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!
Rant:This game is all about how miserable can your opponent make you
Comments
-
Great sample size. Your 20 games obviously are representative for every soloQ match that's played. Come on, I'm trying to give you credit for providing something you base your opinion on but I'm at a loss here.
Also, everything you stated here could be made up. I could claim that my highest solo escape streak was 57 (it's actually 12). How would you know, if that is correct? It's unlikely but you can only guess if this is true or not. For all I know you could had killed yourself on hook every other match (not saying that you did, only that I can't know).
My own soloQ matches have been pretty good since the last patch. Sure, I had the occasional quitter as well but for the most part I had some pretty smart and persistent team mates. I managed to get an escape streak of 12 in a row and I'm definitely not a great survivor. I just know how to run a few tiles and where I need to be.
Even if the data you provided is accurate, I'd argue that this is not a soloQ issue but a player base issue. You could get paired with afk / rage quitting survivors even when you play in a 3 man SWF.
1 -
You should really read the posts, there are some interesting ideas being bounced around about slugging on the whole and mechanics that may fix some of the less fun elements of it.
This was your thread I'd urge you to read some of the more productive elements of it.
You can see people get really emotional about this stuff I mean gee look at some of the replies, there is an essay on how horrible the game is I mean wow. None of it is particularly productive, unless that's what you are looking for great but it also pays not to ignore the more productive elements of the discussion.
0 -
the tome needed so much time to design, do you really think they could do it in a few months? make skins for at least the three TOT characters, lore, art, and models for charms and such? do you understand how long things like that take?
0 -
Ok if you think a killer trying to force bleed puts is fine, then what are your thoughts with facecamping bubba?
0 -
lmfao, 'small sample size', yeah I was waiting for that one.
When someone tells you they don't enjoy DBD, are you going to ask them if they've played at least 100 games, so that they've collected an adequate enough sample size to justify their expression of distaste?
I don't know about you, but 6 hours of gameplay is sample size enough to tell me if something is fun. Steam seems to agree, since their refund policy is under 4 hours. Only 1 of these 20 games were enjoyable--I don't need a larger sample size to draw any more conclusions about the "state of game health."
@Xernoton you were the first one to use anecdotal evidence to make bold claims in this thread. I could care less what you deduce from my data. Point is that if you want to tell other people "SoloQ is fine," while offering nothing of substance to support that notion, you're going to be met with people providing evidence to the contrary.
It's honestly hilarious that you think I need to present MORE data to prove that SoloQ is in a poor state, when you've a wave of community members expressing grievances about their experiences, while the occassional Survivor (like myself) presents evidence to support their claims.
Also, mate, seriously? You're going to pretend like SoloQ isn't 3 times more likely to encounter a sandbagging teammate than a 3-man SWF?
Edit: Also, @pseudechis you can continue to play the "small sample size/using yourself as a baseline is bad" card all you want, but you totally miss the point of players sharing their personal data. If everyone on the forums presented data from their last 20 games, you'd suddenly see a better picture of overall game health. It's not my responsibility to present everyone's data, nor is it my responsibility to waste my time collecting data, but I'm doing a service to this community by sharing what I can.
If you want to discredit MY experience, because on it's own it is not representative of the community, you are doing a MASSIVE disservice to the rest of the community. I logged 20 games. I shared the information from those games that is most pertinent to this discussion, to Xernoton--I never commented about my notes on tunneling or camping, because they are irrelevant--they're only in the screenshot because the information is presented alongside disconnects/rage quits/afks.
So kindly get the "um er, actually, yikes, this information is... oof, idk" attitude out of here, and try to see the bigger picture. You've got a forum of people expressing frustration over something, yet you respond to each and every one of them as if they are the only ones living in that reality. Major gaslighter.
Post edited by KayTwoAyy on2 -
When someone says they don't enjoy DBD they mostly don't frame it as an accurate depicture of the game but as their own experience. You tried to make an argument about how 'bad' soloQ is in general. That is a major difference.
If your experience is genuinely that bad, then you have my condolences. I can only speak from my own perspective and that of a few friends that still play DBD. We all find soloQ quite enjoyable for the most part (with the occasional frustrating match). It's not the same as playing in a SWF (obviously) but it's definitely an upgrade from the horrors after 6.1.0. That was very unpleasant. The amount of quitters I saw back then was so high that I completely stopped playing survivor for a while (1-2 months, something like that).
As I already said, your 'evidence' is weak. I could present you with a (made up) statistic that shows me escaping every single game for 100 games in row with no perks against 'high MMR monsters'. Would you believe something like that, when it clearly is in stark contrast to your own experience? I'd hope not. The validity of such a statistic would be questionable at best and downright non-existent, if you wanted to be extra critical.
You are right though, that my choice of words was not ideal. I should have labeled it as my own experience and opinion rather than framing it as the objective truth. Thank you for pointing that out. I'll edit this, so there is no more confusion on that part.
3 -
I agree with you the whole “well actually its gameplay so its fine deal with it” attitude gets old fast. Its a video and it’s supposed to be fun. And if your not having fun your allow to tell how you feel and what is making you dissatisfied. Im not happy getting bleed out the entire game. I think it’s horrible that there is the possibility to do that since you cant find teammates
1 -
I wasn't making an argument about how bad SoloQ is. I was counterclaiming you, with evidence.
If I wanted to talk about how bad SoloQ is, I'd make my own discussion, and I'd put more effort into constructing an argument.
As far as either of us knows, I could be playing at incredibly low MMR, and subsequently being matched with players who are frustrated at how difficult it is to win there--because the Killers don't feel 'low MMR'--while you're playing beyond the MMR soft cap with people who actually have a spine.
No way for us to know. BHVR has done a great job of making sure we can't have constructive conversations about either of our experiences.
0 -
Ah you see its bad data because its your proof of concept that the game itself is bad, but all it really demonstrates is that you're kinda bad at it.
Now if you are miserable about the game because you aren't as good at it as you want to be then your data does an ok job of making that point, but game changes can't fix that only you can.
There is a reason they pool outcomes across many many players to look at game outcome statistics because that's the only way you can make game wide claims. Even with 100 games it would still not be a great representation because the game metrics are built from 1000's to 10,000's of players and game outcomes.
This data is not about the game as a whole its a snap shot of you, so if your conclusions from this data represent a bad game... well it's a more accurate conclusion to say that it represents a bad you.
If we go by kill/escape rate data they released a while back which sat at about 60/40 last time I saw it. Then what we have here is 20 games demonstrating empirically that you can't meet the 60/40 average. That's it, the data is an assessment of how you perform playing the game not the game itself.
That's the problem with your pie chart post, the conclusion is spurious and irrelevant at best because its asking the wrong question of the data. You've measured how good am I at the game and used it to make conclusions about balance. All we can answer from this is are you personally any good at DBD? and from the data the answer is no, not really.
I didn't want to get all raw paper reviewer on you but you wanted it so there it is.
"So kindly get the "um er, actually, yikes, this information is... oof, idk" attitude out of here, and try to see the bigger picture. You've got a forum of people expressing frustration over something, yet you respond to each and every one of them as if they are the only ones living in that reality."
Well yeah this is where people come to whine, its the forum and 90% of what's being whined about can be fixed by the player not the game. The game really isn't as miserable as people like to make it out to be, but people fixate on this stuff like their actual life depends on it when the reality is that its largely inconsequential.
You can offer people up an alternative perspective and maybe some objective suggestions about how things could get fixed, but a lot of people aren't here for that, they are here to validate their feelings in a sympathetic echo chamber.
Its not gaslighting to disagree with someone and I disagree with the OP, this game isn't about making people miserable and if you are miserable then change your outlook because the game doesn't have to change just because you personally find it miserable.
If you do want it to change then the best way is to make an objective suggestion about how it might be improved.
Post edited by pseudechis on0 -
Its also fine, in fact some of the most intense games I've played have been against a face camping bubba.
The feeling of getting an unhook against a face camping bubba because you got him to tantrum with some tight turns and use that time to get the unhook is a great one, its really hard to do and amazing when it pays off.
If you have sweaty palms at the end of a chase then it was a good chase regardless of the outcome.
EDIT: You didn't actually read the topic did you or you did and came back with an irrelevant topic as a counter point. All I can say to that is well if you want to find the game miserable then that's up to you, bummer eh because its actually a lot of fun.
1 -
I did read the topic. And why would i want the game to be miserable? Im over here pissed that i was forced bleedout but sure im the problem. It’s definitely not the player that was playing like that.
1 -
But that's exactly the question I posed to you, why are you pissed about getting bled out?
Is it the wait? is it the seemingly unfairness of it all, do you feel angry about the loss or being taunted about loss?
1. If its the wait then I've made some objective suggestions about how that might be fixed, maybe go over to the feedback section and make some about how the wait might be reduced. BHVR do listen to that kind of feedback.
2. If its the unfairness then well its a legitimate part of the game so winning that way is well within the game rules and while a lil erroneous its not unfair. The killer has won you are all down if they want to run around rubbing that in your face for 4 mins then they can, same as survivors bobbing up and down at the exit gates.
Where it differs is the killer can always chase survivors out but when you bleed out there is not much you can do. So again its the wait, well see my previous point.
3. When someone rubs their win in your face its aggravating because it's childish and unnecessary, but if you let that get to you then even if they do shorten the timer or make fixes so that bleeding out is quicker, if you are still gonna let yourself get aggravated over it then its not the bleeding out that upsets you but the being taunted over the loss.
That's where you need to work on your own outlook on the game because in an anonymous online world someone is always gonna give you a hard time about losing or winning. While that sucks its the reality of playing online with strangers. If its upsetting a lot of players that's where BHVR need to look at options for how to lessen the tools used to taunt, which again comes back to my first point. A bit of trash talk is not a terrible thing though and BHVR are probably gonna let players have their fun.
To sum up if you do go over to the feedback section just make sure your suggestions are objective rather than "delete this I hate it waah" because that kind of whining doesn't really lead to change it just leads to more whining.
I've already made suggestions that I think would go toward lessening the issue of being left to bleed out, that was my contribution to this discussion thread. Do with it what you will.
But I'll say this creating a composite list of other stuff you don't like pitching it back isn't really an answer to the point I've made.
0 -
I think a huge part of this problem is that matchmaking is not tuned to give good killers consistently challenging games. It just isn't. Players who are able to consistently grief solo queue players like in OP's example are able to do it game after game with impunity because the game will never give them more difficult opponents. There's nothing to dissuade them from doing it.
I personally go on 10-20 game win streaks by pure accident on killer, and I'm not sweating unless the other side is. I get games where I genuinely feel bad for the other players because I 4k at 3 or 4 gens and wonder how the match was even made. At no point does the game give me a consistent challenge unless it's purely by accident.
Point being: what is stopping a good player from putting on the most ridiculously unfun build and map offering possible every game? There isn't anything. If you are good, you will win 90+% of your games doing it and never have difficult games but once in a blue moon. I run into killers in my region who only play Dying Light/Thana/Jolt/Pain Res Legion with a Midwich offering, MDR+Cherry Blossom Spirit, Knockout Nurse, etc. I run into them often, it's literally all they play, and it's an auto-loss in solo queue. You might as well just play a 10 minute cutscene
1 -
Go back and look at the data I presented. Note what I said after sharing the 3 images: "Nearly half of my games saw someone quit."
What do you think my intended message was there? mmmh?
You seem to think I was complaining about my escape rate, tunneling, and camping. Why is that? Because I don't recall complaining about any of those things. Sure, they were in the data, but it was pretty obvious what my message was--
SoloQ is not fine, because there is a rage quitting epidemic.
But hey, that's just my experience, right? No one else is talking about rage quitters. It's not a real issue--I'm just bad at the game.
Speaking of which...lets talk about how bad I am at the game, yeah?
I can only escape in 7 of 20 games, when at least one of my teammates throws the game in another 7 of those 20 games. Game is designed around 3v1, right? Who needed that 4th teammate anyway.
I must be really bad for looping a Blight so long he decided to AFK, being directly responsible for the only Killer rage quit in 20 games and one of only two 4-man escapes.
I must also be really bad for looping a Legion for 7+ minutes, then dying because a Kate chose to spectate my chase (and body block me) instead of help Thalia finish the 4 remaining generators.
I couldn't possibly be good at the game if I was asked to join an eSports team. That just doesn't add up, cause eSports teams are for noobs, yeah? Aren't they like a tutorial league, where new players go to learn the game?
Just the fact that I'm voicing my opinion about what a horrible experience I'm having, means that I'm bad at the game, right? Experienced players have never taken issue with anything. Ever. In the history of competition. Right? .....right?
There couldn't possibly be anything wrong with the game. That could never be it. No, the game is perfect just the way it is, isn't it?
It's like hockey.
Your whole response is just... uhh ooo err... so many things wrong with it.
Its err all kinds of erm yeah nah.
Points for effort but actually no, I take those points back. 0/10 response.
2 -
So you presented data that was off point to account for an issue that was off topic... hence the ooh err.
Just digging that hole aren't you.
EDIT: "Nearly half of my games saw someone quit" one of them the killer and only 2 DC's, what you claim as survivor quit category isn't defined but we'll take you word for it so 7 games where a team mate quit of 20 doesn't account for a 27.5% personal escape rate.
Again it doesn't look like the game's fault here and yet again as previously mentioned your data doesn't support that conclusion. Its a stretch at best. Tunneling and camping are listed as two of your game affecting parameters if they aren't relevant to your point why list them?
This is what I mean about you not understanding what your "data" is saying. The only thing this data says is that your personal escape rate is low for these 20 games, now blame whatever you like for that result but I can tell you the most probable cause is the primary variable being measured, which is your personal performance.
0 -
I presented supplementary data because it paints a bigger picture than just saying 40% of my games contain at least one rage quitter.
Lets say I present the same exact data, but the Average Kills is ~1, the majority of Escapes Per Trial were 3 , and I've noted that 10 Killers Hooked Everyone Once.
Despite 40% of the games having a rage quitter, it paints a very different image of my experience.
You may be able to conclude a few things:
- The rage quit occured near the end of the game, and had little-to-no influence on how the game played out
- Killers were probably mindful of Survivors' experience, and went the extra mile to make sure everyone had a good time
- MMR mismatch heavily favored Survivors, so the game was easy even with a man down
- Game is poorly balanced around a 4v1, and Killers struggle even in a 3v1.
You could then remark "wow, that is a lot of rage quitting, although it doesn't appear to be negatively influencing your experience, we should still do something about it"
The context frames the conversation that should be had around the issue.
Edit: Seeing your edit after post.
My personal escape rate was not 27.5%--that was the collective escape rate of all survivors. Mine was 35%, and I averaged 19.9k bloodpoints.
Tunneling and Camping are tags that I tracked on NightLight. They are in the image only because they fall in the same category as AFKing/Quitting/Disconnecting.
The average escape rate of Survivors I played with was 25%, and they averaged 16.35k bloodpoints.
Sure tho, lets continue with the narrative that I'm bad at the game.
Post edited by KayTwoAyy on2 -
35% quitters. You assume out of rage.
These are all assumptions, not conclusions, you're confusing your opinion with fact.
There are no measures in what you have here to show what you are assuming to be genuine, the only measure you have is your low escape rate.
This is what I mean by spurious conclusions. i.e. a line of reasoning that's not actually valid. You data does not offer any validity to any of the conclusions presented here. It flat out doesn't.
0 -
Cognitive dissonance.
You want so badly to prove that I'm "bad at the game" that you'd find any semblence of logic to match that conclusion.
4 -
This.
I wish survivors had an option to get into all of the camping fun that seems to exist. Like a perk
Noble Sacrifice: You grab onto the killer and tackle them to the ground. They are immobilized for two minutes (one minute if you have one hook state). They must make skill checks or the time is lengthened. At the end of the time period you are sacrificed.
You could even give the killer perks that countered Noble Sacrifice (though they would be useless in a normal match, and it would also be nerfed after the PTB).
It would be a boring game filled with rage quitting, but it would capture the feeling of being just left on a hook.
1 -
The community CUPS, and those championships around there, helps for these things happen. I started in 2018 and this game was so much more enjoyable and calm, now, every match looks like a championship where people lose their mothers if their lose. Its not exclusive for Skull Merchant, or any killer. But yeah, Skull Merchant is fine, but tri gen needs change.
0 -
I don't need to prove that nor am I trying too, your data measured it for me. 27.5% escape rate is low. (your edited 35% escape rate is still below average).
You measured it yourself and yes it is cognitive dissonance there is no rational link between your conclusions about the game as a whole and your data.
The irony of you making about that claim about my point is palpable, makes me wonder if you know what cognitive dissonance is or if you're just buzz wording in an attempt to undermine my point.
If you said "my opinion of the game is this" then that would be fine but you didn't do that. You measured how poor your escape rate was over 20 games and then made all kinds of wild assumptions to explain it that are in no way measured or supported by your data.
So what good is your data if it doesn't inform on your point?
What good is your point if it doesn't relate to your data?
To sum up...
All you've measured here is a below average escape rate so the only conclusion to make is... you have a below average escape rate, that's it.
We can wildly claim all kinds of reasons as for the why, but you have nothing to substantiate any of the why, all you have is a metric measuring a low escape rate.
So if someone had a metric measuring a below average escape rate, would you say they were good or bad at the game?
I would say probably not good...Now this is an opinion not a fact nothing is proven or trying to be proved... but it is an opinion that is supported by your own data given the below average results.
0 -
it was hypothetical in the sense to say waht if it does happens. the realism to it is that it could happen. but of course you dont see the problem in that
3 -
You can ignore private profiles, it's just not explained anywhere.
Go to your own profile and select the Ignore List option. You can manually add a private profile to that list if you type the name there. I believe it's case sensitive, so I usually copy/paste.
Enjoy a much more sane forums experience!
1 -
My first game ever as survivor after the patch, only to test visual TR. Camp early survivors to death, slug the 3rd to death for 4K. Never again.
1 -
And a killer match after, it was a blast. My goal is not get hook killing, but BW kills, best feeling.
1 -
Great job bro
0 -
Slugging everybody is the polar opposite of gen rush, it's the only thing some killer kits can do to actually stop a 4 bnp rush team. The bottom line is if you want hard slugging changed, then there has to be a cap to prevent nutty gen speeds or you can simply forget it.
2 -
Yeah a meteorite could strike us too, but I'm not using that as a reason to stop playing because I'm sure the odds are in my favour there.
You could get 10 games in a row where you get bled out by the killer and that would probably make you call it a night game wise, but that would have no bearing on the following day's gaming or the next day's gaming, so making changes because there is one rare and specific thing that potentially could happen but probably won't isn't the best rationale.
You want to make a strong point... then make a plausible example that has a real possibility of frequency of occurrence.
Too often people think they can drive the point home by offering up an absurd scenario where the situation would be the absolute worst it could possibly be but well out of the realm of probability. Before doing that you need to realise that if that's what it takes to make your point then your point isn't very strong.
You may bleed out in a couple of games over the course of a session, its a legit way to die in game so expect it to happen sometimes. You may only have time to play one game and bleed out in that one game. These are plausible scenarios but I don't feel they are common enough or game breaking enough to ruin the game experience or classify it as miserable.
If it takes 10 games in a row of being bled out while the killer taunts you to make it a miserable experience... well, then I think you will be fine.
0
