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!
Once again: Why is the PTB held on a beta branch instead of a separate library entry?
I've made this thread each time a PTB has been held. Still haven't really had any sort of answer, so I guess I'll just keep asking until someone stumbles upon it.
Benefits of separate library entry (many are similar, but no less true):
- You don't need to redownload the live game to play the live game.
- You don't need to redownload the PTB if you want to try it out after playing the live game again.
- Can keep the PTB installed to be updated separately.
- Participation becomes dramatically simpler as you don't have to dig into game properties and basically disable your live game until you've had your fill.
- Less likely to experience severe drop-off of users who reinstall the live game. Currently if you opt out of the PTB, you're extremely unlikely to opt back in because it's just annoying.
- Major bandwidth savings for users, as they're not downloading the game over and over again.
- More participation means better data, longer participation means more accurate data, and removing it from the beta branch means you can have it active for longer, or for experiments. Maybe not a small one like the Bloodlust one happening now, but definitely for bigger changes.
Frankly, I find the beta branch to be fiddly, annoying and it consistently keeps me from bothering with the PTB. And when I do participate, it's only for a brief period because if I want a normal match again I have to completely redownload the main game and then I'll be damned if I'm gonna do that entire process again to play on the PTB again, which would require yet another downloading of the main game when I was done. That, or I sit with just the PTB for its duration with the weird lack of matchmaking and generally lower match quality and long queue times.
Comments
-
I'm gonna echo this because his post is 100% valid.
When I get off work I don't wanna do rocket science when I'm trying to relax. Just lemme play the gaaaaaame.
7 -
Probably because they wanted more numbers, and no one can play proper matches on the PTB and they take a long time to find.
I still don't agree with this though; because they did it so selfishly. "Here, all your killers are basically nerfed on live while we see if it's too much of a nerf, we COULD increase killer bloodpoint gains or something to make it actually worth playing a gimped game but we're not gonna do that..."
They are punishing people for just wanting to play the game this weekend basically. Killers get nerfed, survivors get longer queue times because less people play killer. I don't see why they couldn't double the Killer BP gains or something for the duration of it, that would solve both problems at once, killers get rewarded for playing while nerfed, and survivor queue times are less affected.
2 -
At least you have the option. Us lowly consolers cannot and most likely never will be able to do any PTB.
2 -
I am guessing its mostly because of the platform choice.
They are correctly using the beta feature provided there.
And having separate library item brings licencing issues for the platform in use. Would be a hassle to issue, revoke and reissue it. Not really sure how to keep it there permanently and out of the 2k games that I own in Steam I have only seen one game which have both live and test builds permanently attached in library.
Haven't personally tested PTB build in a long time but anti-cheat and pirating could be some minor issues for having file access outside of testing period.
1 -
Uhh. I dunno what you think a separate library entry is, but it has absolutely no relation to licensing or anything like that. What they're doing with the beta branch is exactly the same thing except is requires you to replace the files in the main game. What you're arguing would be like them having to get licensing revoked and reissued every time they applied a patch. Pure nonsense.
A separate library entry is not the same as a new game listed in the store, it's attached to the main game, and is accessed by having access to the main game. It's the same as having a separate entry for soundtrack or map making tools or anything like that. Piracy wouldn't have any effect because it's all piggybacking off the main game to begin with. I have dozens of games in my library that do this. The beta branch feature is fine for single-player games, but generally it's the absolute wrong choice for multiplayer games for exactly the reasons I stated above.
0 -
How is it a correct use of beta? When you have a full release you don't go back to beta.
R6 siege uses a separate branch before each season update so you can have both test branch and main game installed at the same time. It works nicely.
0 -
Try putting this thread in Feedback and Suggestions so the devs are notified. Us lowly forumgoers have no say in this, which is why it's baffling to me that you've apparently only put this thread in Feedback and Suggestions once.
However, keep in mind that just because you want something doesn't mean the devs have to do as you say. Furthermore, even if they do want to do it, they already have other things in the pipeline that take precedence over changing something that, while mildly annoying, has worked fine for the past four years.
0 -
100% agree, I find it baffeling as well, 4 years of PTB and still its the half-assed thing it is.
Im convinced the PTB is so discourging to even try is specifically because people cant be bothered redownloading the game twice....
And imagine the possibilities of what they could do with a PTB, its sadning.
But like I said, its been 4 years of nothing from the devs so I have pretty much given up hope, same for many other glaring issues that have potential ez fixes.
0 -
I don't bother with Feedback and Suggestions because in the first 11 pages there are 0 dev replies. There are multiple dev replies in the first 11 pages of general discussion, so at least I know there's a chance an actual developer will read this.
Your second point about me wanting it not equating to them put it up is strange. Obviously they don't have to listen to me. I never said they did. Why state something so self-evident to begin with?
0 -
Developers rarely - if ever - reply to feedback because there's no point. However, they do read it. Just because you don't get a reply doesn't mean they don't read it, I know that for a fact.
The fact that you keep posting this thread indicated you were not aware of that, or that you otherwise expected to be the exception to the rule. That's why I stated it.
0 -
We assume they read it.
I know they read this forum.
That's a chasm of difference.
0 -
No, I know they read it because I've spoken with them and verified that.
You assume they read this section because you conflate replying in a few threads with reading every thread and don't understand that some people with the "Dev" tag are not even directly involved with the coding side of the game - they're the ones who reply most often.
There is indeed a chasm of difference, but not in the way you thought.
0 -
Platform related speculation on the licensing part. If you want to restrict access when outside of testing period you would have to revoke access. And to revoke access you need to control it using a license to access said content.
Guessing the restricted access was more valid point when save files were still saved locally but they could change it now that save files aren't locally saved anymore.
Beta testing of features, not full game.
Can't find a support article for the feature alone so here is an example for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive detailing the feature and how it works for testing new updates in smaller player base. https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=9847-WHXC-7326&l=
0 -
Now, I'm not going to defend or condemn the actions of BHVR and changing the game for a bit in order to get test resultsm, as my opinion on the matter will not answer the question. That said, I can explain some of the reasoning behind it, and why this suggestion works counter to their reasoning:
When players have the ability to opt into a test environment, they simply may choose not to. BHVR wants as many bodies as possible to throw at this test in order to get the largest possible data set from the results in order to look at them and properly determine the impact of not having Bloodlust. Keep in mind there are PLENTY of players that play DBD without ever looking at the related social media or forums. They aren't aware of changed until after they are made, they don't know of new game modes when they happen, and they don't know upcoming changes until they are live. Those same players also don't engage in the PTB. In this case of this test, those same players don't technically know that BHVR wants them to play the game normally, just with a mechanic missing.
They want players to play as they normally would for this because they don't want the data to be tarnished by modified play styles in order to properly determine the impact that Bloodlust has on the game as is. There is certainly an argument to be made about how the meta might shift if that mechanic is absent, so I don't think outright telling people to ignore the loss of BL is the best way to go. That said, I can understand if they want to monitor Killer stats based on the current meta to see how BL actually impacts Killers dealing with the current meta.
The PTB gets a very small number of players that actually use it. MOST games only ever see about 1% of the audience engage with a test environment server. That made the PTB a hard sell for this test.
Making it a separate library entry encounters multiple problems I have spelled out. For one, it would give many players a chance not to engage with it, and without some kind of benefit to lure them into trying it, they would outright ignore it. Perhaps if it was double BP, though that would also change the meta of those matches by incentivizing BP builds instead of the normal meta. That would, again, defeat the purpose of the test. When you factor in wanting as MANY people as possible to engage with a change for test purposes, not wanting to change anything else about the game so you are only testing one mechanics absence, and not wanting to incentivize different playstyles in order to truly see the aftermath of the mechanics loss, the options become extremely limited.
On a technical level, changes that are made for test environments can often have large divergences in core game mechanics. Those core game mechanics are basically written into the code in a single area, and are then called upon when they become present in the game. If you wanted to change one of these mechanics (eg: Bloodlust), you either need a separate version of the game that uses those changes, or you would need to bloat the core game code with duplicate modified script to allow both normal and modified gameplay. We ARE already used to this with seasonal events, so that much isn't a big deal, but seasonal events can last a while and warrant a long term change to the code like that. A test over the course of a few days, however, might make that come off as odd as it would require multiple updates to the game in a very short amount of time. In the case of removing bloodlust, they may have simply removed a flag that activates Bloodlust. It's a very small change. Having two separate game modes to accommodate the normal and test variant of gameplay, however, would require significantly more coding, larger download files, a larger game file overall, and new logic to be introduced so that the game could perform the changes you are proposing. NOT saying those are good or bad, just that the Dev team likely doesn't want to spend that much time setting up for a test that only lasts several days.
One more thing to bring up: I have been in many communities for games that underwent lots of changes. A common sentiment in those communities, when changes are made or even suggested, is that a large portion of the community complains about being test subjects. In particular, I remember Warhammer Age of Reckoning, where a change to a core mechanic lead people to more or less say "We paid to play your full game, not test your public beta. Stop testing things or give us our money back". It was a selfish mentality that I didn't much care for, and as an indie dev myself, it was frustrating to see how callous a community could be when the developers realized they needed to fix an aspect of the game while also having to deal with a community that would rather deal with a broken mechanic than an uncertain outcome. That game and that studio had MANY problems, I won't say they didn't, but the community didn't help at all. My point is, there are a lot of people that are completely adverse to the Devs making changes for improvement because they'd rather just "know the game" as it is now and not have to adjust for changes. I'm NOT accusing anyone here of this behavior, far from it, but that kind of backlash and selfishness is something the Devs will have rolling around in the back of their collective heads when looking at changes to the game. It happens. We've all been there.
1
