Kaldrax
Kaldrax
About
- Username
- Kaldrax
- Joined
- Visits
- 54
- Last Active
Comments
-
Here's some ideas I've had or heard from others as possible ideas to help her out:
- When 2 survivors have cleansed in any pool, all pools become corrupted. The Plague taking the corruption from any pool will clear the corruption from all pools. Survivors can continue to cleanse in corrupted pools.
- Increase the time it takes to cleanse at a pool. Right now it's almost an insta heal. Make it take as long as it would to get healed by another survivor.
- Survivors being fully infected (broken) starts a countdown timer, similar to the Pig's traps. If the timer runs out, the survivor dies from sickness. Timer stops during chases.
-
@DemonDaddy said:
Maybe your chases are long and engaging. I prefer to keep mine short and escape the first chance I get. Just because one aspect of the game is less appealing to you doesn't mean other view it the same way. But having chase as the only interaction that requires thought, effort, SKILL would make for a very generic game. Killer already spends 90% of the game chasing which of itself has little variation in tactics. Follow, break, follow, attempt mindgame, maybe hit and then it starts again if they don't break Los. Removing a very tempting objective from confrontation is like saying "please Dev's, we have to many options while playing. Remove everything until a basic bot can take control and I can go hands free till the cut scene is done." killers don't have a choice in what they have to do, don't take the option of how they do it. That's literally just cutting content from them for easy play as their opponent.I stand by what I said. You said yourself killer is 90% chases. People play this game because they like the chases. Nobody likes being camped. The only person having fun camping is the killer and only when it works for them. Removing the tactic of camping would make the game better all round, and lots of people will agree with me on that. Having more options isn't always better.
-
@DemonDaddy said:
That's a free unhook as the killer can't prevent even foolish attempts. Essentially denying the killer action against you until the chase phase begins. That is a no effort senerio and a farming dream.
Alright maybe it is a free unhook and a no effort scenario, but there's nothing wrong with that. The best part of this game is the chases and I think the game would be more fun if it capitalized on them instead of encouraging mexican standoffs between the survivors and the killer.
-
@GraviteaUK said:
And why are they successful? because survivors need to learn not to take the bait and run the gens.
I fail to see why this needs a solution that affects the killer at all.
This is a problem created by survivors and can be resolved by survivors in many different ways.
If survivors get spoon fed crutch solutions like free unhooks how will they ever learn?
It's not so much about learning, but about how fun the game is. Being camped and tunnelled is boring and frustrating. With wait times as they are, lately I've been putting down DBD and playing other games because I don't want to wait 10 minutes for a match, only to be the first survivor found, then camped and tunnelled. It's not a fun experience and I feel like I've wasted my time. I know others feel the same way. I'm sure the devs want people to have fun playing their game and for them to keep playing it and purchasing new content.
-
@GraviteaUK said:
Too strong a tactic?
Sure at rank 20.
At rank 10 and above that's 1 kill and 3 escapes, with no NoED that's not even 1 kill they will just send a borrowed time guy in.
I'll agree that at high ranks camping becomes less effective because more survivors know not to feed, but I see lots of successful campers even in purple ranks.
-
Or maybe if you are X meters from an unhook, the unhooked person becomes marked, allowing you to kill them by your hand.
-
Actually, now you got me thinking. If something similar to Devour Hope became part of killer's built-in kit, where you get tokens for being X many meters away from an unhook, which after 4-6 allowed you to kill survivors by your hand. That might be reward enough. I wonder if survivors would complain about that too much...
-
In response to your comment about reward systems, there are two rewards when playing killer in DBD. The intrinsic reward of hooking and killing survivors, and the extrinsic rewards of points. There are no other real rewards in the game. If not points, then how would you propose rewarding the killer for not camping? Giving them a buff? Surely that'd throw the balance out of whack.
-
@Orion said:
Like I said, free unhooks. Risk-free, consequence-free, thinking-free. Thanks for confirming.
That's not at all what I said.
-
@Orion said:
How does that negate what I said? You're asking for free unhooks, period.
Not necessarily. The killer can camp just outside of range and go for the chase when they get the notification. Survivor might get away, they might not.
-
@Orion said:
There are ways you can reward something besides points. Try thinking outside the box for a moment, maybe read a book on game development, paying particular attention to the chapters dedicated to reward systems.
Camping is already a bad way of winning... if the Survivors are smart. The Killer is doing nothing for 2 minutes, which should be more than enough to repair every remaining generator and leave.Yeah and that's what happens in SWF matches. But when teams can't communicate camping is a great way to waste tons of survivor time as they all try to go for the unhook then realize they can't.
-
@Orion said:
It is, but clearly you're not familiar with how balancing works.
I'm literally a game developer.
-
@Orion said:
What you're actually proposing is free (risk-free, consequence-free, thinking-free) unhooks all the time. If you were honest, that's what you'd say you're proposing.
I'm not OP. My proposition is on the other thread.
-
@Orion said:
Nobody said "point reward", that's just your Survivor main nature talking. Killers, for the most part, don't care about points. They're not playing point farmer; they're playing Killer. Try again.
That's literally what I just said. They don't care about points and that's why it wouldn't work. The reward has to be killing and winning. That's why camping needs to be punished, so that it's a bad way of winning.
-
@Orion said:
For it to not be stupid, you'd have to make the Killer so absurdly overpowered (to compensate for the fact that he's being forced to have all his progress undone) that nobody would play Survivor.
That's not true at all. Try again.
-
@Orion said:
Everything's stupid about trying to unhook when the Killer is right there and can stop you or otherwise negate the effect that unhooking will have (i.e.: down the person you unhooked and put them right back on the hook).
Yes. That's why I'm proposing a rule change. Going for unhooks should be a smart thing to do, not a stupid thing.
-
@Orion said:
Because it's forcing the Killers to reward a stupid play by the Survivors. It's absurd that I even have to explain this, but making it so your opponent cannot capitalize on your mistakes makes a game unfair and unbalanced.
Like I said on your other post, it's only stupid because of the way the rules are set up. Change the rules, and you change what's smart and what's not. It's absurd that I even have to explain this.
-
@Mister_xD said:
ooooor (crazy idea incoming) we could actually reward a killer for not camping, instead of punishing him for doing so.i know its crazy.
but it might actually work.I've thought about that, but I don't think it would work. Camping is too strong of a tactic. No point reward is going to incentivize people to stop doing what helps them win.
-
@Orion said:
I'm making the argument that it should remain as is. Having it any other way is rewarding Survivors for making stupid plays, which is absurd from any unbiased perspectives.
There's nothing stupid about unhooking people. It's one of the core game mechanics of the game.
-
@Orion said:
Faking unhook attempts to see if the Killer hit them, presenting themselves as bait (which is so obvious that nobody fell for it), squatting around the hook in groups, and so on. Y'know, exactly what they do now.
How does that abuse the proposed rule change, though? The killer can (and I'd argue they should) go on a chase instead of trying to camp the person they already hooked. Why not let the survivors get the unhook so the hooked person can go back to playing the game?
-
@Orion said:
I was responding to your statement that it's up to the players to play smart. It's pretty obvious camping is an intentional design. I'm making the argument that it shouldn't be.
-
@Orion said:
They were forcing Killers to stay near the hook by miming vultures.
Explain
-
@Orion said:
lolno. It's not up to the devs to make it so players actually think about their actions. Survivors make camping worthwhile. It's up to Survivors to play smart.
Game dev is all about crafting a specific experience. If the players aren't doing the things the devs want, then it's up to the devs to tweak the design to get the players to do the right thing.
-
@Orion said:
Already tried and abused by Survivors, much to nobody's surprise.
Try thinking outside the box and rewarding Killers for leaving the hook.How did survivors abuse it?
-
@DemonDaddy said:
@Kaldrax
At best i would say there are few no save senerios, Leatherface being the primary. Still a save is possible and examples exist (YouTube, twitch, Etc), it only becomes more difficult and dangerous. Sometimes you have to accept a trade off if you're working for the good of the team. And if no one brings perks to counter that type of play, then you're giving the killer a strong situation to use against you.Exactly. Camping is popular because the way the game is set up right now, it's a good way to win. By changing the rules, the devs can make it not a good way to win, making the game more fun for everyone.
-
Because chases don't work well in getting me blood points.
I do agree, though. The hunt, chases, and hits are the more fun parts. If I could get by without hooking anyone again, I'd be glad. Problem is, I can't.
Of course I'm not mean enough to want to just slug people. At least not all of them at once.Can't say your suggestion would help. Can't keep punishing killers. Hooks, and sacrifices are their major source for points.
Reward them for making the game fun.
Reward survivors for making the game fun.
Encourage longer, more action packed matches.
Part of the reason people score low is that scoring revolves around interaction between the two sides and if someone gen rushes, or blasts through survivors they don't have the time to earn more points.Hooks and sacrifices don't have to be the major source for points though. All these things are entirely within the devs power to change. I totally agree, reward them for making it fun! Make the fun stuff the right thing to do to win!
-
What I mean, is why bother saving someone when killer is literally sitting on their butt waiting for the rescuer to unhook them, then they hit that person and both survivors (hooked and rescued guy) go and complain about killer camping and it being unfair and crap.
Then devs implement i-frames just because those guys complained... why, though?
What is the reason of implementing it?
Why reward stupid plays in the first place?
i-frame gives enough time for SB to activate, meaning the hooked guy will escape before you can down them again.Invulnerability frames serve literally no purpose but to reward bad and stupid plays.
The play isn't stupid if there's I-Frames involved. That's why they implemented them.
-
@DemonDaddy said:
Might as well ask for a free teleport to a random map corner before entering the next stage on hook. Its suppose to be dangerous and risky as you are bait on a hook. We all get one hook sectioned into phases, complain to your team for not coordinating a save (which is entirely possible). We don't have 3 entitled chances, we get 1 with the potential of teammates providing more. Let people play as they like for their enjoyment. At worst its an incentive to improve on our stealth play.It's impossible to coordinate a save when the killer refuses to take any bait.
-
@Orion said:
Almost everyone wants the game to be fun, but most Survivors keep making camping worthwhile.
I know. That's why I think it's up to the devs to change the rules so that camping isn't worthwhile.
-
@se05239 said:
They've even tried this in a PTB but survivors exploited it..
Oh damn I didn't know that. How did the survivors exploit it?
-
Because the only people that can make alternatives are the devs. I think they gave up after Bbq and chili, and the emblem penalty was added for camping.
Yeah that's what I'm suggesting. Let the devs make alternatives.
Survivors won't cooperate, and I can't imagine what could be done to give the killer more benefit than a sacrifice. They will abuse anything they can tk hurt the killer in general.
Your idea is not that great. It punishes killers because they can't stop a survivor from unhooking their buddy because they would be penalized for being that close.
It's basically asking for free unhooks.What's wrong with free unhooks? The best part of the game is the chases. Why not encourage more chases? My idea would do exactly that.
The main time, imo, for camping is when the generators are done.
There is just a massive, gaping safety zone created once the gates are open where most killers are completely powerless to stop a survivor from escaping.
If they let the survivor get unhooked, there's basically not much they can do to stop them unless there is a chase half way across the map.
That said, a killer would be crazy, or nice to not guard the hook.I agree with you here. Let the killers camp when gens are done. Other survivors can decide whether to help their friend or ditch em. My idea would still make this a valid tactic.
-
One thing I've noticed in these conversations is that even people who defend camping agree that it's frustrating and annoying. Devs, do you want your game to be annoying and frustrating, or would you rather have it be fun and scary?
-
@Rebel_Raven said:
Definitely not fun, but sometimes it's necessary. I hate it on both sides (though the more time they camp me, the mor time I buy for the rest. If they aren't dumb, they will be actively doing something.) but I won't say it needs to go.What are they going to do? Let you get unhooked and run straight out the exit?
Killers need points, too, and letting you go is detrimental to getting them.
If you hate it, then why not look for alternatives. The game could be rebalanced in a way that stops camping from being a meta tactic, so that killers no longer need to do it to get points. With what I proposed, camping would still be a valid tactic for finding survivors, but once you see one it'd be beneficial to actually chase them instead of tunnelling the already hooked person.
-
@Bongbingbing said:
Until something is done about the Time Imbalance between Killer and Survivor objectives, Expect this kind of Gameplay to be the Norm.
Something can be done. It isn't necessary for it to be the norm.