Comments

• @[Deleted User] said:

  I love all these suggestions!

  It may not feel like support but this is all I can do to help a game that has helped me.

  in Bardic Inspiration Comment by Renzun September 21, 2023

• @Thorax556 said:

  So to compound off of Alice here I think you're looking at it in a different light than OP is trying to put out.

  1) Although I agree that who cares what people say about what you do it can be quite obnoxious to be told what to do, but I think the idea here is to hopefully split the people that are more competitive from those who want a more chill game, my idea here is maybe mix it up from what we know, maybe ranked gives more insight on what each side can see where casual play could have more relaxed game mechanics, that's the vibes i'm getting from this first bullet

  2) From how I'm interpretating what OP is writing here is some perks that are more "optimal" or seen as better perks are picked far more than something that can be seen as less "optimal" and they want more perks to get some love to be better, maybe not overpowered mind you but things that haven't seen much update in the years, which to your statement Alice i would kind of disagree with the pop, sure you COULD get 12 pops but realistically it's closer to 6~ if you're really going for gen presser, whereas scourge its very likely you'll get all 4 at the price of finding a hook which you're already doing in pops case

  3) Again from interpretation on OP's writing, it doesn't seem like he's trying to force a meta but instead a new feel to the game, something that can be added to different characters to freshen up the style of play, and making characters less about the cosmetic and more about the fun that can be had as each player, to that I personally would enjoy seeing something new brought to the game kinda like how TCM does it in a way

  4) Is a little tricky to me, because I can understand where he is coming from but at the same time, I feel that the scores are there for a reason so that you're not just stuck doing one objective all game and think it was all you, when there's plenty of things in the game that go towards winning, but if you read what he wrote it also contained some ideas of mixing up the game so that it doesn't HAVE to be that way, adding extra benefits to killers that mix up the game play could be quite fun and give some lesser used killers some game play you don't normally see

  I took a good read from this and quite enjoy some if not a lot of the ideas from your post, if implemented properly it could be a nice refreshing break from the constant we are used to, thumbs up!

  maybe ranked gives more insight on what each side can see where casual play could have more relaxed game mechanics

  Ranked would imply that players within that queue system would be more willing to put in effort. Casual implies what it is: casual.

  perks that are more "optimal" or seen as better perks are picked far more than something that can be seen as less "optimal"

  Yep, optimal gameplay is pushed a little harder and littler further each content update. Content isn't the problem; thank you for keeping the game fresh! What I take issue with is the ignorance of 'classic' perks in leu of making the new perks strictly an upgrade.

  a new feel to the game, something that can be added to different characters to freshen up the style of play

  While I genuinely appreciate the mental stress the game provides by having to work / play around a variety of perks as killer, I feel the pregame lobby is for visual stimulation (unless you're going to swap to Franklin's Demise to counter the fully kitted survivors).

  I feel that the scores are there for a reason so that you're not just stuck doing one objective

  I agree. Scores (read: points) are to incentivize certain playstyles. The issue I have is: the balance is too strong! Assuming the generators do not get completed in a match, "Survival" is [basically] an ignorable category. That written, two of the remaining three categories are defined by recovering from the Killer's decisions / actions / choices. Personally, I feel that the scoring system for non-"Objective" categories need to be reworked / rewritten to incentivize staying alive. Perhaps instead getting points, points are deducted from a preestablished pool that the 'survivor team' shares collectively.

  in Bardic Inspiration Comment by Renzun September 16, 2023

• Hello Terrastopia!

  I think separating the current pool of players and adding a ranked mode would be a nice change for everyone.

  I do too. I would wait longer for a better quality game.

  I think DBD should touch up some of their more useless perks

  As it stands currently, some of my favorite (perhaps nostalgia driven 'favorites') perks are "F2P" perks. When I take these perks into games, I feel like a liability instead of an asset.

   In DBD, they can add a skill tree where you can spend bloodpoints to get tiny bonuses like 10% quieter breathing

  A "skill tree" would be an in-depth, difficult implementation. While I like the idea of a tech-tree, I feel that min / max players would have a field day and ruin it for everyone. Perhaps it is my age showing; I prefer simple, streamlined changes that convey clarity and directness.

   Holding M1 is such a boring thing to do to progress the game in order to meet the win condition.

  Yep. From an action / adventure viewpoint: holding M1 is not as enjoyable or endorphin releasing as being chased by a murderer. This is a fact. The nature of a game is to be fun or -- at least -- enjoyable. Below "Gold" ranks and running "Kindred", I have laid witness to other survivors [and killers alike] fighting over a hook instead of fighting over generator progress. In my mind this is due to lack of incentive; both in BP's and psychological endorphin activation.

  in Bardic Inspiration Comment by Renzun September 12, 2023

• @crogers271 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3535888#Comment_3535888

  First, thank you! I am genuinely grateful to have a conversation as opposed to a finger pointing session. 

  This post got pushed over to the feedback and suggestions subforum. Less people see it, but the threads tend to have less spiral to them.

  Is communicating that to the killer taboo?

  BHVR has a theory on it that they've communicated multiple times.

  Basically: they don't want to disclose SWF before a game starts, because it will lead to killers dodging lobbies.

  They don't want to disclose it after the game because they think it will lead to more toxicity.

  They don't want to ban SWFs or penalize them because its a large portion of the player base.

  I understand 1 and 3, but would personally like 2.

  This post got pushed over to the feedback and suggestions subforum. Less people see it, but the threads tend to have less spiral to them.

  Less people will see it? 😥

  Just kidding, I'm not sad. I don't care if less people see it, I care about the right people seeing it.

  I understand 1 and 3, but would personally like 2.

  I'm going to make a suggestion that I have had stuck in my head for a while now. I can only imagine what a nightmare it would be to program although the benefits would be immense to player / community health:

  Creating a pregame "preference" filter would eliminate many issues at the cost of lengthened queue times. I would argue that these filter options should only affect a 'casual' queue mode. Ranked is ranked; be prepared to try or risk losing.

  Groups vs. Solo's - While unarguably influential for killers, this could benefit solo survivors too. As I wrote above: Comms make a lot of perks, designed for the solo player, redundant. So, by allowing solo's to filter out parties, those players would find other players with similar thought processes and [hopefully] builds.

  It has been my experience that 'pack mentality' is more prevalent of an issue when encountering toxicity online because friends tend to enable and empower that type of mindset. As one among a familiar group, filters (that are normally present when among strangers) are easier to remove.

  in Bardic Inspiration Comment by Renzun September 7, 2023

• @crogers271 said:

  Forgive me if I am interpreting this wrong but, this comment leads me to think that you believe the separation of competitive and casual gameplay is a waste of resources. If you would explain why that separation exists in other games, I would be grateful.

  A number of reasons, most of them linked to the difference between an asymmetrical and symmetrical game.

  1: Ranked modes usually rely on smaller map pools, bans, rule changes, etc. Map pools don't work as well because map strength is really killer dependent, bans would be a huge problem because of uneven sides, etc. BHVR's emphasis has not ever been perfect balance.

  2: There are two layers to playing hard in DbD. The normal, like any game, is just the player being more focused. However, addons offerings also allow a player to bump up their power - while all games have meta/weak builds, the idea that you have a pool of limited items to make yourself more powerful is not as common. Would you ban higher tier addons from casual play? Which, if so, why even have them exist in the first place.

  3: SWFs don't really have a counter. In other games, if the other team is using voice chat, you can also voice chat with your teammates. So if ranked mode became the SWF mode, killers would need to get a buff. Except the problem, and BHVR's believe from past posts, is that if create separate SWF pools with harder rule sets it will drive away that player base.

  4: What would you do about the top tier killers? Ranked would risk becoming stale if

  If one night you want to take the game seriously and another night you want to crack a drink and screw around, there is no separation despite completely different moods

  While I think its possible that ranked mode could actually work for itself, casual mode would see no improvement/get worse.

  In a 5 v 5 game the intensity I put into a match is averaged out by the other players. A killer 100% controls the intensity of his entire side and bully squads aren't looking for competitive matches.

  When a detail of a larger point is focused on, I feel my time is wasted. Forums are for strangers to have global conversations, not nitpick the specifics of a sentence.

  Forums lack the nuance of the spoken word where we can emphasize what we want the audience to focus on. Miscommunications are normal, especially in a scenario where it is perceived that the first example doesn't actually back up the point. Writing a paragraph on how you've been misunderstood is likely to just turn off any potential reader.

  Is this an acceptable practice?

  It's a strange practice that multiple people have commented on.

  I think BHVR's theory is that they need to keep the game evolving and shaking up how it's played (the meta).

  To use D&D as an example, the DbD is not the rule set, DbD is the campaign. You wouldn't keep giving your players the same campaign over and over, you'd give them variety over time. I suspect BHVR has a similar idea and that perk shake ups need to happen to keep the game from getting stale.

  Lots of people don't like it, my only post ban ever was on that issue, but not a lot of games make it to seven years.

  First, thank you! I am genuinely grateful to have a conversation as opposed to a finger pointing session. I am pleased to admit that I was nodding along with many of your statements.

  A number of reasons, most of them linked to the difference between an asymmetrical and symmetrical game.

  This made me feel a little silly. I was comparing DbD to games I have experience with: League of Legends, DotA 2, HotS, SMITE, Overwatch, Call of Duty, etc... I agree with your assessment, asymmetrical games are not directly comparable to those games. My inner math geek would love to read the numbers and statistics to better understand what is really going on.

   SWFs don't really have a counter.

  Which is why I feel that clarity is key to helping players understand what they are about to encounter. Comms make a lot of perks, designed for the solo player, redundant. Bond, Empathy, Situational Awareness, etc... become unnecessary in that setting. Is communicating that to the killer taboo? On killer, I can tolerate a duo or two in my lobby but would prefer not to face against a 3+ SwF stack. Comms are too powerful to overcome unless I'm playing a top tier killer (which I do not enjoy doing).

  4: What would you do about the top tier killers? Ranked would risk becoming stale

  I wouldn't touch top tier killers. They have their place. I would modify / tune the numbers at the bottom of the ladder. Instead of lowering the ceiling, I would raise the floor.

  While I think its possible that ranked mode could actually work for itself, casual mode would see no improvement/get worse.

  My main game for the past few years has been Overwatch. Being honest, quickplay is a circus and competitive is marginally better. The primary difference: if you rage at someone in Quick Play, you get laughed at; if you rage in Ranked, you better have the stats to back up your comparison.

  To maintain game health, I feel MMR should be tracked but kept separate from 'Ranked' queue. I think casual would stabilize at a lower overall MMR than competitive and be a judgement safe environment for players to test and try new things. As it stands now, unless grouped in a SwF, I stick to safe standards as to not upset randos on my team. Maybe they're trying to win, maybe they don't care. I'm not trying to risk assuming playing with the latter.

  Forums lack the nuance of the spoken word where we can emphasize what we want the audience to focus on.

  This is a fact. I didn't have as much appreciation for critical reading, thinking and analysis before writing this post. I am a changed man now. Upgrade complete!

  I think BHVR's theory is that they need to keep the game evolving and shaking up how it's played (the meta).

  I think shaking up the meta is a great in general. Personally, I think Valve's approach to DotA2 is the pinnacle of this practice. Most numbers don't get touched, some get tweaked, few get adjusted, less get overhauled, least get reworked. My concern is that there isn't enough 'tweaking' (small adjustments) and this is going to continue to snowball. Where things could have been slightly tuned in the past, now they're needing an adjustment. Down the road, they're going to need an overhaul. And so forth.

  I prefer to feel that I'm getting in front of issues as opposed to reacting to them. That's a me thing. Hence why I wrote about my playgroup's feelings towards DbD, to share awareness as to why certain accounts may not be returned to.

  not a lot of games make it to seven years.

  Which is why I am making the effort to explain the thoughts and feelings of folks that are no longer interested in the current state of the game.

  Cheers to [hopefully] seven more years.

  in Bardic Inspiration Comment by Renzun September 7, 2023

• @crogers271 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3535250#Comment_3535250

  The point of creating a non-ranked format is to preemptively shut down toxicity.

  I really doubt it would do anything to touch toxicity. I actually think you'd get the exact opposite result.

  The problem with ranked mode is that with how DbD is laid out in terms of add-ons, killer powers, SWFs, etc. people are frequently looking for stomps, not even games. Bully squads aren't looking to face an even killer, they are looking for a killer to bully.

  So I think you'd have players join unranked mode, only to get bullied, and then be upset because that's not how that mode is "supposed" to be played.

  I feel that you are missing the point I made in the first sentence of my paragraph

  It probably isn't your intention, but this whole paragraph makes you sound like a massive jerk. An entire paragraph explaining a paragraph, especially when you use the word 'concise', doesn't really work. Just say Pain Res was an example of a larger overall point and move to other examples.

  On powercreep - we've also lost unlimited DH, self-heal COH, incapacitation eruptions, Overbrine, etc. Perks get argued about constantly on which ones are overpowered, I don't think its anything new.

  I made this point to emphasize that killers, despite knowing WHO they are going against, do not have any methods to interpret HOW the survivors are going to play

  That's not at all how the original post reads.

  This would be a totally different game. Which I think might be Texas Chainsaw Massacre (I haven't played it, but I believe you know which characters the other side is using and they always have the same power).

  If anything, you've made me realize that optimal gameplay would require picking the quietest, smallest figured characters.

  Some characters also hide better. They are supposed to balance out the noise characters make at some point, but no idea what the progress on that is.

  With respect to other survivors, it has been my recent experience that players would rather forgo powering generators to unhook others. Personally, I would rather have my team progress the gamestate (i.e. hold M1 on the generators) than rescue me on hook. 

  Whether to rescue or do gens is situational, but I think it is generally agreed that a lot of survivors tend to rush the rescue more than they need to. I don't think it has anything to do with BP, more of a belief that its the right play/fear that things will go really poorly if they don't.

  And yes, many people point out that survivors avoid gens. That's usually a 'boring' issue, not a BP one.

  I would rather run "S.H.: Pain Res" over "Pop". Yes, "Pop" CAN be used more often per game at the cost of time and defense. In my opinion, the downsides of "Pop" do not match the guaranteed upside of "S.H.:P.R.".

  I don't run either as a killer, but as a survivor I'd rather face PR than Pop, though they are pretty close in strength.

  You are reading "constructive" and "inspiring" as complaining?

  Definition of complaint (according to google): a statement that a situation is unsatisfactory or unacceptable.

  So yeah, you're making complaints. Nothing wrong with that.

  I really doubt it would do anything to touch toxicity. I actually think you'd get the exact opposite result.

  Forgive me if I am interpreting this wrong but, this comment leads me to think that you believe the separation of competitive and casual gameplay is a waste of resources. If you would explain why that separation exists in other games, I would be grateful.

  You go on to describe a social problem in the next paragraph, which is EXACTLY WHY I suggested a casual gameplay mode. Currently EVERY game of DbD is adjudicated. If one night you want to take the game seriously and another night you want to crack a drink and screw around, there is no separation despite completely different moods. I can see issues arising because of this.

  It probably isn't your intention, but this whole paragraph makes you sound like a massive jerk.

  When a detail of a larger point is focused on, I feel my time is wasted. Forums are for strangers to have global conversations, not nitpick the specifics of a sentence.

  On powercreep - we've also lost unlimited DH, self-heal COH, incapacitation eruptions, Overbrine, etc. Perks get argued about constantly on which ones are overpowered, I don't think its anything new.

  Is this an acceptable practice?

  As a DM, on the rare occasion, if my players took issue with an item / ability we would modify it together so both parties walk away happier.

  As a MtG card slinger, the cards of the past -- because they were designed 20 years ago -- were errata'd (given updated text) so that they could be relevant and used in the modern age. Some cards in my collection are nearly as old as I am yet, see competitive play. I have trouble imagining that modifying a number, to create relevance, is that difficult.

  This would be a totally different game.

  I disagree with the word "totally". I feel that a minor augmentation would enable minor unique interactions. I do not want to create a new monster (read: problem) to deal with. If anything, I feel it would create excitement and allow for new "optimal" strategies to be unveiled.

  Some characters also hide better. They are supposed to balance out the noise characters make at some point, but no idea what the progress on that is.

  Decibel levels and character model outlines. Tis a numbers game.

  And yes, many people point out that survivors avoid gens. That's usually a 'boring' issue, not a BP one.

  So, not only do generators contribute 1/4th of the overall scoring, they are not "fun" in the design space. If anything, we share the same opinion. My comment on BP's is to emphasize that it is not fun and does not "payout".

  Definition of complaint (according to google): a statement that a situation is unsatisfactory or unacceptable.

  Unsatisfactory is a great word for the feeling I experience these days. Well said

  in Bardic Inspiration Comment by Renzun September 6, 2023

• @Alice_pbg said:

  First, you can ask a mod directly to have your name changed.

  1) so? You can run meta perks and people will still find a way to be upset at you.

  Play what you want.

  Splitting the playerbase won't do anything. People would just go practice their meta build on casual.

  2) I don't even disagree, but pain resonance works exactly 4 times while pop technically works 12 times.

  Also, sometimes you hit the wrong gen, since sometimes you gotta defend a specific gen.

  3) and them being basically just skins is a good thing. Or do you wanna get flamed for not picking the optimal survivors to play?

  It was literally your complaint on number 1.

  4) half of the objectives are escape related. The other half is how you make time for your team to escape or literally helping your team.

  I don't see the issue.

  Why you that only interacts with 1/4 of your bp gaining gameplay gets less bp than your teammates that engage with more of them... such a mistery...

  I am confused by your responses. Allow me to cover what you've said and better explain my position:

  1) The point of creating a non-ranked format is to preemptively shut down toxicity. Since there would be no rank on the line (no stakes, ante, or payout) the stress would be nominal and any post-match flame / rage would be, again preemptively, unwelcome. Should this still be confusing, look at most other games played widely: most separate competitive from casual play.

  2) I feel that you are missing the point I made in the first sentence of my paragraph. If you are unfamiliar with my formatting: the first sentence of each paragraph indicates "the point". After the declarative sentence, I wrote supportive statements to help emphasize my points and examples to supplement the point. There exist MORE examples than the ones I have presented; as stated in my 3rd paragraph (not point), I was trying to be concise and direct in my approach as to not was others' time.

  Also, as a trapper enjoyer, I don't have the time or ability to go out of my way to 'Pop' generators properly anymore. The meta has sped up considerably since the days of Clown. The paragraph was about how I feel "powercreep" is influencing gameplay in an unhealthy way. This is an opinion that me (and the members of my playgroup) have verbally expressed to one another. It has been my experience as killer to have two or three generators activate during my first hook / chase.

  3) I made this point to emphasize that killers, despite knowing WHO they are going against, do not have any methods to interpret HOW the survivors are going to play; whereas survivors, upon discovering the killer, ought to have a playstyle ready to handle and minimize the killers' effectiveness of the game. Granted, the killer can see items! As a counterpoint, I have witnessed entire teams swap characters (with items) at the last possible second. Games where teams "character swap" late are usually one-sided sweat-fests. Also, from a 'skin' standpoint character models are NOT the same. David is much bigger than Meg. If anything, you've made me realize that optimal gameplay would require picking the quietest, smallest figured characters. Thanks!

  4) Speaking plainly, ultimate survivor success (i.e. winning) comes when you walk out of the powered gate or escape through the hatch. So, why are survivors rewarded more by unhooking / getting chased? With respect to other survivors, it has been my recent experience that players would rather forgo powering generators to unhook others. Personally, I would rather have my team progress the gamestate (i.e. hold M1 on the generators) than rescue me on hook. Creating pressure (i.e. forcing the killer to stray away from the hook to prevent loss) is, in my mind, the superior tactic to enable safe unhooks. Yet, in the majority of games this month it has become obvious that generators do not interest players AND the reward for progressing the gamestate is ONLY 1/4th of the score. I'm curious, in a competitive setting why does winning / progressing the gamestate mean so little? My answer to that question: because the scoring system doesn't prioritize progression. If one were to truly analyze the scoring system, doing generators would be the "side objective" relative to saving / helping others. You get more bloodpoints.

  I would rather have the opportunity to "win".

  Again, these are just my opinions. I am here to shed light on what I have experienced both solo and in SwF lobbies. If these words have ANY effect on DbD, I would be happily surprised.

  Edit: As for my username, I was making a statement because I was surprised how long ago I must've made this account. It caused me to smile :)

  in Bardic Inspiration Comment by Renzun September 6, 2023