Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on this and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
Get all the details on our forums: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/436478/sign-up-now-to-receive-a-recap-of-your-2024-dead-by-daylight-stats/p1?new=1
How to SOLVE the GAP between SWF & Solo Survivors!
Comments
-
Any idea that involves cross platform play can go screw itself.
0 -
Thank you for your helpful feedback.
0 -
Ok, I am on mobile and auto correct sometimes is crap on the samsung, i also couldn't get on to edit as the mobile site is currently down, I had to go on the desktop site as that is working.
The thing is the game yes was designed without having comms, they always planned to add SWF into the game so that lies on the devs having lack of insight that players would use comms when playing together.
It's as I said it causes imbalances which is due to the information you can have which is not what the game was designed to give.
I dont have a problem with new modes but what I don't agree with is forcing players to leave an option that they have enjoyed playing through no fault of their own due to the devs lack of insight, no one should lose what they have played for three years simply because they want to enjoy it with friends.
The new mode yes allows you to play with friends but you need a full loadout of 5 or you are still paired with random, how exactly would that work? How many solo would play that mode? There are also 3 man and 2 man SWF who can create just as much of a problem to the killer as a 4 man can, its down to the players skill lvl, the reason they have 2,3 and 4 is due to not everyone being able to fill 4 slots so you end up making them play with randoms which may not be enjoyable for them, if you don't include 2 and 3 man then it's not worth the idea since nothing changes as around 40% of the normal game is still on comms.
And that's not even getting into a 2 and 3 man being paired up, who then plays the killer if all of them want to play survivor with friends?
Post edited by twistedmonkey on2 -
The thing is the game yes was designed without having comms, they always planned to add SWF into the game so that lies on the devs having lack of insight that players would use comms when playing together.
Again, what they specifically said was that SWF Mode was intended. Instead SWF was forcefully integrated into the core game, causing DBD to have massive design balance issues. Regardless of whether you choose to believe the developer's words or not, the point is that SWF in itself is unneeded for the core gameplay mechanics in DBD. It's just an extra feature more suited as an expansion.
I dont have a problem with new modes but I don't agree with is forcing players to leave what they have enjoyed playing through no fault of their own due to again the devs lack of insight, no one should lose what they have played for three years due simply because they want to enjoy it with friends.
And the developers should take responsibility by fixing the game to what it was always meant to be. And if that means putting in a mode specifically tailored for balancing SWF, then so be it.
Ultimately though, SWF aren't "losing" anything, except for the advantage they have over their opponents. Survivors are still repairing generators and running from the killer. The killers are still trying to sacrifice 4 survivors. It's the same game that they've been playing for the last 3 years, except it is no longer asymmetrical and therefore they no longer have a massive advantage over the other side. I ask you again, why would they not want to play in this mode?
The new mode yes allows you to play with friends but you need a full loadout of 5 or you are still paired with random, how exactly would that work? How many solo would play that mode? There are also 3 man and 2 man SWF who can create just as much of a problem to the killer as a 4 man can, its down to the players skill lvl, the reason they have 2,3 and 4 is due to not everyone being able to fill 4 slots so you end up making them play with randoms which may not be enjoyable for them, if you don't include 2 and 3 man then it's not worth the idea since nothing changes as around 40% of the normal game is still on comms.
Yes, sometimes you are paired with a random - just like you are forced to right now in 2 SWF or 3 SWF (and you never see them complaining right now, do you?) But in the case of this new mode, so do your opponents - they are just as likely to have randoms as you do. By making the game symmetrical, it is pretty much like any other multiplayer team games with randoms - both sides will sometimes have it. The difference right now is that the killer players don't even have that option. That is the problem.
2 -
Mode doesn't have to mean it was meant to be a whole seperate game type, mode in this instance could easily just be refering to how you join the game, there is no indication that swf was ever meant to be completely seperate by any one, its about the context it was said in, you are making an assumption there.
Not to mention they had the time to do that if they wanted but didn't since it was already delayed to finish it which lends to the argument it wasn't meant to be seperate.
Yes it is on the devs to fix the issue they created but not by removing aspects of the game from some users while leaving it for the rest.
You didn't get my point regarding 2 and 3 man SWF, my point was if they join then who plays the killer out of them? What if no one wants to play killer? Do the devs then make it a random choice? That means friends wanting to play together can't and it removes the choice of playing what side you want to which is a main factor in DBD.
You are blaming the players and wanting them to lose what they enjoy for something the devs did, while I do want swf changed or balancing I beleive it needs to be done in other ways.
The stats they collect should be a factor, a group of friends who constantly win, good at running the killer etc hould be matched with a killer of equal skill or the killer gains buffs against them, killer stats with the amount of 4ks etc also come into it for matchmaking, the whole matchmaking needs overhauled as it means a strong team can play a newer killer and vice versa, this is how I think changes should start to be made and not by removing or forcing players into something they don't want or may not enjoy.
The fact is a lot of complaints are from people not good enough to deal with them and may never be, I sit ing he middle of that bracket as I'm no where near the best but can do well enough, there are players who dont mind the challenge, so is that an issue with them or the game matching them together?
3 -
So instead of givin solos informations and changing and creating things which can be better balanced around this survivor base, you want to change the game completely?
Yea
Im sure the devs will do this :^)
2 -
Mode doesn't have to mean it was meant to be a whole seperate game type, mode in this instance could easily just be refering to how you join the game, there is no indication that swf was ever meant to be completely seperate by any one, its about the context it was said in, you are making an assumption there.
I'm making an assumption?
So let's look at the context. You are telling me that when McLean was talking about SWF and KYF Modes, he was in fact talking about joining lobbies associated to them. You are seriously equating "Modes" and "Lobbies." By your interpretation, when McLean had made that statement I quoted above, he was actually saying:
"The Kill Your Friends [Lobby] and Survive with Friends [Lobby] were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these [Lobbies], before release. And we chose Kill Your Friends." Does that make sense to you? You really believe that McLean was addressing this important topic of "lobbies" of SWF and KYF when he was talking about "modes?"
It seems like you are the one twisting the developers' words to fit your narrow narrative - hopefully it is not on purpose, otherwise it would be pretty disingenuous.
Yes it is on the devs to fix the issue they created but not by removing aspects of the game from some users while leaving it for the rest.
Again, what aspects of the game are SWF missing out on?
You didn't get my point regarding 2 and 3 man SWF, my point was if they join then who plays the killer out of them? What if no one wants to play killer? Do the devs then make it a random choice? That means friends wanting to play together can't and it removes the choice of playing what side you want to which is a main factor in DBD
Choosing which side to play is not "a main factor in DBD." It's not a core mechanic. It's not integral to the gameplay. It is simply a design choice made by the company - one that can easily be altered for a new mode. Nobody wants to play killer? Ok, understandable. But see, there's this thing called turn-taking and compromises. When children first learn to play hide-and-seek or tag (or even roleplaying 'heroes and villains'), they learn that sometimes they can't immediately get the role that they want, so may just have to wait for another time to do so. Hopefully, people who are old enough to play DBD had matured and learned these skills by this point in their lives.
And if I understand NMCKE's mode correctly, playing killer has absolutely nothing to do with not being able to play together. If you are a killer in Team A, then you are still playing with / communicating / coordinating with your survivor-friends in Team A. So what exactly is the problem?
The stats they collect should be a factor, a group of friends who constantly win, good at running the killer etc hould be matched with a killer of equal skill or the killer gains buffs against them, killer stats with the amount of 4ks etc also come into it for matchmaking, the whole matchmaking needs overhauled as it means a strong team can play a newer killer and vice versa, this is how I think changes should start to be made and not by removing or forcing players into something they don't want or may not enjoy.
The fact is a lot of complaints are from people not good enough to deal with them and may never be, I sit ing he middle of that bracket as I'm no where near the best but can do well enough, there are players who dont mind the challenge, so is that an issue with them or the game matching them together?
You apparently do not fully seem to understand why SWF is unbalanced. It's not because SWF is too strong or too "challenging." If that were the case, then killers simply need to be buffed until SWF are not. The problem is the fact that SWF is intrinsically different from Solos due to the amount of information they are able to acquire. Therefore when balancing killers, it is impossible to balance for both SWF and solos. That's why SWF is a problem - it has nothing to do with 'a group of friends who constantly win' or the individual skill level of players. No matter how much correction you make to the matchmaking (and I do agree with you that matchmaking does need an overhaul, but for other reasons), the killer will always be unbalanced due to the fact they would continue to waver between SWF and Solo in the current state of the game.
1 -
Yes I can say it is an assumption on your part as when this came about McLean was referencing the current game, no where did he say it would be a complete seperate lobby (you changed it from mode) which does not enter the normal game like KYF, I can also say that as using some common sense shows that no matter how much you want to beleive it the so called lobby you desperately want to believe it as a whole seperate game would not have worked with a 3 man SWF as that needs one solo player, the only way to make that work is to mix the userbase.
Do you know that when you solo queue you join into a lobby? When you play swf you simply join an invite lobby first before joining the game lobby, it's not rocket science.
Being able to chose your role IS a main factor of why some people bought the game, it being a core mechanic are just one in the same one in that context, you are still missing the whole point, yes some may take turns and enjoy it but forcing players who may not want to is not what should be done just because they want to play with friends, it's major change to what they bought the game to do, if you can't understand that after this time Its a lost cause trying to get you to see it.
Of course I understand what swf is not balanced, I have stated so many times in numerous posts since the forum appeared, what you ceant seem to get past and bring in irrelevant arguments is the fact I am not arguing something needs done, I am arguing against this idea as removing aspects of the game people purchased while others aren't is not how I beleive it should be done.
It does actually have a lot to do with skill, If you can't understand that a group of really good solo players can be better that a group of swf well that's on you and your knowledge of the game, information can make it alot easier but it does not mean those players can be good enough to give the othes the time to do gens, if a solo runs a killer for 3 mins while 4 members of an swf can't run them for longer than 30 seconds what set of players will do better?
Post edited by twistedmonkey on3 -
I can't see how banning SWF and shoving them into a separate game mode is any more perfect than improving balance as we have now.
5 -
Yes I can say it is an assumption on your part as when this came about McLean was referencing the current game, no where did he say it would be a complete seperate lobby (you changed it from mode) which does not enter the normal game like KYF, I can also say that as using some common sense shows that no matter how much you want to beleive it the so called lobby you desperately want to believe it as a whole seperate game would not have worked with a 3 man SWF as that needs one solo player, the only way to make that work is to mix the userbase.
You are the one that claimed "Mode" was being referenced to how players join the game. To me, "how players join the game" would be through the lobby, ergo, I thought you are saying that McLean is discussing 'lobbies' when he stated, "SWF Mode and KYF Mode." Glad we both agree that it would be absolutely ludicrous for him to be talking about how players join the game when talking about "modes."
So let's try this again. I'm asking again: When McLean made the comment, "The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes, before release. And we chose Kill Your Friends," why did he specifically mention "Mode?"
Be very short, concrete, and concise in your answer. And please proof-read first. I don't want to read a bunch of run-on sentences any more that make me waste time trying to decipher what you mean.
Being able to chose your role IS a main factor of why some people bought the game, it being a core mechanic are just one in the same one in that context, you are still missing the whole point, yes some may take turns and enjoy it but forcing players who may not want to is not what should be done just because they want to play with friends, it's major change to what they bought the game to do, if you can't understand that after this time Its a lost cause trying to get you to see it.
If being able to choose a role is the MAIN reason they bought the game, and not the hide-and-seek, nor the horrific atmosphere, nor the thrill of a chase, nor the excitement of being a hunting killer, nor the hidden movement/time management, nor the one-vs-many aspect of the game, then perhaps they bought the wrong game. Might as well go buy a fighting game where you are assured that you can pick your own character. Ridiculous.
Repeatedly saying "Just because they want to play with friends" isn't a free pass to get everything their way. If people want to play with their friends in a game that revolves around hidden information/movement, then they would have to follow certain rules and guidelines just like everyone else. If one of them is that they are restricted to their own mode, then that's just how it is.
Of course I understand what swf is not balanced, I have stated so many times in numerous posts since the forum appeared, what you ceant seem to get past and bring in irrelevant arguments is the fact I am not arguing something needs done, I am arguing against this idea as removing aspects of the game people purchased while others aren't is not how I beleive it should be done.
I don't see you proposing any better idea than what NMCKE has done in the OP. To me, it seems like you are continuously nitpicking at his idea, moving the goalposts one by one, such as 1. comparing it to KYF Mode, 2. being paired with random players, 3. not being on the same team (untrue).
All of this just so that you can keep the status quo and SWF can keep playing the same way they have been. You say that you understand the imbalance of SWF, yet you've yet to propose a better solution.
It does actually have a lot to do with skill, If you can't understand that a group of really good solo players can be better that a group of swf well that's on you and your knowledge of the game, information can make it alot easier but it does not mean those players can be good enough to give the othes the time to do gens, if a solo runs a killer for 3 mins while 4 members of an swf can't run them for longer than 30 seconds what set of players will do better?
This argument has always been flawed. Just because 4 good solo players can bring the same result as a 4 good SWF players doesn't mean they are the same. If one student gets a 100% on a test by studying (and with some luck) and another student gets a 100% on the same test by paying off the teacher for the answer sheet, are the two students on equal grounds? Of course not. The first student did what he was supposed to and got that result. The second student got information he shouldn't have from an outside source and got that result. The only problem that needs to be corrected here is the second student. But, you say, what if the second student couldn't even remember everything off the answer sheet and do worse than the first student? Doesn't matter - the problem still remains with the second student. It's the same with this game.
0 -
step 1: remove swf (game was never designed or balanced for this, this should not exist)
step 2: have incremental timeouts for dodging lobbies resulting in 24 hour ban if you dodge 3 in a row
done.
0 -
Yes as like other things you took that out of context, to me if swf was meant to be a seperate game type that could never be joined by solo and balanced differently it would be a seperate mode not just a lobby, when I asked about who said it was meant to be you replied.
McLean:
"The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes, before release. And we chose Kill Your Friends
So it seems you changed the wording to suit your narative as mode and lobby are entirely two different things, why not simply quote McLean and say lobby?
Did you honestly wrote that thinking it was a solid argument? Seriously why would you even think they would buy it just to play one side and not for the ACTUAL gameplay, you are digging a hole with that argument as the it's a rather silly one, of course they bought it to play the hide and seek, the thrill of the chase etc etc but they also bought it to play with friends, that is their choice and how it is advertised as a co-op game, this idea removes that unless you have a full loadouts of players, if they wanted to verse them friends there is the KYF mode for that.
Did I ever say I had a better idea? You obviously dont understand that its not nitpicking to bring up a counter argument, you know this is what is used when someone doesn't agree with someone idea, many ideas have been stated over the years and all of them so far have had a counter argument as to why it wouldnt work or is not fair on the player, I wanted SWF to be nerfed for a long time and it was only after people making counter arguments as why it wasnt a good idea, I get it you like the idea but that doesn't mean it's a good one or fair.
Again another silly argument, that analogy is not comparable to this situation and if you can't see why then I dont really know what to say.
In any game personal skill comes into play, you could have a full team of players on comms in any fps and they lose to another set of players not on comms, that is due to them simply not being as good, how does that not make any sense to you? Are you doing it on purpose as you have no real counter to it? Not all set are good at the game it's simple, a really good coordinated SWF will always be better than solos but as peanits said that is not the majority of cases and why they don't want to nerf swf as casuals do play the game for fun and not to tryhard.
2 -
First of all, please stop using commas in place of periods. Use capitalization when starting a new thought process. Have you never been taught these basic concepts? Or are you doing this purposely to obscure the discussion? Look at your very first sentence. Does it even make sense to you?
Just in case you are actually being sincere and they are honest mistakes, here's a link to learn more about run-on sentences. It should provide you with enough tools to help me decipher what you are trying to say.
https://grammarist.com/grammar/run-on-sentences/
Now, back to the topic.
So it seems you changed the wording to suit your narative as mode and lobby are entirely two different things, why not simply quote McLean and say lobby?
Because the actual word in McLean's quote was "Mode" and "Modes." It was never "Lobby." I inserted the word "lobby" in place of "mode" to show you how ridiculous it sounded. Because YOU stated, "mode in this instance could easily just be refering to how you join the game." Do you remember saying that? Ok, now, explain to me in short, concise sentences what you meant by that.
of course they bought it to play the hide and seek, the thrill of the chase etc etc but they also bought it to play with friends
Good news! Even with this new mode, they can still play with their friends! For some reason, you seem to keep thinking they can't. Provide me with a specific example of when you and your friend can't play with each other on this mode.
Did I ever say I had a better idea? You obviously dont understand that its not nitpicking to bring up a counter argument, you know this is what is used when someone doesn't agree with someone idea, many ideas have been stated over the years and all of them so far have had a counter argument as to why it wouldnt work or is not fair on the player
So you spend your time just attempting to poke holes in other people's ideas and solutions to problems, and yet don't contribute anything to the solution yourself. Gotcha. Moving on.
Again another silly argument, that analogy is not comparable to this situation and if you can't see why then I dont really know what to say.
Heeey, right back at ya!
it's simple, a really good coordinated SWF will always be better than solos but as peanits said that is not the majority of cases and why they don't want to nerf swf as casuals do play the game for fun and not to tryhard
Are you saying that because majority of the SWF players are casuals, the game should be balanced around them? Then let me quote you what I have said to Peanits in a previous conversation:
I hear this ("friends that are just having fun") argument often, and it never sits well with me. For any other game, if I am playing against an opponent of equal skill and he/she is trying their best to beat me with their focus 100% on the game, and I am on my phone casually talking with a friend about things that are completely unrelated to the game "for fun", my expectation would be for my opponent to beat me every time. If people are purposely playing in a way that distracts them from the core basis of the game, why should they have a chance of winning against opponents who are putting in their all? Why should any game be balanced for the players who don't appreciate the game mechanics enough to put all of their effort into their gameplay, but instead are making their "own fun?"
0 -
"Good news! Even with this new mode, they can still play with their friends! For some reason, you seem to keep thinking they can't. Provide me with a specific example of when you and your friend can't play with each other on this mode."
When you both want to play regular DBD without this 5v5 crap.
Also you keep bringing up this mode thing. But you seem to forget that SWF is referred to as a mode in the same way that KYF is. However the actual gameplay of KYF is identical to just normal, so clearly it isn't the gameplay that makes them a mode.
It's more like how other games have a ranked mode and casual mode. They don't have mechanical differences, and so you would never say that you should change one without doing the same change to the other. However they are both considered different modes despite that.
KYF and SWF are like that. Different modes despite having identical mechanics.
So no. You can't fully solve the SWF issue. This game type just makes SWF much more tedious to do for anyone impatient. Not something that actually solves the issue. People don't need the SWF button to get access to a group chat. Even if you instabanned everyone who dodges players have a pregame chat where a discord link could be sent. And even if you removed that players can send it directly through steam. If someone is determined enough then they WILL get access to VC.
The only games I know of that successfully prevent 3rd party comms among teammates are games with hidden alignments, since trying to get an advantage that way could easily backfire.
2 -
So, if my idea won't work, how else would you completely solve the SWF problem?
0 -
When you both want to play regular DBD without this 5v5 crap.
So why would you want to play the standard mode over 5v5?
But you seem to forget that SWF is referred to as a mode in the same way that KYF is. However the actual gameplay of KYF is identical to just normal, so clearly it isn't the gameplay that makes them a mode.
Actually, that is exactly my point. SWF is referred to as a mode in the same way that KYF is. We obtained a separate mode called KYF that allows friends to play together. However, we never got a separate mode called SWF that allowed friends to play together. It was instead forcefully integrated into the main mode, taking away the place of just solos and killers, and thereby creating the whole balancing problem.
People don't need the SWF button to get access to a group chat. Even if you instabanned everyone who dodges players have a pregame chat where a discord link could be sent. And even if you removed that players can send it directly through steam. If someone is determined enough then they WILL get access to VC.
What I wrote about that subject in the previous page:
For those types of people who want to keep their advantages in the standard mode despite having a mode specifically made for them, I would change the standard mode lobby a little bit so that it is individualized - so in this new lobby, the survivors can't see the other survivors (or their usernames.) Stagnate the initiation of the load-in to the maps (though they will all arrive at the same time.) The UI for the survivors' names are replaced with numbers or letters. If these types of people DCs once they load onto the map and find that they are on different maps, and they do this often (and most likely they would have to), then they will be banned from the game as usual, especially after the dedicated server come into play. Given that they have this new mode that are balanced more fairly just for them, that is the minimal punishment I think they would deserve.
0 -
Unfortunately I doubt Sony would allow cross platform play.
0 -
Sony allowed it for Fortnite, and it involves aiming. Dead by Daylight doesn't really require aim since the game is mostly movement based. So, really, I don't see why Sony wouldn't support cross platform capability for Dead by Daylight.
0 -
True
0 -
You know when you have to result to belittling or trying to insult someone it generally means you are frustrated and have no real argument left, it's not how adults tend to conduct a discussion.
Let me explain once again and I will see if it sinks in this time......I used the word mode in reference to the op's idea as I see it as a new game mode, when McLean is talking about it and referencing it as a mode you yet again are taking it way out of context, I can see why you are so invested as it was your question but he went on to explain that it is 2018 and they always wanted to let the players play with friends, no where does he state it was ever meant to be a whole seperate game mode, it is why your whole argument on that is mute and rather silly, I will say my it again you are assuming with no proof to state otherwise.
I already gave example but just in case your having trouble with it, a 2 man and 3 man join the lobby, no one want to be killer so the only option is auto chose or it could be an indefinite wait (that's not hard to see happening since players sat for hour the hatch) the game choses and one person cannot play what they want or with thier friends, is that clearer for you?
There are other examples but I'm not going to list them all for you, it's time to think outside the box and take off the jaded glasses.
All you stated here is you have no counter to my point, I have came up with ideas in the past like I stated, like this one I accepted they weren't in the best interest of the players who would be affected.
I never said anything of the sort but another assumption seems the norm from you, casual does not mean not screwing around that's a common misconception, casual simple means people playing the game for fun and not taking it overly seriously as they arent that good, it does not mean the dont try to do there best.
You will see these players at the end game chat saying GG even if they die first, are camped, don't get a kill etc, it's the competative ones who are generally who are toxic.
You wrote that to peanits but the one thing you failed to realise is this is not your game, it is not up to you to decide that the devs vision is wrong, the devs have stated many times they want the game to be fun, that is the most used word from them, not esports competative or balanced around the 1%, fun plain and simple, maybe the problem isn't with the game or the devs but the players like yourself who seem to want it to be something it will never be and come to the forum screaming I want over and over like a toddler in an ice cream shop.
0 -
If the regular game mode is fun, then the second mode will be fun as well since it's identical! You're literally doing the same thing by doing generators, getting unhooks, cleasing totems, etc etc etc... but just in a symmetric way. In no way my idea is perfect, but it does balance SWF perfectly.
"Now, what about adding built-in perks and mechanics to bring solo survivors up to SWF level?"
That can work, but having too much information can ruin the atmosphere of the game.
0 -
Completely? Giving solo's VC of course.
Obviously that's a non-answer given the devs stance on the matter. And just saying "more information for solo's" is too vague to address.
So first things first. We aren't really trying to address VC itself, but rather the mechanical advantage it gives players causing them to be boosted. However, the coordination factor through communicating plans directly is NOT problematic. That isn't to say that plans aren't useful, just that you can have a balanced game where only a subset of the population is properly coordinating like that.
However this isn't nearly as true for the raw data aspect.
Anyways I propose 3 changes (I have proposed them before btw):
1: Survivors will have an icon somewhere stating what action they are doing at the moment. This can show: Nothing, rescuing, healing, being healed, repairing, sabotaging, cleansing a totem or opening a chest. When the action ends it will flash if the action was fully completed and will simply change back to the nothing state without flashing otherwise. So for example you could know if a hook has been 99%ed vs fully sabotaged.
2: Survivors will know if another survivor is in the Killers terror radius or in a chase with the Killer. The chase thing is just like for the obsession, so this has been proven the be doable without ruining the atmosphere.
3: Survivors within 24 meters of a hooked survivor will have their aura revealed to the other survivors
Important things to note about this is that:
A: All of these pieces of information are things that are extremely easy to communicate quickly. This is unlike exact location which will often be hard to describe in a pinch.
B: These are the most immediately relevant pieces of information for preforming you own action. This lets you know if you are safe to do your objective. Do you know where the Killer is? Doesn't matter, he's busy so wherever he is you're safe to do what you're doing, and if he's not busy then you'll know to be on your guard
C: None of this information would be unknown to everyone otherwise. You already know if you are in the Killer's terror radius, you already know if you are near a hooked survivor and you already know what you are currently doing. So none of this provides an advantage of SWF players.
D: This is enough information to make informed cooperative plays even without VC assistance. You want to distract the Killer so someone else can make a hook save? You'll know that they are in position to make the save and they will know you are in a chase distracting the Killer. Will they know it's your plan? Who know's who cares, it's enough information to capitalize on.
E: It pushes players to do the right thing. You are far more likely to start doing gens if you see that no one else is. And you will know if the Killer is camping a hooked survivor in order to punish it, or that he isn't and you should rescue them. You even get told if there is no one in position for the save pushing you to be that person. Kindred does it better of course, but it still counts for something
Does this perfectly solve everything? Obviously not. But it's far better than just trying to push them out of the game. And it minimizes the use of things aura to solve problems, so even if it is a lot of information it likely wouldn't feel that way in practice.
If all of these changes were implemented it would be very hard to tell the difference between a SWF group and Solo's. And at that point we've done enough.
1 -
You know when you have to result to belittling or trying to insult someone it generally means you are frustrated and have no real argument left, it's not how adults tend to conduct a discussion.
I have no intention of belittling you, especially if you are not doing it on purpose. Your run-on sentences makes it literally very difficult for me to understand what you are saying, and that's how these miscommunication keep occurring. Neither one of us wants that, correct? So can you please make an attempt to keep all of your sentences from being a run-on, and I will do the same? This last post of yours was a bit more comprehensible, so I appreciate that.
no where does he state it was ever meant to be a whole seperate game mode, it is why your whole argument on that is mute and rather silly, I will say my it again you are assuming with no proof to state otherwise.
So again, I ask you, "Why did he specifically mention 'mode'? What did he mean by "SWF Mode?"
I already gave example but just in case your having trouble with it, a 2 man and 3 man join the lobby, no one want to be killer so the only option is auto chose or it could be an indefinite wait (that's not hard to see happening since players sat for hour the hatch) the game choses and one person cannot play what they want or with thier friends, is that clearer for you?
In a case of 2-man and 3-man joining a lobby and no one wants to play killer, sure, someone would have to be the grown up and play the killer. Like I said earlier, most of us learn 'turn-taking' and 'compromises' when we are children, so hopefully it's not an issue for adults playing this game. But once one of them chooses killer, the rest are the same. In fact, the killer-player can share information about the opposing team with his/her survivor friends and vice versa. So to answer the question of whether they can or can't play together in this mode, the answer would be 'yes, they can play together.'
casual simple means people playing the game for fun and not taking it overly seriously as they arent that good
If the casual player is not taking the game seriously, and facing against an opponent who is taking it seriously and putting 100% of their effort in, why should the casual player have as much a chance of winning as that opponent?
If the casual player just isn't that good, facing against an opponent who is good, why should the casual player have as much a chance of winning as that opponent?
How exactly do you believe this game should be balanced?
You wrote that to peanits but the one thing you failed to realise is this is not your game, it is not up to you to decide that the devs vision is wrong
You're absolutely right; it's not my game. But developers have listened to us before on some topics, and will probably continue to listen. That's why we are all contributing by voicing our opinions and giving feedback, correct? My hope is that they will eventually do what I believe is the correct course of action in regards to the SWF problem (which obviously differs from yours).
players like yourself who seem to want it to be something it will never be and come to the forum screaming I want over and over like a toddler in an ice cream shop.
...soooo who is belittling whom?
Also, @NMCKE , if I am misrepresenting your mode (or you) in some way, please feel free to correct me and let me know. I also apologize for seemingly taking over your thread - if you prefer that I stop posting so that others may feel more comfortable jumping in, I don't mind doing that also.
0 -
If voice comms are needed and you help a killer out while pitted against not only a killer but other survivors then it is a completely different game mode, fixing gens or being chased it's not just 4 friends playing dbd you are also playing with randoms which many don't like to do.
Now If you join as a 2 man and 3 man, even a 4 man and 1 solo then one person needs to be the killer, that means it removes a choice from someone which they have right now.
Do you think that is right? To remove that choice?
I dislike swf on comms but at the same time I disagree with removing and option they have right now for simply using what the devs allow.
As for bringing solo up I don't beleive it can be done, nothing can close that gap as with comms you can adapt 9n the fly and coordinate.
How do they fix it? I honestly don't see how they can at this point and probably why as of late they haven't done much about it.
1 -
I agree and I like how thought out your suggestion is.
I just want to add that DBD can mimic how other games tackle the solo vs party play differentiation. This includes asymmetrical team games, multiplayer horror games, and even completely unrelated genres like MMOs. Every game has a way of bringing players together and encouraging teamwork, without resorting to idolizing solo players and ostracizing parties.
People need to accept that DBD is a multiplayer game. The rigid isolated solo experience has been dead since launch. It is optional and it will stay optional.
2 -
How many streams have you watched? The devs constantly say the wrong words when referencing the game and situations, they are Canadian and some are very much from the french side and don't speak English that well, the words used don't have to mean something so specific, it's ll about the context it was used in and what he said afterwards.
Now if he had stated that swf was never meant to be mixed with solo that would be something but as I pointed out that could never work with a 3 man swf, the fact they included that says they intended to mix them with solos.
Now you see my point that it would be forcing someone to play something they do not wish too, it's not about being grown up that's not entirely fair, it's about playing something you may not find fun.
How many times have you read these forums and players from both sides state they don't enjoy playing the other?
Imagine if the devs decided to remove the option to chose sides and the killer was always chosen at random from the 5 players who joined, how would that make you feel?
If you enjoyed playing killer and hated survivor gameplay and now have a 1 in 5 chance, I couldn't see that going down well.
Because it's a game, the mistake people make is they think it's meant to be highly competative, it is competative but as the devs say they want it to be fun, this should be evident with them trying to remove strats which are a more competative nature like tunnelling and camping.
The whole emblem system as well promotes screwing around to rank up which also lends to the above.
Our opinions do differ, as I said I used to be like yourself and thought that punishing swf was the way to go but then I realised they are just gamers playing a game with what the devs gave them.
That is why oo force a new game mode onto people that differs from the original is not the way to go.
I wasn't belittling you directly I was making an analogy as to this forum and its users which can be like that at times.
There are a lot of people who simply come here as they want the game moulded to their vision and think the devs dont have a clue all the while trying to tell them how it should be done.
2 -
I like your idea, but I worry that extra information can ruin the atmosphere of the game. I mean, Dead by Daylight is all about the unknown and how to make a good situation out of a bad one. With your changes, despite closing the gap as much as possible, it won't save the core mechanics of the game. Sure mine doesn't either, but you can still play the old game mode and have that experience (just without your friends, like it's supposed to be).
0 -
If a solo player joins, they can expect to be the killer because well, they are the only person who won't be separated by their friends. Even if it was a 3 man SWF with a 2 man SWF, you're still playing with your friends, since you're the team killer. You're still going to have a good time, and that's what matters, everyone is having a good time.
I don't mind :)
0 -
Well obviously it doesn't solve the core mechanics of the game. That's not what these suggestions are setting out to do in the first place. And I highly doubt they will ruin the atmosphere as much as you think they would simply because of how out of the way it all is. Does the obsession icon mess with the atmosphere? What about the perk bond or kindred? What I described may sound like a lot, and mechanically it is, but in terms of the atmosphere it's impact really comes down to representation more than anything.
Fundamentally though, your answer is to the problem is a non-answer, since the issue is VC in general, which is not actually limited to just people who click the SWF button.
1 -
This is where we differ in opinion.
You are communicating with friends but as a killer You are not directly playing with them.
I will give another example, If solo is needed to join for a four man then what happens if its a 3 man and 2 solos join?
Say both of those solo players are killer mains and have no interest in playing survivor, one gets picked as killer so the other has to play survivor or leave.
I would say in that scenario most would leave, it has been tested and happened in the game that was dubbed the dbd killer.
Personally I think it creates more issues than it fixes, you may have the problem with the normal queue that the devs stated happened, players keep leaving until matched with friends like in the beta and when the game first launched pre the swf lobby.
You are also less in control of your own pip as its in part dependant on how well a possible random person playing as killer does.
The emblems do need fixed as the above is an issue right now to be fair.
It means killers have a choice to play the normal game versus solo's or with and against teams of players on comms so in theory It could cause really long queue times for killers in either game mode.
So incentives may be needed to entice users to play one.
To be honest anything you give to draw players away could then make the one game mode less attractive and in the end it's akin to adding in comms to the normal game without all the extra work.
I dont think the idea of a new game mode is bad, it could be quite a nice change for some players but I also dont know if the userbase size would be able to sustain the split.
I still dont think forcing it upon half the userbase only is a good idea.
Post edited by twistedmonkey on2 -
The devs constantly say the wrong words when referencing the game and situations, they are Canadian and some are very much from the french side and don't speak English that well
McLean has never seemed like he had difficulty speaking English, so why would you suddenly bring that up? You are choosing to dismiss what he has said because "they are Canadian and some are very much from the French side and don't speak English that well", despite the fact that there is nothing that substantiate that kind of claim. It just seems like you simply don't want to take him at his word.
Now if he had stated that swf was never meant to be mixed with solo that would be something but as I pointed out that could never work with a 3 man swf, the fact they included that says they intended to mix them with solos.
The SWF Mode that they had originally intended to put in the beginning (but never did) does not have to have excluded solos. It could have been a simple mode where a solo could have jumped in if the queue was high in the standard mode, being fully aware that they are going to most likely be paired with SWF players. Of course, all of this being in the initial planning phase, way before the developers realized that they would have had to re-balance the entire SWF mode for killers. Given how that would take more time than what the community was willing to give them, they scrapped the idea and just mashed it into the core mode. Just a speculation on my part, but the context fits, and seems more reasonable to me than claiming that McLean misspoke because he's Canadian.
Now you see my point that it would be forcing someone to play something they do not wish too, it's not about being grown up that's not entirely fair, it's about playing something you may not find fun.
The thing is, when you are with friends, you may sometimes do things that you yourself may not particularly find fun. You may sometimes end up playing a game with them that you may have already burnt out on. You may end up going to a restaurant or the bar with them, despite not particularly wanting to eat or drink (or spend the money for it). You may go see a two hour movie that you don't much care for, despite the fact that the movie you are actually looking forward to watching is playing right next door. You may do all of this because you simply want to socialize and hang out with your friends and want to take part in what they are excited for - that's what friends do for each other. You are simply putting your friends over your own enjoyment, and hopefully they are also willing to replicate that for you. That's part of life.
So someone making mountains out of molehills out of who plays what role in a videogame match which only lasts about 10 minutes seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Are they even really friends if they can't even work that out?
Because it's a game, the mistake people make is they think it's meant to be highly competative, it is competative but as the devs say they want it to be fun, this should be evident with them trying to remove strats which are a more competative nature like tunnelling and camping.
You should understand that games themselves are usually not designed for competitiveness or casualness. People can play the same games competitively or casually, but ultimately what makes a good game is its balance and mechanics, not how "fun" someone finds it to be. Chess, for example, may be viewed by many people to be competitive, but it can also be played casually between friends. Same with Scrabble, Poker, Magic the Gathering, etc. This holds true for most 'versus' games. And on the subject of "fun" - the fact of the matter is, "fun" is very subjective, differing from person to person, based more often on their own background and history. What one person finds fun may be woefully boring to another. That's why you often see vastly different opinions on videogames/boardgames reviews and recommendations. So yes, the developers should attempt to make the game fun, but not at the cost of its balance or their core vision of the game - because ultimately, some in the community may find that the change has instead made the game much less fun while destroying the balance of the game.
Our opinions do differ, as I said I used to be like yourself and thought that punishing swf was the way to go but then I realised they are just gamers playing a game with what the devs gave them.
Again, I don't see NMCKE's mode as a punishment to SWF because there's nothing inferior about the mode. In fact, it's a superior mode for SWF plays due to the fact that it's more team-oriented.
1 -
Say both of those solo players are killer mains and have no interest in playing survivor, one gets picked as killer so the other has to play survivor or leave.
Well that's just bad luck on them, if they really wanted to play killer then they should had queue up as a killer in the regular mode.
You are also less in control of your own pip as its in part dependant on how well a possible random person playing as killer does.
The emblems do need fixed as the above is an issue right now to be fair.
This was always the case in Dead by Daylight, my mode wouldn't change that unfortunately. Wait a second... voice comms can help randoms communicate with their team, so maybe it does help that problem just a little.
Personally I think it creates more issues than it fixes, you may have the problem with the normal queue that the devs stated happened, players keep leaving until matched with friends like in the beta and when the game first launched pre the swf lobby.
Punish dodging, there will be a fair system that would detect if you're dodging just to dodge.
I dont think the idea of a new game mode is bad, it could be quite a nice change for some players but I also dont know if the userbase size would be able to sustain the split.
That's why we have cross platform capability so we can sustain the split. Also, with Dead by Daylight hitting a new peak of around ~70,000 players due to the game becoming free to play. Cross platform capability would likely group everyone into roughly 150,000 players. 10% of 150,000 players is 15,000... not accounting solo players, that should be enough to support the new game mode.
Overall, we both can't be sure about what will actually happen. My mode might work, or you might be right and it fails miserably. Our argument can't really be solved until it's tested on the PTB.
0 -
McLean is on of the better speakers but that doesn't mean he is infallible to mistakes, it's just a word he used and without him explaining it exactly it can be taken multiple ways, you chose to see it differently than myself.
If you are taking him at his word then all he confirmed is that swf was meant to be in the game from the start, not once did he say it was meant to be a complete seperate entity and not mixed in with the solo player base.
I don't know how you can get that idea from what he said as even KYF is the same game but the one thing different is a friend plays killer.
You are still assuming that they always intended it to be a complete seperate mode with no proof what so ever, they may well had had a discussion about swf but let me point another thing out, the devs did not think the game would be as successful as it was so why would they split the userbase?
What you wrote is pure speculation and in the end the fact is swf is mixed into the normal game so that fact says more than all your assumptions, I never said he misspoke, I said it may have been a mistake in the context that he was meaning.
He may not be aware of how it may be taken by some due to english not being his first language.
Again with the pointless analogies, each one of them is not comparable to this situation as you are still in the same place as your friend doing exactly the same thing, your are together and can share what you have with them.
How your movie analogy would work is, you went to with a friend to a movie theatre that you had visited numerous times but now upon turning up there was another group of three, there is only four spaces so they gave them to the group of three and you and your friend had to either see the movie seperately in different screens or try another theatre.
It does not matter what you think about how to balance any game, the devs are balancing in a way they see fit and the game has been successful doing it their way, you may not agree with it but in the end it's not for you to say it's right or wrong, it is not your game to mould into how you want it.
Do you remember McLean being quoted for saying "who ever said the game was meant to be balanced"?
If you remove an aspect of the game where they no longer have 100% choice of what role they play from someone while others get to keep it simply because they play with friends that they have always done then yes it's a punishment in essense for doing so.
You may like it but others may not, what makes your opinion more valid than theirs?
I never used the word inferior, I've enliven stated its not a bad idea I just don't think it would work out that well.
0 -
Then if no killers play it a group with only 4 man need a solo players, what if that solo player hates killer and just want to play a mode with comms, what if all the other 4 also hate playing killer?
That's the issue people will end up just leaving lobbies.
Sorry you didn't seem to get the point I was making, comms won't help some random person be more skilful at killer but with your stated idea you are versing other survivors along with the killer for a pip, so they need to do well versus that other team so they are part of your pip which is out of your control.
If you force people to play apart whom want to play together they will just end up not playing, why do you think the devs have never implemented a system like this before and have been against separating them and tried to buff solo?
DBD has always done well on free weekends but that number always drops, who know the new Deathgarden may also take some players away as it's a lot more fun now.
We have to use the norm of 25-30k players at peak times which can drop to around 13k off peak, cross play would help but I have my reservations about that also.
While a larger userbase is always good console v pc has never went down too well as a mouse and keyboard makes playing killer for one a lot easier, they could add mouse and keyboard support but then those who don't have one or can't use one are at a disadvantage, it's not easy to balance that.
I wouldn't be against them testing it on a ptb as its an interesting idea for a new mode as a choice but I honestly can't see them doing it, the amount of work needed for just a test doesn't seem like something they would do as anything on the ptb which is a major change is going into the game regardless and just needs tweaked.
0 -
If you are taking him at his word then all he confirmed is that swf was meant to be in the game from the start
Correction: If we are taking him at his exact words, what is confirmed is that SWF MODE was meant to be in the game from the start. You know, because that is literally what he said. Why are we going through this again? Why do you keep insinuating that he made a mistake when there's nothing that would even suggest that? Stop forcing a narrative by mischaracterizing the developer as if he had made some mistake.
You are still assuming that they always intended it to be a complete seperate mode with no proof what so ever
"The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes, before release." So when the KYF MODE was released, it came in a separate mode, correct? Now, reread what he says again. Why would you suddenly assume that when SWF Mode is released, it would NOT come in a separate mode, just as KYF mode did? What do you even think he meant when he kept mentioning 'mode' in those sentences?
How your movie analogy would work is, you went to with a friend to a movie theatre that you had visited numerous times but now upon turning up there was another group of three, there is only four spaces so they gave them to the group of three and you and your friend had to either see the movie seperately in different screens or try another theatre.
Again, in NMCKE's mode, you and your friends are still on the same team sharing the same experience, despite playing a different role. What is so difficult to understand about that concept?
It does not matter what you think about how to balance any game, the devs are balancing in a way they see fit and the game has been successful doing it their way, you may not agree with it but in the end it's not for you to say it's right or wrong, it is not your game to mould into how you want it.
Are you saying that I shouldn't express my opinion on how I think the game should be balanced by the developers?
Do you remember McLean being quoted for saying "who ever said the game was meant to be balanced"?
"Nobody said it was balanced," McLean referring to Marth88's SWF experiment. What does that have to do with anything? And please don't misquote people; it reflects badly on them, as well as you.
If you remove an aspect of the game where they no longer have 100% choice of what role they play from someone while others get to keep it simply because they play with friends that they have always done then yes it's a punishment in essense for doing so.
So all of these complaints about NMCKE's mode boils down to you needing to be able to always, always pick your preferred role. Gotcha.
You may like it but others may not, what makes your opinion more valid than theirs?
Who said it does?
I never used the word inferior, I've enliven stated its not a bad idea I just don't think it would work out that well.
Fair enough.
0 -
If the title of this thread was:
HOW TO SOLVE THE GAP BETWEEN ATHLETES WHO USE STEROIDS AND THOSE WHO DON'T
It'd be a completely different (yet ironically similar) conversation.
3 -
Method 1:
Force steroids on athletes who don't use them.
Method 2:
Given how steroids can't ever be taken away from athletes who want them, we should weaken these athletes by poking their eyes and cutting their tongues out.
Method 3:
Have an athlete tournament just for steroids users and an athlete tournament just for non-steroid users.
2 -
Well if you are taking him at his exact word you also have to take the context into consideration, he was answering your question on swf as it currently is in the game, there was no reference that is was meant to be anything different and no further discussion on that.
Also since It was delayed what we have is what was intended as if it was put in and simply rushed they would have had it from the get go or have stated it would be changed.
If you show me definite proof and get the devs to state otherwise then I will openly say you were right but I don't beleive it will end up how you wish It to.
Being on the same side is not the same as being on the same team, by working with a killer you cannot share you items or work together on a gen, heal your friend or save them from a hook or with flashlight etc, why can't you comprehend that some players like to do the above and t9 remove that option form only a portion is not fair play.
I never said that, you have a tendency to try and put words in peoples mouths, I said its not your game to decide if their vision is wrong, there is a fine line between giving an opinion and telling someone they are doing it wrong.
The devs have always stated their core vision for balance is a 2 die 2 escape scenario over the whole userbase, the stats reflect this in slight favour of the killers right now so maybe they are doing what they deem is correct but not ehat you want it to be.
You talked about how the game should be balanced and originally used a quote from McLean (which you also misquoted by changing the wording to mode may I add so here tour own words).
I said this to show you have to take the context it was said in and not just the what he said, after that many posters started saying the devs wanted survivors to be stronger and tried to use it as proof.
That is not what I have bern saying, if you care to read its about removing that option from a portion of the userbase and leaving it in for the rest.
Well when you talk about the idea you don't seem to care how it could affect others players enjoyment of the game and are fine with removing options from a portion of the userbase, people tend to think this way when it won't affect them directly but in the long run benefits them.
1 -
Well if you are taking him at his exact word you also have to take the context into consideration, he was answering your question on swf as it currently is in the game
I've taken the context into consideration, and there's nothing that indicates that McLean made a mistake. So why did you insist that he did?
Also since It was delayed what we have is what was intended as if it was put in and simply rushed they would have had it from the get go or have stated it would be changed.
Or what we have is the result of the change in plans for the addition of SWF. We all know that these developers test multiple different iterations of the changes they make. The developers are also not obligated to let us know every single different versions of the changes they go through, or any change at all - we know this already.
why can't you comprehend that some players like to do the above and t9 remove that option form only a portion is not fair play.
No, I can understand that. What I can't understand is people not being able to play through their non-preferred role for 10 minutes if their focus is really about spending time with their friends.
I said its not your game to decide if their vision is wrong, there is a fine line between giving an opinion and telling someone they are doing it wrong.
So if my opinion is that the developers are taking a wrong approach on a subject and wish for them to change their course, I shouldn't be able to state that opinion?
You talked about how the game should be balanced
You're right; I think that games should be balanced from the top, which is different than how the DBD developers are currently balancing the game. Again, should I not be allowed to voice that opinion?
Well when you talk about the idea you don't seem to care how it could affect others players enjoyment of the game and are fine with removing options from a portion of the userbase, people tend to think this way when it won't affect them directly but in the long run benefits them.
No, when I talk about an idea, I don't consider how it could affect every single other person's enjoyment of the game. Because not everyone will ever be happy in unison with the choices that are made; some portion of the community will always prefer some other change, or changes not made at all. After all, look at the addition of SWF in the core mode - made lots of folks happy, but certainly not people who mainly play solos, killers, and pretty much anyone who appreciates good balance in their games. So yeah, when I give my opinion, I base it off what I personally think a good game should be, and not for the sake of appeasing every person in the community.
2 -
I think one interesting possibility to still keep SWF would be to make in-game voice chat, whereas if you have a mic hooked up, it automatically detects that and connects it. You can turn off your mic, sure, but if your mic is on, you're stuck in in-game voice chat. This would remove Discord and other things from possible abuses, THEN, make it where the killer can hear your voice chat, but you can't hear the killer. This would make voice chat risky for the survivors, but they could still keep it, it'd also allow voice chat with more than just your SWF, but with every survivor in the game.
0
