A Way To Fix Broken Boons
Only 1 totem should be able to be activly booned at a time. 4 Survivors bringing Boon: Circle Of Screw Killers should not be able to boon 4 separate totems & blanket half the map with OP healing speeds.
Only 1 totem should be able to be activly booned at a time. 4 Survivors bringing Boon: Circle Of Screw Killers should not be able to boon 4 separate totems & blanket half the map with OP healing speeds.
Read THIS post.
Tldr: This is an archived version of the DBD forum, it has all posts, comments and media. The archived data will be published at the end of October. This site is not in any way affiliated with or endorsed by Behaviour Interactive.
Comments
I'm not sure I agree with that, myself. It seems like that'd be the double whammy of being overkill for any boon that isn't CoH, and also falling back into that awful trap of making perks only really usable in a SWF without being viable for SoloQ because you can't coordinate who has the boon up at any given time, it'd be a logistical nightmare and unfairly punishes people playing on their own.
I really don't think we're going to fix CoH with a change that affects all boons. It has to be a fix to CoH itself.
I really don't think we're going to fix CoH with a change that affects all boons. It has to be a fix to CoH itself.
I'd agree, but the devs already showed they will basically ignore all feedback and use misleading numbers to avoid actually changing Survivor's #1 crutch perk.
And since we now can't trust them to actually change it in any meaningful way, given they went out of their way to effectively lie to Killers; It's time to just demand all Boons get shafted. Nothing short of screwing all Boons will actually see change happen.
They already showed they don't actually want to nerf Circle Of OP, AND they showed they're quite happy misleading Killers with deceitful language (The '25%' SOUNDS so much better than the BS '4 seconds' it equates too). So, if we can't get the problem fixed; nuke all Boons. They never should have existed in a properly balanced game, anyways.
You're hinging an awful lot of justification on the idea that BHVR are refusing to nerf CoH and want to lie to the playerbase.
Maybe that is true. My interpretation had been that because all of their actual programming power had gone towards the massive amount of work they put into game health for that midchapter, all perk changes had to be number tweaks or similarly programming-light changes (this part is true, they said as much in the QnA) and so they decided to slap a bandaid on CoH until they could fix it with more actual programming effort. An earnest attempt at stemming the bleeding, so to speak.
Whether that's a good idea or not is a separate matter, but I'm sure you'll agree that it's just as valid an interpretation as yours with perhaps a little more basis in actual proof.
To cap it off, no, don't nuke all boons. They're a fun and interesting concept, and all of them except for CoH are relatively balanced with only minor issues.
...Except Exponential, but that one's just bad lol
You're hinging an awful lot of justification on the idea that BHVR are refusing to nerf CoH and want to lie to the playerbase.
They made a 'nerf' and touted '25%!' which SOUNDS LIKE allot. But when the math was done, it was a whopping +4 seconds self-heal (+2 seconds healing someone else). Since they must have known these numbers, it makes one wonder why they pushed '25%' so hard.
It was deliberately deceitful. Or they actually did not translate '25%' into an actual number. So which sounds better for the balancing team; Lying, or not doing their jobs?
"Pushed 25% so hard"
You mean... put 25% on a still image they flashed up on screen to show the nerf, something they've done for every equivalent change they've showcased in a QnA...? It was identical to how they showed the initial nerfs boon totems got between their first PTB and the live servers, too. Calling this lying is an extreme stretch, and calling it deceitful is only very marginally better.
Again, it was a quick bandaid fix to make it less problematic without nuking it. What would you have wanted, them to lower the numbers down to 10% and anything short of that is lying? Surely you see this line of thought isn't exactly logical?
I would have liked a real change.
It seems to be a trend that Killer perks that over perform are nuked from orbit and buried in the deepest pit they can find.
But Survivor perks are very gently touched, because heaven forbid a Survivor perk be killed while people still enjoy it.
No no, be specific. Within the restrictions laid out for that midchapter patch, what should they actually have done, to avoid it being "deceitful" and "lying"?
What would a real change look like, under those circumstances?
I think capping it at max two boons of the same kind up at once as a conservative nerf. Solo queue can be a nightmare still. I ran CoH for months feeling like it didn't help much.
They could have said '4 seconds' and '2 seconds'. I'm sorry but I'm convinced they said '25%' only because it sounded like they were making a bigger change than they were. They had to be aware that 4/2 seconds was NOTHING, and Killer players would not be happy with such a non-nerf. So they went with the more impressive sounding '25%'.
Or just make it so certain boons can't have more than 1 effect in play at a time, but if more than 1 boon totem exists, then CoH will jump to the next active boon when Snuffed by Killers.
So your problem isn't that the change wasn't good enough, but that they should have broken convention and used situationally-accurate time measurements instead of the always-accurate percentages?
It's not always four seconds and two seconds. It is always -25%.
If your take is the more reasonable "the change wasn't enough and they probably shouldn't have bothered until they could tackle it properly", I agree. But surely you see how that's a million miles away from the borderline-delusional "they obviously lied about the change to mislead their players for some reason"?
Frankly, I should've called out the main objection from the start here, but how is this relevant? In your world where they'll never touch CoH for "reasons", they're obviously not going to change boons as a mechanic either, so in order for this conversation to even happen we have to 'pretend' that they'd listen to the hypothetical best change- which is still changing the actually problematic perk, not the fundamentally sound but somewhat flawed mechanic it rests on.
How is it situationally different? If it's always 25%, then it's always, at maximum, 4 seconds more self-heal and 2 seconds more heal others. Which is what they should have said. Instead, it looks like they were trying to hide what amounted to a non-nerf behind a very impressive sounding 'We reduced it by 25%'.
If your take is the more reasonable "the change wasn't enough and they probably shouldn't have bothered until they could tackle it properly"
I guess it does rather boil down to that, yeah. They did nothing, and then made that nothing sound impressive. I'm sorry, but given the track record of how they operate; it's not beyond reason to think it was deliberate.
Frankly, I should've called out the main objection from the start here, but how is this relevant?
It's an idea that I would hope sparks interest in a change, while also knowing such a change will never happen. Hope springs eternal, and all that.
Great, I'm glad you've backed down to "looks like". The next step is admitting that it looks like that to you because you're angry, not because it's got any basis in reality. I have no idea what in their track record would cause anyone to come to this conclusion.
Anyway, I did have interest sparked in your change- I came in to discuss it because I think it's flawed. I didn't actually want to have to field very weird accusations levied at the developers to do that, believe it or not.
TBH; I still think they did. But as that's my personal view, and I know it won't change; I won't demand anyone 'change my mind' or anything, because that would go nowhere. By my admission; it won't be changed.
As for alternate ideas; what about the one Ripley posted, or my reply to them? Both valid ideas.
The one Ripley posted is slightly better, but it does still hit both the same notes; more of a punishment for SoloQ who aren't really the ones who can use CoH to its fullest right now anyway, and overkill for the three other boons that aren't nearly as problematic.
If we are working within the restriction of applying a nerf universally, I'd say the best option would be to intermittently show the killer a boon totem's aura after it's been active for a set (low) amount of time. Boons are balanced around the idea of being snuffed consistently by the killer, and CoH's most broken aspect is that the killer doesn't ever have to even know where it is for it to give full value. This way, the other three just hit their intended counterplay more smoothly, and the killer can always at least know where CoH is to go snuff it.
If paired with something to stop boons going through floors (a necessary evil, even the balanced boons benefit from this unfairly), that's much more elegant than actively restricting them.
Fair. A good change would at least be limiting boons to not go through floors/ceilings.
The timer thing...Hmm...Maybe if it was based on use? IE: If the boon heals 2 full health-states in total; now the Killer can see it? That means it got dang good use.
Or maybe just have CoH deactivate once it heals <x> amount of health states. The only problem with that is that the Survivor can't re-apply it unless the Killer Snuffs.
Not a terrible idea, but if the change is universal then it needs to apply to the other three boons too, and only one of them can really actually be easily defined like that.
I think a static timer is probably for the best- could be limited to time that someone is actually in the radius if we want to put more of a requirement on it.