that some things they implemented are not really well thought-out and just outright insulting or mocking them without being constructive at all. And the latter happened far too often.
Post edited by Rizzo on7 -
Do you try and represent the different regions in the consultant team? Like Asia, South America, etc? Curious how you are getting takes from those regions were the game is played a lot differently.
1 -
many of them were under the impression the feedback secion in their section of the discord was being looked at and listened to.
what makes you believe they ignore feedback from fog whisperers or even from the community/PTB etc?
the Consultant Program seems to be focused on stuff that’s not been revealed yet at all to get fax beforehand - which may influence some balancing before PTBs or they just use the feedback to compare with the actual feedback later on and already form backup solutions or something.this is just saying that the community will be happy no matter what and find something to complain about or be toxic. Nothing new and nothing that would actually be prevented by not having to program/not having it public..
1 -
I don't see the problem with this. It comes across as a playtester role, which many games already have. It makes sense overall.
At no point has there been anything saying that these people are solely consulted for changes, and Fog Whisperers and regular folk like ourselves also have avenues to give feedback that has evidence to show it was listened to. Fog Whisperers were always primarily advertisers with benefits, but their feedback also would have been considered.
In terms of feedback, if anything the only issue I have is PTBs is solely for PC. Of course I'm sure there's a logistical reason for this, but it's a shame console players aren't involved. At least changes are made after the full release, based on future feedback.
1 -
Of course I'm sure there's a logistical reason for this, but it's a shame console players aren't involved. At least changes are made after the full release, based on future feedback.Steam has a built in beta function for games on its platforms. This is why PTB is not on PC, it's on Steam, not Epic.
1 -
Lol, I don't see any benefits of being fog whisper nowadays. The program does nothing that benefits the streamer imo other than getting a very small number of dlc codes and a few Aura cells which most big streamers don't even need or care for. FW program imo is completely useless and does nothing anymore. Dev themselves haven't done anything for FW for over a year. When was the last time they added new ppl to the FW program? If it helped smaller streamers then sure that's amazing but most FWs are already well-known in the community and those are the ones who usually get picked for events when they happen(I don't even know the last time such an event.) From what I have seen FW only benefits BHVR bc it's free PR and advertisement for them. It does hardly anything for the streamer imo. I think dev undervalues the FW program and doesn't use it well enough. There are a lot of great ppl in the program who want to help out when comes to balance and giving feedback but is largely ignored like Otz and Spookyloopz.
0 -
Bad idea, will backfire.
0 -
So reading all this and the discussion, all I have to say is "cool". And to everything else, all I have to say is "who cares?"
I think we are just starved for content waiting for DnD that were just inventing nothingburger discussions.
Congrats to anyone who got in, and I hope you're able to make a positive influence.
0 -
‘who cares‘ is always such a weird statement. Like.. why even comment if you don’t care 🙄 there is plenty of topics on these forums, guess what I do with thread that have topics I don’t care about?
What influences game decisions regarding balancing etc is something we as a community can care about - I am really happy I started this thread which lead to Peanits shining a bit light on this program and making some things clear.4 -
It's tough to pick people that are "unbiased" as people these days tend to call everyone that disagrees with them bias. Think survivor is weaker and needs buffs? Bias. Think killer is weaker and needs buffs? Bias.
It's nearly where unless you're basically fence sitting and think things are overall pretty good where they're at you're bias. Needless to say most people misuse the word "bias" when throwing it around.
The other tough thing with picking consultants is that people have different views of what the game should be. What skill level should it be balanced around? Competitive? Party game?
Overall even though I disagree with some views that people we know are on the consultant group have about the game I still think this is overall a very good change. I just hope they get a variety of different people with different views on the game and it's not so much an echo chamber of same opinions. People with a good amount of hours in the game as well.
I'm optimistic about the consultants. This is something good for the game.
0 -
So the devs only listen to 1% of total feedback given.
Ok.
1 -
That explains it, thank you.
0 -
That’s not even remotely what’s been explained?
But ok. Haters gonna hate I guess.
0 -
Fog Whisperers did get benefits in the past, but really they were just an advertising platform, even if nowadays it's not looking promising for them.
Although I cannot offer any true understanding of BHVR's recent thoughts on this programme, what I do know is one of the very first Fog Whisperers (HybridPanda) reapplied some time ago for the programme and never heard anything back. He left under personal circumstances and under no shadow, but it was odd they didn't add him back. Maybe BHVR are winding it down, because if they won't allow an original back in - who holds no baggage - it does beg the question of continuation.
2 -
They only listen to consultants but even so they only take some of their feedback and apply it to their game. Where did I say that I'm hating? I'm merely pointing out the facts.
1 -
I think it's fine to have biased people in the program, as long as BHVR picks a wide variety of biased people, so there is a wide variety of opinions.
0 -
I get where you're going with this but I think it's misusing the word bias again per my main point.
Bias means an "unfair" leaning towards one side. Emphasis on the "unfair". IE only wanting buffs for their side because it's what they play. So by what you're saying we'd have one person on each side "unfairly" wanting their side to get better improvements.
What I think you mean is people who mainly play each side for different perspectives, but still aren't biased.
0 -
Slim pickins for posts these days. This new consultation thingy changes quite literally nothing so imo there's no need for me to feel strongly opinionated.
right now there's not much to say about it.
0 -
it’s not even new. Just that members now are allowed to make it public. And still - you don’t need to say anything especially if you say ‚who cares?‘
why would you think they only listen to consultants? That’s just a baseless assumption no facts at all. And assuming it’s is like that is literally kinda hating on BHVR?
bias doesn’t need to be unfair or even negative
0 -
Because people are getting worked up for no reason I'm just being the voice of reason by just chillin
0 -
I usually wouldn’t call someone a ‚voice of reason‘ that joins a discussion saying ‚who cares‘ where people obviously care about the topic. But well.
0 -
As that's "usually" the case, I think it would be unfair to go by exceptions rather than what is usually the case. IE putting so much emphasis on "usually" for small exceptions turns this into an argument of semantics rather than reality.
0 -
No. I'm literally saying it's 100% fine if you get people that are 100% trying to "unfairly" buff the survivor side, if you also get people that are 100% trying to "unfairly" buff the killer side.
The important part is having a variety of opinions, and people that can give detailed explanations for their opinions. For example, If a person can consistently give detailed and thoughtful feedback about their opinions, then it's fine if they only support survivor buffs and killer nerfs. This isn't a court jury, and game decisions aren't decided by popular consultant voting. It's just a way for BHVR to gather opinions and feedback on various topics.
1 -
"No. I'm literally saying it's 100% fine if you get people that are 100%
trying to "unfairly" buff the survivor side, if you also get people that
are 100% trying to "unfairly" buff the killer side."Oh well then I don't really agree with this. I don't want unfair in either direction, I just balanced and rational, unbiased ideas of people from both sides. I don't really want bad opinions on one side as long as the other side also has bad ones. That's just a weird mentality to me. It's like well it's okay if you have an OP perk as long as I get one too. Rather than neither of us get an OP perk and we work towards both sides getting balanced perks.
"For example, If a person can consistently give detailed and thoughtful
feedback about their opinions, then it's fine if they only support
survivor buffs and killer nerfs."I guess I don't really see the use or value in detailed and thoughtful feedback unless it is also rational and balanced, and if it was in fact rational and balanced, then it's no longer biased.
0 -
It's not new, it's apparently been around for years. Dowsey said he used to be a consultant. People wondering who has been a part of it and what, exactly, it's influence has been on the game isn't surprising. At least imo.
0 -
On top of that Peanits even said in this thread it's been around since the game's release. Honestly, with this fact, I am pretty sure nothing major will change bc this program has been around for years and we still got things like SM and the PTB Twins rework. I bet we continue to see BHVRs poor out-of-touch decision-making years to come even with the knowledge of who is in this program.
1 -
A person can give rational and balanced feedback, and still have a major survivor bias.
Words have multiple definitions, and you can’t just pick one part of one definition of one dictionary, and claim all the other uses of the word are invalid.
It is valid for me to use the above definition for the word “bias”, that I got from the Cambridge dictionary.
1 -
I just focus on the most broadly used definition sources as we can find variations of definition interpretations in all directions. We’re just arguing semantics at this point and detracting from the main topic.
0 -
You're doing more than "just focusing on the most broadly used definition". You're telling other people their definitions are invalid, and are demanding for other people to use the one specific definition you want to use. That's really not a good strategy, and can cause a lot of communication problems.
If there is confusion over word definitions, then it's fine to clarify which definitions people are using, to clear the confusion. But it's absolutely not fine to tell other people their definitions are incorrect, if they are still using valid definitions of the word.
1 -
The definitions I’m using are the most used definitions. Finding an off definition that is not the one people typically use does not make my point invalid. My point and definition is still correct. Exceptions don’t make the rule. Your statements of what I said or implied are also exaggerating what I actually said. I’m not “demanding” anything or saying people have to use the definition “I want to use”. I am using the most broadly used definition. I didn’t pick an obscure not often used definition to fit my narrative as you’re implying. You’re making my points sound like I’m being much more aggressive than I actually am. We’re also not going to agree here so I’m trying to drop it so we don’t detract from the topic of the original post at this point.
Post edited by Blueberry on0
