NaigEtarip
NaigEtarip
About
- Username
- NaigEtarip
- Joined
- Visits
- 444
- Last Active
Comments
-
@tester said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2518653#Comment_2518653
To appease people who like to complain.
I'm so interested on proof about that being the case.
-
Why buff and nerf patches happen if the game is "perfectly balanced"?
-
@KrosseKrabbePizza said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2513351#Comment_2513351
Ok you really are serious about this. What is your expectation from the devs? Nerfing survivor speed? Nerfing pallets, better removing them? Buffing killer speed?
The thing is, yes holding Shift W is strong in such situation. Tunneling, Camping and slugging is strong for killers in many situations as well but it is a known strategy and killers will do it and sometimes abuse it.
Do you expect survivor to stand still? Because i heard many killers often cry about looping. Standing still is the last thing survs can do instead, so i assume that you want survivors to stand still. You like challenges, huh?
A balanced map pool/design for high MMR.
-
@justbecause said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2509675#Comment_2509675
I've been playing this game way too long to know what kind of players tunnel and camp and it's always bad players who care about nothing but 1 kill they will rather not play and just stare at survivor than practice and learn even if it takes few lost games as I already said not that they just cut off themselves from learning and earning skills and practice but it's also very boring and downgrading and yes those players are bad when was the last time u saw streamers like otz camp and tunnel and he gets 4k 99% of time and u know why is that? Because the dude practiced and learned if he proceeded to do those "strategies" he would be still stuck at average killer skillful Player just like survivors who refuse chases and hide they will learn nothing but become even worse
And about ur question with how I know it's not fair? Well it's not everyone needs equal chances to play to be fair and u don't give them options imagine if someone could bodyblock u while u play killer and u can't move or play for 99% of game would u consider that fair from survivor side?
I understand that you can think that Tunnelers and Campers are less skillfull players, but those strategies involve the most skillfull plays by survivors to get solved too.
Camping and Tunneling can lead to many memorable moments.
But think about it this way. They are game features that get "labeled" by it's community, becoming discussed for years.
How is that bad?
Anyways i wouldn't give negative connotation to others' choices as i know that they might just be trying to find how they can enjoy to play or just playing prioritizing their enjoyment as i do.
EDIT:
Forgot to answer to the fairness of the example, yes i think that anything that can happen within the intended design is fair.
If a killer bodyblocks a survivor for long time might be a banneable offense to not allow the game progress. So in that particular case i would say is not fair.
-
Ur making no sense it's u who choosed to do that and don't blame anyone else for ur own suckage at the game...
Is about choice, right?
Well the first one is to keep playing the game, which exposes you and everyone else to features that might make own experience unpleasant.
Again:
- How you determined that would be fair if others did not tunnel or camp for everyone?
- How you determined that would be fair to adopt a stance of responsability on making others experience more pleasant at the risk of own?
If everything you can bring is that they suck at the game. Well...
-
Nothing fair about tunneling and camping at least not for person on receiving end I'll rather play the game and lose than play starring contest...
One more time.
How you determined that it's unfair if the person on the "receiving end" has choosed to expose himself to the intended game design?
-
-
I don't want to hear from people who think they are genuinely doing nothing wrong.
How you determined that they are doing something wrong or that it would be better if everyone adopted a different subset of morals and rules than the ones that already exist?
- Ever single player accepted to play the game under the same circunstances or possibilities? Yes.
- There is an "authority" who has already defined a set of rules or limitations of what is right or wrong? Yes.
Let's see if you can come with something logical.
-
Obviously if you advocate for a singular definition of fun you are not going to understand others...
In fact if a player is playing however he wants while not giving negative connotation to others playstyles or choices is probably less toxic than you.
-
You can definetly see the game as is, as a set of possibilities.
People use the term unbalanced or unfair to describe the amount of advantage or luck that you can have over your opponents for no "merital" reasons.
Finding a key being an example.
-
So here is the tricky part, how a competitive person can have fun while being constantly denied of displaying competence?
But all players have something in common.
We all have the choice of leaving the game if it doesn't fit what we looking for, yet here we are.
-
The MMR could be deeper, what if it has a factor where it is taking data from the rank 1 playerbase and add it with your individual skill factor?
- Plague has a rank 1 playerbase skill average factor of 500. So if you MMR is 1000 it adds the playerbase factor = 1500.
- Blight has a rank 1 playerbase skill average factor of 1500. So if your MMR is 2000 = 3500.
This could also be not based on playerbase skill but on how often that killer is used as other example, that would encourage to switch killers as the sweaty level will come faster.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
Ah, tru3 on his everlasting crusade against something which is just blown out of proportion now. Mainly thanks to him...
Out of interest, did he check it without stretched tho? Ghostfaces Reveal is so broken, would not be surprised if it would work the exact same without stratched resolution.
The video shows it a bit earlier, at 3:12...
-
@DerpyPlayz said:
Im pretty sure implementing a system where you could not go over X speed, or Y height or generally having specific variables under normal conditions impossible to reach that would result in a ban would cost money, money I am not thinking that the devs want to spend.
In any case, realistically I think this could in theory be problematic. For example, what if someone accidently found a exploit that sent you free falling under the map. (this has happened before) Well I am pretty sure they wouldn't be happy to find out they were thought to be cheating because of this. At one point there was just a free fall in the preschool, so its not too hard to think some casuals would not be suriously playing the game, see it, investigate, jump in, and have this issue.
There are other reasons too and scenarios on why this would be risky but that is what instantly came to mind.
Not banning or kicking them, just sending match data reports to devs so they can act accordingly.
- If there are 100 reports of different players going beyond the intended speed on School, then the School might have a problem.
- If there are 50 reports where Bob escapes in less than 3 minutes, well... Bob is suspicious.
-
Long ago, might find the quote if necessary, i read about how players always strive to find the paths of least resistance.
Essentially if a game has the paths of least resistance to be unfun, it's bad design.
Unfortunately it applies to Gen-Rushing, Tunneling, Camping... as most of the time these strategies block/deny the opposite side of displaying competence and they don't require much competence either on their respective role.
Now wanting to influence others' to behave a certain way is the opposite of what should be done, as exploiting those paths or suggest changes to devs should be the way to go in my opinion.
-
DBD was never designed with having a "positive experience" in mind unless players are wiling to.
It's all about the constant features that counter or block the possibility of the opposite role to show competence.
If you accept an advice, don't leave the game at once.
It might not work as you probably have the habit by now, find another game and slowly transition to it while you compare the worth of each experience for your mental health.
-
So interesting that all bringed issues have to do with efficency.
-
Sometimes a 2-2 in a big open map as Doctor, Myers... can feel rewarding.
What i mean is that is not necessarily about the "result" but about the context of the match. The Map + Killer, Gens disposition, Survivor items... all can contribute to how the experience ends feeling.
My theory is that the game would improve if at match end there was more detail, atleast for the player in question, about how he has done in the match. Chases left / won, hits and missed hits, time till hooks...
Right now the player is left with its perception of how things went, and that is an obvious bad idea if someone ends frustrated.
-
It's about the need of a better definition of how a skilled player should look like at this point. The skill tracker system part.
One weird example of this is when someone get's "tunneled or focused" but still manages to loop the killer for lots of time. The end match points are going to reflect that the survivor did not repaired gens, did not rescue or heal teammates... yet lasting that long implies good skills or atleast better than killer.
If the new system considers these situations better, i would gladly see it implemented.
-
Normally it's nostalgia triggered from plain and simple preference for the older style.
In fact you can trigger that nostalgic feel with games, that you never played, that share graphical similiarities with the ones you love/d. It's like magic.
Yet take a look:
Old vs New Graphics - FPS comparison | What's the difference? Dead by daylight - YouTube
I have not played before the overhaul of many of these maps and i can already tell that there are things that feel just not changed but lost.
-
All players' fun have equal value, as long as they play as intended.
We all choose to play, to be exposed to posibilities that we might enjoy or not due to the design.
Any player that wants a more adapted experience you should start thinking about either changing the game or become a game developer, attributing negative connotation over other players' playstyles feels like plain selfishness being honest.
-
To me the game is more frustrating due to two things:
- The pacing at which your objectives or strategies are often countered or denied.
- The importance that every mistake can have, on the outcome of a match, when facing competent players and some RNG unluckness.
His analysis also made me a little sad, thinking about the kind of game I'm playing and how unhealthy it is. I can't help but feel regretful that I got sucked in.
This is the problem of the excessive negative connotation of the psychologist. He's perpetuating the negativity.
Things are not Black and White...
- You are not always "humiliated", you are "humiliated" some times.
- You are not always denied of completing objectives, you are denied some times.
- And the most important part, players are choosing to be exposed to that possible "humiliation".
I never feel humiliated by anything that happens on the game, i know how it feels to be humiliated, i just don't take anything from a stranger on game to a personal level.
To me it's two people wanting to display greater competence. So sometimes it brings me disatisfaction, frustration or overwhelmedness at most.
Sidenote: I get that fun is a relative concept but we do agree that fun is something we enjoy and those tactics are not enjoyable... in most cases they're not enjoyable for the killer either which uses it as a frustration method.
Aren't you contradicting yourself? If it's relative how are we going to get to a consensus.
Why don't see those situations as an opportunity to achieve greater satisfaction?
There was this Leon and i was the last hooked. He had no reason to come and risk it as the doors where at 99%, but he did.
He approached slowly, got seen by killer, got under hook and dropped a grenade. Somehow we both managed to escape that camping situation.
Not only Survivors but Killer acknowledge the "skillfull" play and we all congratulated Leon. How do you think we all felt that match?
-
The problem is already in the premise, you can't come with unbiased rules on top of the ones who are in the right to do so.
To put it short, all players are equally responsible of being exposed to features that they might find toxic. From there wanting to influence other's behaviour can only be done for the sake of selfishness.
We are all different, we find fun in different things. Respect more other's freedom of choice, including the game designers.
-
Don't bother, it's always the same.
Every single player is responsible of being exposed to the game features. From there it's all people wanting to influence others for selfish reasons.
-
This posts always end with the same sort of arguments.
Every single player is responsible of being exposed to the game features, Tunneling is an intended game feature:
- How you take a game feature is on you
- If you take a game possiblity as waste of time the problem is on you, seriously is your entertainment time why the efficency?
- If you want a handholded experience, expect others to want the same
- Isn't morally wrong to attribute negative connotations to the work of the game designer? Are we so sure it's not plain selfishness at this point?
If survivors are not wiling to go, or are annoyed by, the effort route of taking protection hits, have patience for safe rescues, bring BT or DS, keep repairing, bring Kindred, get better on chases... why would a Killer need to go the hard route himself?
Having said this, please stop holding W and pre-dropping "Corridor Pallets" against my Doctor. It's evil, hurts me emotionally and i want a more handholded experience. Thank you.
-
Just answered on another post practically the same.
The self made rules of players are often, if not always, biased.
If survivors are unwiling to exert more skill to solve, or annoyed for being exposed to, those strategies why the killer should play otherwise?
-
Interestingly those strategies are the ones that require more skill from survivors to be solved.
So why would a Killer need to choose a more skillfull playstyle when the opposite side is equally annoyed by having to?
-
I'm enjoying the map a lot as Doctor.
-
It's a problem but depends on map + killer combo.
Many reworked maps have structures that makes lose line of sight, if by "luck" the survivor decides to go away and the killer hesitates for a mind game the won time and distance by the survivor can be really strong.
But i don't know how that could be fixed at all.
-
@MeltingPenguins said:
I'm mainly wondering because
- there's a massive influx of gamestart slugging with ruin and corrupt
- how many people here say camping, tunneling etc are 'necessary' against good survivors
especially with point 2 I reckon that proper balancing is impossible, ruining the experience for both sides at bottom line.
The term is inmensely broad, but this definition:
- Consistent with rules, logic or ethics.
The answer would probably yes as the authority of the environment are the devs. Any player that follows intended design is then playing fair.
Problem comes on other definitions like:
- Free from favoritism, self-interest, or preference in judgment.
Which then i think it would be only possible if all players reached an agreement that settled up a subset of rules, logic, ethics...
-
As it has been stated, no player can have the knowledge / resources / rights to attribute negative connotation on an intended game feature with logical basis.
So it's on you to allow other's opinions to influence your playstyle.
-
People seem to attribute negative connotations to intended behaviour a lot.
The point is, i have yet to see a logical reason that supports that negative connotation. That assumption or claim that certain intended behaviour is bad.
They will bring how they feel, how you might make others feel, hypotetical cases...
Leave the right to determine what is bad or wrong to devs and just enjoy the design possibilites they granted to you without remorse.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2364444#Comment_2364444
Right, so do you think that i should use my guess on why it was reverted to tell other's if they are wrong or right about their actions now?
No, but I think you should stop hurling out bad-faith rhetoric in an attempt to defend camping.
It was never necessarily about Camping... but about any possibility there is for all players due to the intended design.
Anyways i end our discussion here, have been enough respectful by repeating myself many times by now.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2364298#Comment_2364298
Oh, it would be changed, would it?
Like they actually attempted before, but reverted because the solution had its own problems?
And why would there be a problem with it being overused if there is no negative impact to camping? I mean, you don't see BHVR taking measures against gens getting done, and I'm pretty sure 100% of survivors will attempt to do gens in the vast majority of their matches!
Oh, it would be changed, would it?
This is the important point, that's my hypotesis. It holds no logical basis as i don't work in the company that leads the game.
I could be right but i also could be wrong.
Like they actually attempted before, but reverted because the solution had its own problems?
Right, so do you think that i should use my guess on why it was reverted to tell other's if they are wrong or right about their actions now?
Wouldn't that be misleading others? Misleading community towards what actually could be worse for the game cause i don't hold any proof?
I understand that sometimes is hard to realize that our opinions hardly hold logical basis... but don't take our discussion as a personal attack.
It's been an enjoyable discussion.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2364203#Comment_2364203
All right, dip, quick quesh for ya:
If it is 'intended', why is it punished?
Cause a feature of a game being overused / underused might not be intended?
I also can guess that if it was "bad" for the game it wouldn't be discouraged but prevented or changed. Don't you think?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2362944#Comment_2362944
No, I don't. Tunnelling is difficult to argue against, I'll grant you that. Slugging is a bit one-sided but can still easily be construed as a gameplay problem.
But camping deletes gameplay from both sides of the equation, as both survivor and killer spend two minutes doing nothing, and neither get properly rewarded for it. And this is obvious to pretty much everyone.
Do you play the game, or are you on these forums simply for bad faith arguing?
I'm here so you realize that there's no logic on giving negative connotation to player intended behaviour.
Camping is blocking movement input, deleting gameplay is another negative connotation you want to give it.
There are many possibilities of what could have lead to camping, what happens while and after.
How are you sure you would enjoy a game without those?
-
@MadLordJack said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2364077#Comment_2364077
Because it only works against bad teams and therefore isn't actually you trying to complete your objective, but you trying to get a consolation prize because you know you're not good enough to deal with experienced survivors who would otherwise be cocky enough to make mistakes but will instead just do the gens and leave because there's literally nothing else for them to do thanks entirely to you.
Personally, I don't pretend beating on bad players is fun. Because I know they're bad and I could have won without deliberately being a #########.
Edit: And that's without mentioning the grinding misery that going against so many toxic killers that are preventing 4 other people from actually playing the game for no real personal benefit besides the satisfaction that they have ruined other people's experiences.
This is a similar message of why i started discussing here.
Please read the conversation i had with Firellius and tell me if you can reach a logical conclusion on why a player should not choose to act on intended behaviour.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2362624#Comment_2362624
You are asking for 'proof' on opinion, on emotional response. What exactly are you expecting here?
Because DEVS determined that it was better for the game.
And I can guarantee you that they didn't have the 'proof' you are asking for here when they did it. Because that proof does not exist, nor is it possible to attain.
Following that logic, if Tunneling, Camping, Slugging... are still unchanged it's cause they are good?
That is an appeal to authority.
Of course i'm going to need proof to know why any player would want to influence other based on the potential false premise of knowing better.
This does simply translate to 'I want proof people dislike camping'. Which is either immensely tone-deaf, or you are running with an argument of 'no objective 'fun''. Either way, you're going to hit an impasse. Because the proof you are demanding does not exist and cannot be attained.
I asked for proof on the assumptions that your opinion holds. Not on the emotions...
Do you acknowledge that there is no logical reason to conclude that the game would improve if player's did not tunnel, camp, slug...?
-
No, you don't have an argument, because your argument is 'no one can judge whether something is good or bad'.
Please read what you write, you are not only contradicting yourself on the first phrase but attributing words that i never said.
You are trying to approach game design like it's an exact science like chemistry or mathematics, and that doesn't work.
What of what i wrote made you think that?
Then why was it removed?
Because DEVS determined that it was better for the game. Following that logic, if Tunneling, Camping, Slugging... are still unchanged it's cause they are good?
One more time... my argument,
Cause the negative connotation and the specific triggers is completely dependant on each individual and no player can have proof that a specific intended behaviour has a "real negative impact" on the game.
This is about player's influencing other player's behaviour. About connotations of what is good or what is wrong for the game from a player perspective who probably lacks all the tools to know it.
Of course i'm going to need proof to know why any player would want to influence other based on the potential false premise of knowing better.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2362252#Comment_2362252
It can be.
Games die to exploit abuse and hackers all the time. Now, those are, of course, outside of the game's actual mechanisms, but it still demonstrates that players can have a negative impact on any game environment if they so choose.
Camping is constructed out of the game's mechanisms, sure, which would make it BHVR's fault for letting it sit there. But if players opt, en masse, to abuse it, then it's their fault too.
I contribute to the game's health by choosing not to engage with the worst aspects. I don't tunnel, I don't camp, I rarely slug. I could opt to just run a facecamp build and play Bubba all the time, but doing so would make me complicit in DBD's worst aspect and I would personally be making the biggest problems more eminent.
In short, if the game were to die to camping, it would be partly BHVR's fault for enabling it, and partly players' fault for exploiting it.
Otherwhise you are limiting the playerbase that enjoys doing or facing those strategies, designer/s' freedom, probably contributing to a more monotonous environment...
And this is a useless argument that can justify literally anything. You could say that the removal of old DS was 'limiting the playerbase, the designer's freedom, and contributing to a more monotonous environment'.
This kind of thinking operates from the assumption that there is no 'generally good' and 'generally bad' form of game design, but if that were the case, why are some games complete flops while others succeed? There is such a thing as 'engaging gameplay', and camping is pretty definitively -not- it.
Games die to exploit abuse and hackers all the time. Now, those are, of course, outside of the game's actual mechanisms, but it still demonstrates that players can have a negative impact on any game environment if they so choose.
There's a reason why i bringed intended design.
All players have agreed to play under same circunstances. They are equally responsible of being exposed to the same emotional triggering factors.
Notice how i avoided your wording "negative impact" for "emotional triggers".
Why? Cause the negative connotation and the specific triggers is completely dependant on each individual and no player can have proof that a specific intended behaviour has a "real negative impact" on the game.
I contribute to the game's health by choosing not to engage with the worst aspects.
The same as above, how exactly you determined those are unhealthy or worst aspects of the game?
And this is a useless argument that can justify literally anything. You could say that the removal of old DS was 'limiting the playerbase, the designer's freedom, and contributing to a more monotonous environment'.
Before the DS was changed it was intended player behaviour, the argument still holds...
-
If the game dies is not the player's fault.
In fact there's no fault, no right or wrong in players who choose to act on a set of possibilites. Which is the intended game design.
Otherwhise you are limiting the playerbase that enjoys doing or facing those strategies, designer/s' freedom, probably contributing to a more monotonous environment...
Now of course if you have proof that a reduction on those strategies would be beneficial for the game i would be interested to see them.
-
An unbalanced outcome of a competition is a possibility, there's no fault. No right or wrong.
Players have agreed to play the same design, same set of possibilities, so they are equally responsible of being exposed to emotional triggering factors as the others, atleast as long as the intended design is followed by. (No cheating, exploiting...)
People having different emotional triggering factors is why there's no point on trying to change self behaviour to please everyone.
-
In my opinion you can't balance DBD as long as there's no better way of tracking competency.
Ideally, the matches to take statistics from would have all players as equally competent as possible. This should filter imbalances related to play time.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2324635#Comment_2324635
Yes, and then you ended with
DBD promotes this, as in the example you bring, giving "tasks" with "rewards" that are not necessarily related to displaying much competence is fuel for conflict.
Implying you, like her, believe the only way to display competence is to fail at stealth and get hooked multiple times, to the point someone else has to be hooked in your stead or else you'll die.
Notice this: "the only way to display competence".
This is not the first time it happens, you seem to conclude that my implications are either Black or White, why?
I'm not implying that Reparing a generator it's not showing any competence at all, i'm implying that it is displaying less competence that someone who makes killer waste time by looping.
The same happens with the task of picking up the Crown, are you displaying more competence finding and picking up the Crown than repairing a Generator? No cause there are no skill checks, you are not directly contributing to the win... but rather to a personal reward, right?
But again this is not about how much competent you really were, this is about how much her could have percieved you were.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2324610#Comment_2324610
IMO, the guy who was actually working on generators and managed to be chased without being hooked is more competent than the one who didn't do either of those things. The problem with her, as with many survivors, is that they think looping, being hit, and getting hooked are, paradoxically, the only displays of skill.
That is why i bringed the perception issue, she might not know who repaired more at all.
-
This is probably about perception of competence.
Was the outcome of the match negative for survivors?
Nancy cannot know all of what you did in the match, but to her "available information" you were the most probable of have displayed less competence due to; 0 hooks on later stages of the match, the perk that often means a playstyle of less risk or interaction with killer...
DBD promotes this, as in the example you bring, giving "tasks" with "rewards" that are not necessarily related to displaying much competence is fuel for conflict.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2310616#Comment_2310616
In other words, the DC penalty doesn't actually change anything because people find other ways to DC. That's the implication.
No.
It changes players strategies to "give up" without being punished. That is doing something, no?
Notice how you, one more time, bring "doesn't actually change anything" implying that it does nothing.
I mean we can keep going but as long as your mind brings that the implication is that it does nothing it kind of makes no sense...
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2310606#Comment_2310606
The implication is "Even if you do this, they'll just find some other way to do it". It's the same thing as when people say "Well, laws don't stop criminals because they'll just break the laws anyway".
You are trying to return to what you understood the first time. The implication that it does nothing.
You got it right the second time, it will make criminals adjust their strategies. Which is what happens on the world or has criminality dissapeared?
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2310600#Comment_2310600
That's the implication when you say this:
They will find other ways of giving up. The DC penalty is only making this people adjust their strategy.
The implication here being that the DC penalty doesn't actually stop people from leaving the trial.
That implication is different than saying that it does nothing.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2310592#Comment_2310592
If the DC penalty doesn't do anything, they should've left it on. After all, why waste the time disabling it?
The best argument for the DC penalty working as it should is that people keep coming here to try to convince everyone that it doesn't do anything. If it didn't do anything, they wouldn't bother.
Sorry, who said it was not doing anything?