Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
Might as well throw in my final request to bring Bobby Barrows, The Scissorman, in for a Clock Tower collab.
Might have difficulty with Jennifer due to the obvious influences, so maybe someone like Lotte as the survivor :)
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4120022#Comment_4120022
Not sure if you remember me, but I remember our several discussions back in the day quite fondly. You and I didn’t always see eye to eye but you always managed to take the time to explain your perspective really respectfully. Reading this message really guts a bit. Seems so silly cause it’s just a murder game but your comment just reminded me of how many hours I’ve spent here and the conversations I’ve had with so many people, including you. And so while this is a blip in existence I just wanted to say thanks for sharing your passion and thoughts. Good luck out there.
Of course I remember you friend, people who were cordial stood out just as much as the ones who were insufferable, if not more. Thank you for the kind words, and the feeling is mutual.
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4120022#Comment_4120022
Well put, and I'm glad you stopped by for the end. You were one of the few people that could have lengthy disagreements without stooping to anger and vitrile. It's something sadly disappearing from the internet and it's about to get just a tiny bit more rare.
I don't blame people for letting their emotions cloud their perspectives with this game especially, I'm usually more glad about how productive things can get when they don't, which is why I've always enjoyed those conversations with yourselves and others who were similarly respectful and well mannered. Just like in game, we just have to keep being the change we want to see, and there's a chance people who don't like the discourse they get dragged down into learn to respond in kind. Hell, I used to be pretty bad about it.
-
@tjt85 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4120250#Comment_4120250
Totally agree. I can't say it any better than that, especially the part about the free labour.
I know the common criticism is that BHVR don't listen to us here but that just isn't true (obviously, they don't listen to everything we say, but they do listen more than they are often given credit for). In the relatively short time that I've been playing, I've seen many of the suggestions people have made here in this very forum put into the game to make it better for everyone.
This is also the only place that a regular, everyday DBD player without a platform can have a shot at actually being heard by the developers. I get the drive to "modernise", but the signal to noise ratio on all their other community platforms is not good. This is such a short-sighted move from them.
I guess the expansion of the content creator program is also another way they're looking at to reach out to the opinions of the wider community, but that's still going to be feedback filtered through one single person. There isn't anything that can replace a dedicated forum like this. Forums have been such a treasure trove of information in my life. Away from here, I've often found posts from 10-15 years ago that have helped me solve problems and repair things and none of that information has been behind a login wall. I know I'll sound dramatic saying so but this act is like setting fire to a library to me.
Agreed on all counts, especially regarding accessing previous information outside of something encyclopedic in nature, but this comment is particularly poignant:
I know I'll sound dramatic saying so but this act is like setting fire to a library to me.Last I read, the copyright stipulation for AI scraping literature is that the original work must be destroyed, which has led to aquisition and destruction to facilitate it. When you think about this decision while keeping that in mind, it feels particularly grim.
-
@tjt85 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4120129#Comment_4120129
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4120142#Comment_4120142
It's not the hosting of the forums but the community managers to run it that is the cost of this place. Hosting the forums probably costs them peanuts. I think the move to these big tech platforms probably has a lot to do with the future because these platforms will be almost completely auto-moderated by AI in the not very distant future and they won't need to hire as many mods or community managers.
The forums barely function as they are, so they're never going to get "upgraded" with big tech AI moderation. You need real people to run this place. But who needs people when big tech has decided the future of the web belongs to the machines?
I remember them putting out a request for mods to join up not that long ago. I'd offer to volunteer if I felt it might save this place, even though I don't have a spotless record and I know I'd really hate being one. There was one forum member who put in an application to be a mod and they promptly got banned for something shortly afterwards. 🤣
I recently chose not to spent another penny on this game as well. Even before all this, so many of the recent changes stopped me wanting to play and there's also the worry that I won't even be able to pretty soon with the upcoming graphical update. I don't feel like supporting BHVR at the moment.
As for the forums not being archived, I think that's a huge loss to the community. And if I do happen to join up to one of their future official community platforms, I won't be posting nearly as much as I have done in the past, knowing how little our contributions on the forum mean to BHVR.
I get what you mean entirely, but I don't agree with their reasoning if that were the case. Think about it like this:
You buy a fishing rod, and it will have minor upkeep between bait/lures/line/hooks/etc. In return, the amount of return on investment you get is incomparible by comparison. It may require things like patience or commitment, but the theoretical return on investment is near limitless. Your material cost is a distant second to the pool of opportunity you have opened yourself up to.
This platform has been invaluable to them over the years in a variety of ways. The posters weren't paid for their insights, the theory crafters and design contributiors providing a vast pool of invaluable information that augmented concepts like playtesting without needing to spend a dime, hell, with people literally paying to do it. Nobody provided these things expecting any form of compensation, they were not on any payroll, they were simply fish in the sea. All they wanted was a hook with the bait of a better game on the line, and they gladly provided value in response.
For every penny saved by cutting out what is required to run a platform like this forum, the amount of free amateur labor in many facets, both creative and technical, created a massive RoI that is now lost. That return diminished because of how things have been handled, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who considered grace to the ground level following the demands of those higher up and more detatched. At this point, even making an announcement like this is a clear sign that it's essentially irreversable: Every decision in this vein has done nothing but scare away more and more fish, reducing the potential gain of the investment.
If they wanted to roll something like this back, it would cost more than whatever they hope to gain by cutting such a cost. They've already told the community we're not wanted for any more than statistics to present to shareholders.
-
@GeneralV said:
It is just insulting that the Forums won't even be archived.
But I suppose it is not surprising. After so many complaints over the years about our feedback never being taken into consideration, all of said feedback will be deleted, instead of remaining available for the future.
It is the final humiliation.
To be honest, if the forums were archived, it would be evidence of the amount of ideas that were sourced from the community, criticisms that were predicted yet ignored, ideas that were altered away from their original intentions, and so on. It represents both the game's history and evidence of how we got there along the way. If they cared enough to keep that information, they wouldn't be shutting down the forum in the first place. I wouldn't have much to say on the topic if it wasn't for how disrespectful it is to all of the contributions, tributes, and community it fostered over the years. The entire thing reeks of a detatched executive decision.
-
For any of the old heads who see this, regardless of how we may have gotten along over the years, your dedication is appreciated. If not by BHVR, than it should be by each other. Regardless of blatant or unintentional biases, there have been a multitude of perspectives that provided a wide range of insights, criticisms, over/under sights, and legitimately valuable feedback. Everyone knows that individual communities get swarmed with biases to the point of becoming echo chambers, but having a forum that worked in the most literal interpretation of the word for so long is something that this game sorely needed and benefited from.
For anyone who put more thought into their perspectives than emotion, more intention than reaction, more care than frustration, regardless of right or wrong, your input to the forums was a positive contribution. When you think about the fact that this post doesn't necessary address the people who wear their insights on their sleeves, keep in mind that will be the future of feedback for the game going forward. For all the "X platform is Y biased," that will be their only avenues of feedback going forward. Whether that means they'll be able to better disseminate feedback or get lost in a contradictory sea of warring factions, only time will tell. But the names that have been here for the majority of the game's lifespan, genuinely wanting the game to be a better experience irrespective of personal gain, you're all appreciated. If not by the developers, than by the people who shared the same goal. If I can't speak for everyone in that camp, I can at least speak for myself.
Thanks for the discussion, and the exchange of ideas.
-
I stopped playing a while ago, at first it was due to technical issues and other priorities, but the game felt less and less engaging over time after returning. Every time I saw someone's good idea on the forums (regardless of the "side" of who provided it) monkey paw'd into the game, it kinda reinforced how blatantly the focus of the game was lost. I don't know if its due to talent lost/replaced over the years internally, outside pressure/pandering, the sheer amount of vapid feedback having a negative influence on their internal process, horrible communication with the community.. whatever the reason, the community has felt more splintered than ever, and BHVR the least capible of making rational decisions through the noise.
The vision of the game has been long gone, and the old joke about wanting to become the Fortnite of Horror started to feel real since the rarity color changes. Accessibility felt like virtue signaling when a visual heartbeat was added then followed by the horrendous implementation of fog vials (followed by the constant fumbles on how they attempted to address them after the fact.) There have been some wins that were universally positive on the front over the years, but they were few and far between and led to constant tribalism/whataboutism due to being reactionary rather than understanding why people made the requests for them over the years.
Many people who played DBD for years did so for a few reasons, be they addiction, completion, progression, friends, content creation, dedication, etc. After the first few years, it felt more like I was following along the game's evolution more than anything, almost like a case study in why it outlives its competition so strongly and how much it uses its leverages to either take risks or prioritize appealing to loud voices vs core issues that fester for years. No matter how much any one of us may have disagreed on any given topic, there have been years worth of free consultation from a wide variety of perspectives that slowly gave up on trying to get through to BHVR over time, especially when seeing their advice turn into alternate versions that missed their point entirely.
It just kinda became harder to enjoy with each patch, some worse or better than others, but a gradual decline nonetheless.
-
@crogers271 said:
In the possibility any of the following swing by, just to make sure they aren't forgotten.
I really enjoyed @zarr posts, not just because they made mine small by comparison, but that they really worked through an issue.
@C3Tooth always made things more enjoyable along with having good points.
And while I disagreed with them on a lot, I found @Ryuhi to always go out of their way to have a good, productive discussion.
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4119935#Comment_4119935
Oh yeah Ryuhi! Never agreed with them, but they were decent folk.
You were both pretty alright as well. Always refreshing to be able to disagree without how that usually goes these days.
Almost not surprised that the forums are being shuttered, it felt like they stopped being a source of constructive insight when half the people who provided it were either banned or driven off. I hope BHVR enjoys discussions being even more emotional and reactionary than ever going forward. For all they know, the free insights and dedication the forums have provided were a key component (obviously there are others as well) to the game's longevity in a genre where it outlives all its competition like the DSP of horror assym. Wish them well for the game but its just another decision that enforces constructive criticism is secondary to engagement analytics.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058378#Comment_4058378
I'm leaving the game entirely because I'm sick of even the most productive conversations still having loaded language and trying to wedge in biased perspectives, regardless of whether intentional or not, because BHVR continuously prioritizing that type of linear thinking having wasted a massive amount of time and manpower that could have easily been effectively incorporated or at least salvaged if approached from a more unbiased perspective
So you're leaving the game because of the community and how BHVR reacts to it? But do you still enjoy the game? Why not just leave the community? Log out of the forum, close the chat, unfollow who ever you might watch videos from and whatever social media groups, and just read the patch notes when they go to live and roll with it. Even if you think that won't help, it very well might, because just this forum alone has badly damaged my view of the game (though not to the point of quitting.) Checking out from this world and just taking the game as is might be better for you if you're at this point.
Its both internal and external to the game. The failed health initiatives were basically proof these things will never change, and despite my attempts at neutrality in my arguments, there's still plenty within the game that still frustrates me personally and been made worse by the methods to their approaches. I've been playing less and less over time, so I just don't really feel the need to until a course correction occurs.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058359#Comment_4058359
apply a different buff on either a per-killer or per-category (stealth/ranged/"pallet eaters"/whatever groupings would work best)
I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea. There are, of course, details (containing devils) for which groups and how much, but I don't see it being completely impossible.
The biggest sticking point could be that BHVR themselves stated at one point that they didn't want to go the route of changing things like gen speeds or number of pallets on a per killer basis. That was years ago, so maybe they've changed their mind or would consider revisiting it, but it's also been rare for them to outright say no.
This is why this stuff will never get solved. Even if you didn't intend it to, this statement creates a biased stance on how we got here.
I disagree. I have no problem with the idea that people believe the root causes are different, and I also believe that a much smaller part is that they are intertwined problems.
But if we ignore that and just looking at solutions, these are vastly different.
Gen speeds are almost trivial easy to address. Add extra gen time, base kit corrupt, pain res on every hook, increased base regression, just to name a few. These aren't difficult answers.
Let's take it to an extreme, and completely solve gen speeds in a hypothetical: do all of it. Gens take 3 minutes each, are blocked for the first 5 minutes of the match, every single takes 30% of total. Well set aside that this would kill the game, but as a thought experiment, set that aside.
The immediate consequence is that tunneling one person out is insanely buffed here. Napkin math puts a hard tunnel at 5 gens you'd have something like 8-10 minutes to get someone out of the game and still have at least 2 gens left standing. So tunneling literally becomes an instant win button.
But fixing tunneling isn't as easy as slapping down extra timers. This is harder answer. And if these are going to be interlinked and solved simultaneously, we need to have ideas and discussion about what that looks like.
Unfortunately, this is where you stop discussion again. Right when we get to the hard part:
These types of projections are why I'm out.
Then what would you change about, let's say the tunneling PTB in particular that would be acceptable?
That was at least a solution, if an imperfect one. But the loudest voices here and elsewhere didn't want to try and fix the problems or iterate on the idea, but said simply "no". And BHVR listened.
And instead of productive conversation about "let's fix elusive to not allow pallets or flashlights" we got "do nothing".
Instead of tweaking numbers, we got "do nothing".
And currently in this conversation, you again try to bow out the instant it gets to the tricky part of solving the difficult part of the issue. This isn't a "fix gen speed and well deal with tunneling later", we've been doing that for almost 4 years now.
You yourself admit we should address these together, but if no one wants to talk about the hard part to fix that, and many didn't even want to go as far as acknowledging.
That's the main reason why I push back on this issue. Not that I don't want change, I personally think the PTB was salvageable with tweaks and adjustments. But if we keep having the "fix the gen rush problem" and never have the "fix tunneling" conversation, then issues will continue to get worse and the goal post will continue to move.
The biggest sticking point could be that BHVR themselves stated at one point that they didn't want to go the route of changing things like gen speeds or number of pallets on a per killer basis. That was years ago, so maybe they've changed their mind or would consider revisiting it, but it's also been rare for them to outright say no.Thats because those things revolve around concepts like map resources, which is part of why I avoided them in my examples. I'm more focused on the concepts of how to address the issues rather than the specifics, teaching a man to fish rather than giving him one. If approaches and concepts can be agreed upon by people who normally disagree, it opens avenues for refinement from opposing viewpoints. Thats why getting caught up on details or looking for ways to disqualify ideas with opposition to specifics prevents actually reaching reasonable solutions.
I disagree. I have no problem with the idea that people believe the root causes are different, and I also believe that a much smaller part is that they are intertwined problems.Its why we have so much back and forth, why everything needs to be tit for tat and compensation is always the primary source of complaint. Being too zoomed in is foundational to whataboutism, as many of the issues with the game have always been dependent on opposing ones. If an unhealthy mechanic is an answer to another unhealthy mechanic, removing one and ignoring the other creates a vacuum that has disproportionate affect on one side vs the other. Even if you do these in "stages" and go back and forth, you create avenues for new issues to pop up in their stead, especially as behaviors adapt to that vacuum. Its the foundation of "removing x leads to y" arguments which both sides have validly applied to situations ranging from character and perk choices to item and addon proliferation. It doesn't fix metas, it just keeps shifting them based on whichever side is getting preferential treatment at the time.
Gen speeds are almost trivial easy to address. Add extra gen time, base kit corrupt, pain res on every hook, increased base regression, just to name a few. These aren't difficult answers.They are difficult answers, because they give disproportionate value when done in blanket approaches, as we saw before. Part of why DBD tiers are the way they are is because the best killers "Play DBD" better than the lower tiers, so these types of adjustments will almost always favor the strongest killers more than the weakest, furthering the divide and removing reason to play anything other than the top. Its the type of reasoning that led to backpack builds on nurse, necessitating her blink attack to be changed to special just to stop perk synergy after the fact.
The reason for the nuance is to have the mechanic focus on softening weaknesses in macro play while minimizing oppression in the ones that need it least, for them you would want to focus on aspects that would give them unique considerations instead of efficiency focused adjustments. That way their punishment would be more proportionate than their reward, as they need the help less and would require the strongest deterrent from ignoring the adjustments altogether. The reason I chose to try to salvage the minimum hooks before kill idea is because its not inherently flawed in addressing getting one out before reaping the benefits elsewhere, the threshold was just way too high at 6 hooks since that could literally be 3 survivors on death hook before reaching it. Preventing the tunneling of one out is just as important as the rest to the formula.
Unfortunately, this is where you stop discussion again. Right when we get to the hard part:I'm engaging in your discussion because you're actually having one, me being out is more in regards to the fact that even while we're having this conversation, you're continuing to use loaded statements even when I'm trying to work with you from the same side. I don't appreciate catching strays when I'm essentially mediating. I was trying to illustrate that comments like that are why I'm sick of this projection nonsense, and another poster did a great job of giving another example in between our conversation.
Then what would you change about, let's say the tunneling PTB in particular that would be acceptable?The changes I suggested, as they were based on salvaging the ideas they tried to present. i agree that they weren't a perfect solution, and the reason the "loudest voices" said what they did was because they felt ignored and/or under considered in how the system was proposed. Even when they did a panic round 2 adjustment and changed the fresh hook considerations, they half assed it in a way that made it do absolutely nothing for a large portion of the roster who actually neeeded it with the bloodlust clause. My point continues to be that if you design these mechanics in ways that "the reasonable voices" would be able to overpower "the loudest ones," you come up with systems that can actually be agreed upon and embraced. You don't focus on the people who accept nothing regardless of side, you focus on the ones who are willing to compromise and collaborate. Its a foundational aspect of mediation to acknowledge that there will always be people on both sides of an argument who will refuse to cooperate, so you focus on the considerations of the ones who will and arriving at a solution that is satisfactory to both sides to the best of your ability. Anything less devolves into favoritism and further destabilization, which is why I refer to it as Jenga style balancing.
And currently in this conversation, you again try to bow out the instant it gets to the tricky part of solving the difficult part of the issue. This isn't a "fix gen speed and well deal with tunneling later", we've been doing that for almost 4 years now.You misunderstand why I'm leaving. Its not the conversation I'm leaving, as this is the most engagement I've actually gotten on finding solutions like this than I've gotten in most of the attempts I've given when trying to stop people from preventing themselves from being able to agree across the isle. I'm leaving the game entirely because I'm sick of even the most productive conversations still having loaded language and trying to wedge in biased perspectives, regardless of whether intentional or not, because BHVR continuously prioritizing that type of linear thinking having wasted a massive amount of time and manpower that could have easily been effectively incorporated or at least salvaged if approached from a more unbiased perspective. I honestly don't think people are able to separate their personal feelings from their perspectives on what is actually best for the game anymore, internally or externally, and I'm tired of ice skating up hill about it. I'm going to ignore the way some of the individual statements are worded on the premise you misunderstood what I meant by leaving, because again, I'll take this type of actual engagement vs having to defensively repeat myself every single topic against a myriad of projections and strawmen, but this isn't the type of engagement that the forums do anymore. We obviously agree on a lot of things, which is what happens when things are actually discussed instead of going into one sided attacks against unproposed ideas or stances like most of the responses have been.
-
@Philscooper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058332#Comment_4058332
FYI you guys caused this decline in the first place since last april. We didnt ask for any of this, YOU did.
The insane crashout over fog-vials and the anti-changes (resulting then to be killed off 2 weeks in)
But defending the most aggrecious killer design in 10 months with no killswitch while the killer was bugged harder and more eggreciously than streetwise ever was.
Is the reason why survivors only tool of defense is : doing gens optimally, switching to killer or playing something else.
Its not just a "survivor mains control the game" last year 90% of the changes we got was mostly killer feedback.
Thats simply the consequence of listening to one side and ignoring the other.
I didn't ask for anything you're projecting, and you don't understand my stance on fog vials even remotely. I've been a survivor main for most of the time I've played the game, despite the assumptions like the ones you're making with this post. You're proving the point of why that post was made in the first place.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058348#Comment_4058348
In the interest of actual discussion, let me give you another perspective.
I'll take you at face value that you both want to improve the game and address core issues.
You claim to want to address these things, and at a surface level you and I both agree that we should address these issues. Ideally at or around the same time.
I'd love to have meaningful discussions about to what degree gen speeds are actually a problem or how we can meaningfully buff trapper without just adding dash slop.
And I'd also have no issue discussing that in context of "and here's the changes to tunneling that would go with that".
Unfortunately, historically what the loudest voices want is the first part (nerf gen speeds), and absolutely will not allow BHVR to address the second part (tunneling). And whenever that has happened in the past, we get direct or indirect buffs that result in making tunneling worse with literally nothing that attempts to address or fix that part of the issue.
And usually, when we start taking about the "fix tunneling part" is where people start to give a huge amount of push back or just throw up their hands and claim it's bias. Or something else to shut down the conversation (usually it's SWF or gen speeds).
So, for context, when @Firellius responded and I gave you solid reasons why tunneling absolutely has to be dealt with in this discussion you shut down instead of engaging. You jumped into "bias" claims instead of giving any kind of actual discussion.
That doesn't feel like you're looking for a solution, it feels like you're joining the loud group that we see a lot here that claim "gens speeds need fixed, but if you expect any tunneling changes I'm out, forget it". Now maybe that's not your stance, and I'm willing to take your word for now that it isn't. But that's likely why you're getting downvoted here.
I'd love to have meaningful discussions about to what degree gen speeds are actually a problem or how we can meaningfully buff trapper without just adding dash slop.I've tried to even salvage their idea about fresh hooks to instead focus their approach toward addressing the issues of killers on an individual basis in relation to their weaknessess in macro play, as that is the thing that varies the most between them. You don't have to give Trapper a dash, nor do you want to do something like a gen kick bonus to everyone because of disproportionate value, but instead apply a different buff on either a per-killer or per-category (stealth/ranged/"pallet eaters"/whatever groupings would work best) that specifically address killers macro play considerations in a way that would incentivize their temporal strength in ways that would be proportional to reducing that of survivors strength in the way 4 surivovrs have over 3. Some examples would be something like Wraith getting an extremely short BBQ aura (maybe 1-2 seconds) to find their next target, Huntress might get a free partial reload, Slinger could get a temporarily reduced TR, ideas focused on improving their efficiency in getting into their next chase or addressing resource time waste, things like that. They could even scale up with chained fresh hooks to incentivise not straying from that behavior. Likewise, you then punish tunneling strong enough to disincentivize it by comparison like the proposed "kill before x hooks" idea but with a more reasonable threshold, testing out a starting point of 4 (instead of 6) and adjusting from there.
Both carrot and stick, both of which are focused specifically on the aspects of the conundrum that causes both sides to feed into the loop. The main aspect that needs to be focused on is that the survivors start strong, killer gets stronger, and the snowballs in regards to early gen progress and killer momentum. I don't claim it to be a perfect example, but my point is more that many times the ideas that get attempted can be salvaged if applied to reasonable reasoning that actually takes both sides of the issue in mind, instead of the constant back and forth micro scale considerations that even BHVR themselves fell victim to and wasted most of the health chapter initiative on.
Unfortunately, historically what the loudest voices want is the first part (nerf gen speeds), and absolutely will not allow BHVR to address the second part (tunneling)This is why this stuff will never get solved. Even if you didn't intend it to, this statement creates a biased stance on how we got here. Again, its never about which came first, because most of the stuff that can go back to isn't even in the game anymore. Its no more valid to complain about something like overbrine than it is to go back to instant BNPs, omega blink nurse, perma saboed hooks, etc. Thats why you don't focus on that type of eye for an eye consideration because it focuses on the chicken or the egg and losees the perspective on the cycle itself.
That doesn't feel like you're looking for a solution, it feels like you're joining the loud group that we see a lot here that claim "gens speeds need fixed, but if you expect any tunneling changes I'm out, forget it".These types of projections are why I'm out. I've had to spell this out multiple times, but I want tunneling to be addressed more than most of the people who complain about it. I just want it to be done correctly so that it actually takes, doesn't get rolled back, doesn't cause further problems with its implementation, and avoids this back and forth approach people seem to be unable to get past. The fact that this type of assumption is how neutrality gets assigned by default just shows how deeply the us vs them mindsets prevent people from engaging with any idea that isn't blind agreement. I can't control how people misinterpret posts based on preconceptions and bias, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it when it happens, especially when clarification is provided. Most of why people refuse to listen to people they disagree with is because everyone keeps giving each other reasons not to like this.
But that's likely why you're getting downvoted here.Don't kid yourself. For every time that happens, other times posts that are designed to make people think about something other than getting what they want get downvoted. Its a validation feedback loop and its easier to see the number you "agree with" go up than to actually engage with posts that are longer than the character limit for twitter.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058342#Comment_4058342
Your first post was more upvoted than downvoted, it seems to me you only started getting "bombed" with downvotes when you made your unnecessarily aggressive reply to Firellius. I imagine if you hadn't immediately accused him of "purposefully try[ing] to misunderstand" what you were saying, your other posts might have performed better.
I advise we not continue discussing this as we're getting quite off topic
I imagine if you hadn't immediately accused him of "purposefully try[ing] to misunderstand" what you were saying, your other posts might have performed better.I don't make posts to be popular, I make them to help people get out of their own heads and try to improve the game itself. The point of paradoxes like the chicken and the egg is that they are considered paradoxes if you focus on details instead of taking in the overall philosophical concept, like the Ship of Theseus or the Epimenides paradox. The point of them is to not submit to your visceral reaction but to take in the concept they convey, then apply it to the conundrum at hand. So by losing the forest for the trees, especially when the meaning subsequently gets explained and instead doubling down on said detail, that shows a lack of willingness to understand the concept being conveyed. So yes, its exhausting to have your point not only missed but have arguments thrown at you as if you must be the opposition. Thats cognitive dissonance, and a complete rejection of the dialectical process.
I post this stuff for the same reason my account is almost as old as the game itself. I'd rather see the game improve than just "get mine." The fact that neutral positions that prioritize game health over personal perspectives get derailed like this is why nothing ever gets fixed with this game, and tunneling is a perfect example. But its more fun to have back and forth fights so why bother.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058337#Comment_4058337
I wasn't try to imply you had any one specific opinion on this, which is why I specifically said "OP" and not "you" when talking about the "causes of tunneling" thing. I'm not trying to argue against a point I think you made, I'm trying to explain to you why a point someone else (OP, that is to say, MechWarrior3) was incorrect and how a different user (Firellius) addressed that incorrect point. This isn't about you.
Funny, My posts are the ones getting vote bombed and responded to and not OPs, who I don't even defend or directly agree with. All I've done is try to present both sides as being able to reconcile over approaching a common solution and trying to clarify away from the pointless arguing being thrown at those statements. People just want to have internet fights over the nonsense instead of actually reach solutions.
-
@Shinkiro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058332#Comment_4058332
Yeah there's no point trying to have a conversation with bias people. Especially when it comes to the made up concept created purely to justify being mad at killers for doing their objective lol.
People can have bias and see past it, as long as they allow themselves to. Its a type of personal growth that people need to have internally, and there is a lot that can be (and often is) learned from opposing perspectives. After years this nonsense is groundhog day when they refuse to, but its still worth at least trying to hear them out, assuming they remotely offer the same courtesy.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058324#Comment_4058324
You're looking for the term "positive feedback loop."
That said, Firellius still has a point. Often when the "tunneling causes gen rushing (or vice versa)" debate comes up, you will see people say "I only gen rush because people tunnel," or the opposite, "I only tunnel because people gen rush." (OP has actually said this second one one themself in this thread). The fact this thread is titled "why are we not doing anything about gen speeds," and the point about gen speeds causing tunneling, lead to the implication that if gen speeds were reduced, that would reduce tunneling in turn.
The point Firellius has is that we have clear historical precedent that contradicts that implication. 6.1 was a patch where the required time to complete gens increased, and people immediately noted an increase (not a decrease) in the amount of tunneling. Maybe OP truly would tunnel less if gens took longer, but the existing evidence shows that they are in the minority.
Like I already said, the paradox isn't about which one is first, since that will be subjective. And yes, that includes 6.1, and I haven't been trying to argue the opposite yet thats how my statement continues to be misinterpreted. I quoted BOTH sides of the conundrum for a reason, yet there's nothing but cognitive dissonance assuming I MUST agree with the opposite of the one people personally believe. You can blame people who have the opposite position all you want, but the responses the post has been getting has basically been people telling on themselves about their own bias. Stop assuming anything other than blind agreement must be the polar opposite, or enjoy the constant state of warfare you help perpetuate I guess. Yet again, the paradox isn't about which one actually came first, its about the cycle. You can acknowledge it as a positive feedback loop, but even then, reverted back to justifications on a perspective about the origin which I have stated multiple times does not matter whatsoever to either the solution, nor how it would be achieved.
This is why we have the problems we have, many of which have been in the game for years, some have been caused by poorly planned solutions to previous ones, and why every solution we get will lead to more issues. The methodology will never be corrected because the argument over the chicken or the egg will never end.
-
I give up. You guys deserve the game you get.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058324#Comment_4058324
The whole idea of gen speeds causing tunnelling is a backwards justification. It's why there's a constant push to keep nerfing survivors and why we still have people arguing that tunnelling needs to be fixed with 'the carrot, not the stick'.
Constantly trying to tie these issues together when they can actually be addressed separately rather than as interlocked phenomena is just making a far bigger mess of things. We're not gonna get tunnelling fixed as long as people can still point the finger at gen speeds, and we're not gonna get gen speeds fixed so long as tunnelling is still a problem.
The whole idea of gen speeds causing tunnelling is a backwards justification.You're removing all context from everything that led up to a specific event to force your own justification. I'm not even talking about what my personal opinion is on the matter, you're just saying "anything other than my own perspective is wrong because:"
It's why there's a constant push to keep nerfing survivors and why we still have people arguing that tunnelling needs to be fixed with 'the carrot, not the stick'.And my point is to use both the carrot and the stick. Which is why I focus on the cyclical nature instead of trying to bicker about "who started it."
Constantly trying to tie these issues together when they can actually be addressed separately rather than as interlocked phenomena is just making a far bigger mess of things.Jenga vs Legos. Making things lopsided back and forth is less balanced down to its concept than finding how things interlock together and using those commonalities to create a solid foundation. You call it "a bigger mess," I call it "doing things correctly rather than easily."
We're not gonna get tunnelling fixed as long as people can still point the finger at gen speeds, and we're not gonna get gen speeds fixed so long as tunnelling is still a problem.Exactly, and thats exactly what my point was. If you try to fix one and not the other, it just keeps shifting the issue instead of finding a solution for both. When you focus on the definition of a chicken or an egg, you displace the definitions of the opposite. You could focus on the fact that the Egg changes based on the difference between land based vs nautical eggs, you could focus on how far in the evolutionary chain it becomes considered a chicken, you can focus on when the DNA structure defines what a chicken is, or when an egg is considered a "chicken egg" but at the end of the day, focusing your scope on any of those things removes the concept of understanding the cycle they are both a part of.
In the case of gens vs tunneling, both have to do with the concept of temporal strength and how it scales over the course of a match. Survivors start with high efficiency, which killers tunnel to reduce, but survivors have to get as much accomplished before that happens, so they rush that efficiency as strong as they can, while killers have to boost efficiency in removing players as a resource in order to limit the potential damage that can be done to gens before they do. Its not about how we got here, its about addressing the fact that both sides are required to try to out efficiency each other as the only means of dealing with the efficiency focus of the other. Address that arms race simultaneously and you effectively address both the action and reaction focuses of the strategies.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058316#Comment_4058316
We kinda know which one came first, though, since one patch both buffed tunnelling and reduced gen speeds.
So you'd rather purposely try to misunderstand the application of the concept to try to force your side to be right, instead of observing the cyclical nature of the paradox? The question isn't about which one was actually first, because that answer changes depending on the scope of your definition. It focuses on the fact that the two continuously cause the other, but why care about something like that when there's an argument to be forced I guess.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
I believe the gen speed builds were a direct answer to the huge uptick in tunneling we've seen over the past year or so.
I.e. survivors are loading into a match with a "do or die" mindset.@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058309#Comment_4058309
I see it the other way. I tunnel now when I never use to because Gens move WAY too quickly. That's beside the point though. All of these perks stacking with toolboxes plus the new perks survivors just got for gens. Its too much.
It takes the fun out of chases entirely. My matches are SO fast and over with because the gens are just done. I just get sent right back to the lobby losing out on playtime. Of course survivors feel the same I am sure when they get tunneled out.
Its just frustrating. All the Regression perks are completely getting nerfed too, like why…
Chicken and Egg. Both issues cause and are caused by each other.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057618#Comment_4057618
Actually the killer can’t see you when you are directly in the fog.
If he walks into the fog then he can see you. It’s a good way to get some distance, cover scratch marks, and shut down auras.
I think there's a bit of an expectation mismatch with the item for some people. It's not supposed to be a smoke bomb to get out of chases for free, its supposed to be a misdirection tool. If you're in a hallway corner in midwitch where you could realistically go in multiple different directions, throwing it down just before reaching that intersection when you have some distance can make you considerably harder to track after, which is why its important that the opacity not be too weak, but its also not supposed to make you vanish from 3 feet in front of the killer, which is why its not supposed to be too strong. Distance from the killer, potential directions that can be taken, and LoS blocking avenues are all important factors in how to use the item. The ones who want to escape chase when the killer is breathing down their neck aren't trying to use it properly, while approaches like yours can still get some value even in its poor state.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057927#Comment_4057927
It doesn't, they'll do anything but touch the ACTUAL problems. That was my point.
Might be the truest post on the forums.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057760#Comment_4057760
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/FOG4J7PXRHRZ/image.png
But you're misinformed and can't decide for yourself what you like and dislike, so someone has to tell you. Telling me something that just isn't happening is just so funny to me. It's not missing the point, you're just annoying. shhhhh
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/0ABI9DENUGA8/image.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/X264GHSUADZB/image.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/CGJIWHGDOX8B/image.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/WC9QF13HQG91/image.png
Stay quiet, stay mad. They are doing fine
Kinda childish, if I'm honest. I even tried to tell you what it would take for you to get your way, but have fun I guess.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057124#Comment_4057124
I have been a fan of Konami's IPs since I was a kid from my parents, YOU and @Ryuhi are literally unaware and very ironic you're saying this within BHVR's forums. "Consuming" we are all consumers, you're supporting multiple "controversial" IP holders by supporting this game. Remember the NFT's, the Colorblindness episode? Companies can learn and grow from mistakes, you're purposefully being ignorant if you're gonna continue spouting that.
What knowledge do you speak of because as of rn you and the other one are literally vagueposting the history. What matters rn is we are getting meaningful entries into these IPs and you are delusional if you cannot see that. So I have zero faith in you.
So how about sit down, be quiet and stop talking, fellow consumer.
I want this game to be better and the IP's that I love be properly represented, you lot just pretending you know what you are talking about when you probably just going off of general assumptions rather than what you personally like is telling.I have been a fan of Konami's IPs since I was a kid from my parents, YOU and@Ryuhiare literally unaware and very ironic you're saying this within BHVR's forums. "Consuming" we are all consumers, you're supporting multiple "controversial" IP holders by supporting this game. Remember the NFT's, the Colorblindness episode? Companies can learn and grow from mistakes, you're purposefully being ignorant if you're gonna continue spouting that.I can't tell if you're purposely missing the point or not. I'm not passing judgement as much as outlining how misguided your initial reasoning is. My personal feelings about Konami have nothing to do with their track record of how they handle IPs, nor even how I feel about said properties. In fact, I wish they would lose the rights to most of their catalog, as many of their series deserve better fates than they have gotten. Some of my favorites haven't gotten an actual video game release since the DS or longer.
Also, the projection of consumerism is pretty silly. You have absolutely zero idea how much money I have or haven't spent on the game.
I want this game to be better and the IP's that I love be properly represented, you lot just pretending you know what you are talking about when you probably just going off of general assumptions rather than what you personally like is telling.I outlined the business practices they have shown as a company for the decades I have been a customer of theirs. You likely aren't even familiar with some of their series I have followed in real time. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm trying to assure you that I'm not going off of nothing. You're welcome to research their pachinko division and how they quietly release low quality products to retain IP rights, as well as how their content gets used in regards to collaborations. My point from the very start was simply that things like the R6S collab have zero to do with what you originally claimed, they are purely business transactions. Which is something that is par for the course for, well, businesses. I just wanted to make you aware that things like lore integrity are not a primary concern nor a limitation of said business decisions, so the chances of you getting what you asked for are the same as they were before. Which isn't to say impossible, but requiring proper motivation.
So how about sit down, be quiet and stop talking, fellow consumer.No. And demanding rudely isn't going to change that answer.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057620#Comment_4057620
And this change would just give them one more reason to do so because every other perk is garbage. And here we are talking about nerfing a perk that has been the same since basically its inception and has been totally fine.
Not only that, but its reliance on enduring meant it was two perks that aren't gen defense. Now might as well drop both and replace em with the more meta choices.
-
When people saw the teaser for Legion, this is a bit like what a lot of them pictured they would be. Honestly if they could get the rights to The Thing it could be a pretty cool way to expand the idea as well, like he could take their DNA from hits to disguise as them.
Then again everyone would just assume its the Nea. It would always be the Nea.
-
@Terror_Misu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057622#Comment_4057622
Understood. Appreciate the insight.
I'm not affected by this sort of thing, but find myself curious to ask what happens? If its not a problem, can I ask how does this affect people in an accessibility vein? I've no actual clue.
I had typed out a lengthy explanation, but honestly, not terribly comfortable with outlining the details. Long and short, think about something like shellshocking, and how its affect on multiple senses leads to a disorientation effect that you need to recalibrate to. Once you pair that with senses compensating for one another in concepts like tracking, its effects can vary quite a bit from individual to individual, regardless of the cause.
-
@Terror_Misu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057614#Comment_4057614
Was there anything said on said opacity? While the charges buff is amazing and welcome, opacity was my big hope.
Still, grateful for this item getting any love…
I would hope that the normalization is step 1. The opacity is the primary point of the item, while the stuff like aura blocking and muffling are secondary effects. The issue with opacity before was that it was either too strong or not strong enough, and their response was to just make it not strong enough in almost all cases to compensate. After normalizing it, they would have the ability to adjust it to be a value that's effective enough on all maps without being Silent Hill 1 on others. Its up to them whether they finish the job or leave it half done. Personally I hate the item since it affects me disproportionately, but removal would be better than how badly it got dumpstered, so I'd rather it have its primary function be adequate and have its secondary ones readjusted since even low opacity affects me anyway.
-
I'm glad they finally listened to the unanimous normalization request, should give them a baseline to find a healthy opacity.
-
Does it still require Enduring to get any real value out of? If that were adjusted it would be a fine trade, but just forcing manual breaks alone doesn't leave it in a very good state on a perk that realistically takes two slots.
-
@Wyndsor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057246#Comment_4057246
I mean anytime a thread asking for a positive survivor change gets made the same posters flock to it to shut it down, you can usually just skip over posts from certain names.
That being said, the ping system in DBD mobile was amazing, they really need to port it over to live, as well as being able to see loadouts like OP is suggesting.
Just in case I'm one of those people, I probably wanted the the anti-tunneling initiative to go through more than most of the people who complain it didn't (in a correct way, rather than the one they wasted months of manpower on.) I also changed my stance from wanting killers to be able to abandon as freely as survivors to instead wanting the reasons of why they would want to abandon addressed instead. There's a difference between wanting something and wanting it the correct way, and that applies evenly to either side, regardless of how much people want to put each other in opposing classifications.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057237#Comment_4057237
Game sense isn't about what you know, its about what you can figure out. So yes, if someone is exhibiting behavior that would be consistent with them running a situational perk, you use game sense to decide whether to accommodate th
I agree. Though "what you can figure out" should be based on things you've seen, heard, or experienced in the game. So if I've been unhooked and see the "we'll make it" symbol pop up from one of my teammates, I should be able to see that and hopefully remember that's in play later.
If I hear someone scream, and I've already unhooked to know it wasn't make your choice, I can reasonably be expected to know that survivor had StB.
Those are examples of deductive reasoning, since you have the information available and can use game knowledge to fill in the gaps.
You can even use game sense in predictive ways, such as "wraith has glowing eyes and isn't kicking gens, probably has noed" because you've seen that trend before.
But survivors are skins. I can't guess which of the combinations of perks Meg is running ahead of time, but I can piece together with information that's given during the match to some degree. If that information is not available in any way, it's not really reasonable to expect players to guess. This is also a game where, 10 years later, something as simple as "waving your arms on hook" is still ambiguous to mean either "safe to unhook" or "not safe to unhook". So even clear and obvious attempts at communication are not clear between players.
Again, DBD was designed specifically to avoid facilitating communication, as well as remove as many concepts of precognition as possible. Its purposely intended to provide a level of disorientation at its foundation
The game has also evolved. The gameplay used to also be hide and seek and they even marketed the game as "horror hide and seek" at one point, yet they put out an "anti hiding" patch last year.
What's funny, is that I said similar things about showing killers the hook markings. Those are absolutely game sense, and more so even just memory since the killer not only can see the hooks as they occur (existing game information) but was also personally present for each hook and actively, personally took action each time. And yet they added this as a qol feature regardless.
Did it destroy the game? No. Was it strictly necessary? Also no. Can it be used for malicious reasons also? Sure. Was it a welcome qol chance none the less? Absolutely.
I can admit I was wrong, or at least in the minority about that issue, but since the devs have already taken that step, then this is really a no brainer change that is consistent with that also.
So if we can give this kind of information out, then I'm that light your "you should just have game sense" doesn't hold water whatsoever. Even on top of the fact that you have vastly less information about your teammates perks and motivations than killers did regarding hook stages.
Those are examples of deductive reasoning, since you have the information available and can use game knowledge to fill in the gaps.And my point is that being given an icon that spells something out doesn't leave any gaps. Going off of behavior and making educated guesses, and having context that enforces a hypothesis without spelling it out is what makes it deductive reasoning. Going to be honest, I never see the perk anymore, so I completely forgot they even added an icon for We'll Make it to the rescued survivors hud ages ago, so that was a bad example on my part. I guess a better example would be something like Solidarity how the only real possible feedback you could get would be them suddenly popping to full health after finishing healing you, but wouldn't know before hand. If that was a point of confusion, I own that, but the idea was that the perk doesn't announce itself and instead you have to rely on the behavior of the survivor to apply deductive reasoning to fill in the gap without having a direct notification of its presence in play. Your examples about screams and noed regarding filling in the gaps are correct and consistent with what I've been trying to convey.
But survivors are skins. I can't guess which of the combinations of perks Meg is running ahead of time, but I can piece together with information that's given during the match to some degree.Which is by design. Its why loadouts aren't visible, and why there is next to nothing you can see about another survivor directly that the killer cannot. It has been an intentional foundation for the game to not have that information about other survivors, and is part of what the horribly worded infamous "1v1v1v1v1" comment was supposed to be conveying. The survivors are supposed to be united by a common goal, each bringing their own unique abilities to the table, but without unified coordination. Thats why I keep saying that SWF was the first major crack in that foundation, because it created a double standard that the rest of the game has been trying to reconcile and adapt to, and necessitating all design choices to have to fall between coordination requirement and potential strength caused by said coordination. If that design foundation was never split, it would be much easier to be able to maintain balance in the strength due to consistency, but the lack thereof means that many later unrelated elements are then bound by the split foundation that was previously caused. And I say this as someone who doesn't think SWF should be abolished or even blanket punished, just as someone who recognizes that changes that contradict core game design lead to splintering circumstances subsequently.
If that information is not available in any way, it's not really reasonable to expect players to guess. This is also a game where, 10 years later, something as simple as "waving your arms on hook" is still ambiguous to mean either "safe to unhook" or "not safe to unhook". So even clear and obvious attempts at communication are not clear between players.I actually already explained why I feel that happened, because the fear of being incorrect outweighs the willingness to chance it. In fighting games there is a common scenario where players can be unwilling to even press a button out of fear of being punished for it, which can be managed reasonably (neutral/footsies) or unreasonably (turtling/staredowns.) With emergent gameplay, the idea is that you are always operating on a large number of unknowns, and the main focus is on your ability to adapt to each time you are right or wrong. You are constantly taking risks, minimizing them sure, not not actively avoiding or removing them entirely. The idea of needing to guarantee value from a perk choice is the same as never pressing a button and constantly guarding, allowing that risk aversion to turn into full on avoidance due to over prioritization.
There is nothing to stop a player from always treating arm flailing as it used to be agreed upon, the reason people question it is because of their lack of faith in the flailing survivor actually applying it for its intended purpose. Similarly, when it comes to perks like StB, if you're on death hook and you see a survivor following you outside of the TR, you can make a judgement call that they might be trying to get you both far enough away from the killer to use StB while mitigating their own risk in using the perk. Having a direct notification that they were trying to do that would basically just be telling you to run as far away from the killer as possible to use the perk, instead of requiring any degree of game sense to fill in the blanks and figure that out yourself. Just like with the arm flailing on hook, there is nothing stopping you from taking those elements and assuming that was the intent behind them following you, and at worst, they would just heal you anyway. The only risk is in sacrificing potential efficiency, which is why I always bring up the absolute laser focus the game's meta has become in regards to efficiency as a concept for both sides.
The game has also evolved. The gameplay used to also be hide and seek and they even marketed the game as "horror hide and seek" at one point, yet they put out an "anti hiding" patch last year.Stealth wasn't removed from the game, it has been changed. Even despite perks like nowhere to hide affecting it particularly strongly, there are times where slowly circling a rock out of sight can objectively waste a surprising amount of time when the situation is correct for it. That said, the addition of perks like that create more levels of deductive reasoning in themselves, by creating similar scenarios like the Noed one you mentioned earlier where you take pieces of data and combine them to figure out the presence of the perk in the first place. The game doesn't give you an icon that your aura is visible, though something like losing a stack of Distortion could make it easier to fill in that blank. All of these things are based on the concept of unknowns and recognizing and adapting to them, which is different than being told outright.
If the solution to StB was something more akin to a subtle tell, that would be more consistent with the game's design than it just being spelled out entirely, which is why I brought up the way the Hud update gave additional information without going against the game's foundation. Many changes over the game's life have been done with that level of nuance and consideration for the nucleus of the game's DNA, while many have been more hamfisted. I'm merely stating the former is more preferable to the latter, as it reduces the liklihood of dumbing down or creating unforseen design limitations after the fact. When it comes to superficial things that don't affect the core game loop (example, the color of scratch marks) that is fine, but when it affects the core game loop that level of care is important (example, the luminosity of blood puddles)
What's funny, is that I said similar things about showing killers the hook markings. Those are absolutely game sense, and more so even just memory since the killer not only can see the hooks as they occur (existing game information) but was also personally present for each hook and actively, personally took action each time. And yet they added this as a qol feature regardless.Exactly. The hook counters were a long requested feature because they had less to do with the core gameplay loop then they did the concept of mental stack. As the killer is always present for that information beforehand, it does nothing to impact their ability to have to discern that information beyond sheer memory, so it doesn't tie into the core game design. If the killer could not see who they were hooking as part of that foundation, it would be a much different story. Its a good example of why those nuances are important to consider, as it maintains the divide between gameplay advantage and QoL compared to something like having that information be visible overtop of the survivor's head at a distance. You at least need to apply concepts like their skins (and in the case of duplicates, other context like the chase indicator) instead of seeing a few pixels of a survivor in the distance through a corn field and instantly going after them based on their hook count. The information is just restrictive enough to prevent things like that.
So if we can give this kind of information out, then I'm that light your "you should just have game sense" doesn't hold water whatsoever. Even on top of the fact that you have vastly less information about your teammates perks and motivations than killers did regarding hook stages.The reason I don't like generalizations about opposing arguments is because this post is a good example of how middlegrounds can potentially be reached when nuances and considerations are evenly recognized. I thought it was clear by my examples that it wasn't about the information itself so much as the degree with which people want it spelled out, which was why I kept using the examples I was and talking about game sense in the first place. But maybe it wasn't. I am always for more tools to help people make more intuitive decisions, my opposition comes from making those deductions for the player directly by oversharing information.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057235#Comment_4057235
If you read my whole post and that's still your opinion, then I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I talked about your second paragraph at length in my post.
If that is the case, then your whole point of argument is all over the place. You're bringing up urban evasion, distortion, etc. as if they meant anything to what the original post was about. All OP asked was for a way to see if people were running shoulder the burden, and you're talking about how "back in my day, SWF wasn't in the game" or "back in my day, people complained about urban!" or "I thought the changes to distortion were fine!" You keep typing paragraphs for things wholly unrelated to the topic, and then tell people they're not "discussing in good faith" when they don't engage with your paragraphs-long trip down memory lane.
You misrepresent my points and then go off attacking your flawed premise of them. Why would I continue to engage in that from someone who projected that onto me right before? It only seems all over the place because you purposely refuse to see the connections between, or you can't understand them. Either way, like I said, there's nothing more to discuss. Feel free to get the last word in if you want, I'm not making this post to try to rob you of that, but I'm absolutely tired of dealing with the constant dismissal and misdirection attempts.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057168#Comment_4057168
You might be less frustrated if you didn't boil down everyone who disagrees with you as being a hive mind that is perpetually illogical while everyone who agrees with you is a bastion of Vulcan virtuosity.
There is literally a statement in this thread that giving survivors information would cause them to "win more games and create frustration". While the reality is that it would generally give a minor quality of life improvement that only changes gameplay if the survivor uses that information correctly.
It wouldn't be a huge massive swing in balance. It would, at best, be barely noticeable and likely not even impact perk pick rates, let alone kill rates.
As to the last part, there is a massive difference between being psychic to get value and having the game sense to allow someone to use their perk in a situational way, and I'm sorry your faith in your teammates is that low that you feel that way,
There's no game sense here, there's just a lack of information. I don't know if Meg has the perk, or not, or just a challenge to unhook people.
In most multiplayer PVP games I could communicate that. Playing with StB on one survivor, we'll make it or even deliverance on another, for example, there would be different situations where those would each be the better option. But I can't strategize that or coordinate, certainly not in the moment. And if they're on console I have literally no way to know even if I ask in the lobby.
And I don't think it's reasonable to expect other people to know why I'm pushing for an unhook, if there's zero way to know that these perks are even in play. It's actually just expecting that either I am, or my teammates are able to divine the correct play based on information that isn't available in game and can't be communicated through game.
That seems like an easy fix. Yet here we are, with people claiming the sky will fall if you do so. It's not "fighting a hive mind", it's simply fighting this mindset that only a few people seem to have that if you give survivors even one inch of space it will destroy the game with catastrophic consequences. And that's not just me being hyperbolic, it's some of the responses in this thread.
There is literally a statement in this thread that giving survivors information would cause them to "win more games and create frustration". While the reality is that it would generally give a minor quality of life improvement that only changes gameplay if the survivor uses that information correctly.Did you quote that statement, direct any concerns or considerations at it, or did you make a general statement as a blanket toward "some of these responses" you disagree with in a nebulous form? Believe it or not people can think the right things for the wrong reasons and vice versa, if you have problems with specific logic points, address them instead of being purposely vague to other any opinion besides your own. Its both more productive and keeps you from getting in your own head about people who disagree on some points while agreeing on others.
There's no game sense here, there's just a lack of information. I don't know if Meg has the perk, or not, or just a challenge to unhook people.Game sense isn't about what you know, its about what you can figure out. So yes, if someone is exhibiting behavior that would be consistent with them running a situational perk, you use game sense to decide whether to accommodate that assumption or not like in my We'll Make It example. Its the same principle behind the mindgame a killer makes every time a downed survivor crawls under a pallet, especially if they've been sitting underneith of it: Everything from someone waiting around a corner to a power struggle play become possibilities to consider without having any form of certainty in the decision. Thats why I keep talking about emergent gameplay.
In most multiplayer PVP games I could communicate that. Playing with StB on one survivor, we'll make it or even deliverance on another, for example, there would be different situations where those would each be the better option. But I can't strategize that or coordinate, certainly not in the moment. And if they're on console I have literally no way to know even if I ask in the lobby.Again, DBD was designed specifically to avoid facilitating communication, as well as remove as many concepts of precognition as possible. Its purposely intended to provide a level of disorientation at its foundation. Games like LoL are designed specifically to have communication, games like F13 were designed to limit it severely via proximity or in game items, DBD was designed to not have it at all beyond pointing/beckoning/crouching. Thats exactly why I said earlier that SWF was a necessary evil that contradicted the game's own design the same way nurse being able to blink through walls and take advantage of exposed status while doing so contradicted the game's core foundation as well. You don't use foundational cracks as excuses to dumb down other aspects of games, you treat them as outliers that are specific to what necessitated them in the first place.
And I don't think it's reasonable to expect other people to know why I'm pushing for an unhook, if there's zero way to know that these perks are even in play. It's actually just expecting that either I am, or my teammates are able to divine the correct play based on information that isn't available in game and can't be communicated through game.You keep talking in absolutes, I'm talking in estimations. You don't want to have to consider the possibility of making an incorrect call off of incomplete data, you're demanding certainty in a game centered around a lack thereof. Killers would love to know they will get value from a hex build but accept they might only have 1 perk 40 seconds into the match. Survivors would love to know that their healing build will do anything with the risk they might end up facing a Plague. Its entirely a mindset problem to demand certainty instead of being willing to take risks in concepts centered around risk/reward principles and every time that consideration gets dumbed down, it has ripple effects in other aspects of the game. People bother with perks like UB even less since most of their teammates will abandon before they get the chance to use it, so it becomes redundant. "QoL" can have consequences when done incorrectly.
That seems like an easy fix. Yet here we are, with people claiming the sky will fall if you do so. It's not "fighting a hive mind", it's simply fighting this mindset that only a few people seem to have that if you give survivors even one inch of space it will destroy the game with catastrophic consequences. And that's not just me being hyperbolic, it's some of the responses in this thread.Always with the strawmen. Its not a matter of "the sky will fall," its a matter of the fact we have seen the consequences of these types of misplaced homogenizations in the past, and they directly contribute to every complaint about staleness within the meta. WoO will always be proof of that, and thats coming from someone who thinks the perk has plenty of merits but its ease of use and removal of critical thinking has caused regression in the player base with determining the information it provides without it. The reason you see yellow paint in so many games is because its overuse has led to many players being unable to survey environments without a clear indication spelling out where to go.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057164#Comment_4057164
This is true, and ties back to my comments about the community maximizing efficiency over time. Stealth has always been a less efficient playstyle in the majority of cases it gets used, which is why perks like Distortion had the changes they did to promote it as more of a situational ebb and flow and less an avoidance of interaction altogether. I don't necessarily agree with where they landed on it, but their reasoning was tied to the fact that interacting with the killer has always been a core aspect of the game's design, and complaints about the inefficiency of Urban Evaders goes back ages.
This is rooted in your expectation that the game's core design principles won't change over time, hence my comment. It's not 2016 anymore, it's 2026. The game has changed. You don't have to agree with the changes, but to use a past and long since phased out version of the game as justification for your points on the game as it stands today comes with the nuance that the game you are using as reference no longer exists. It's the same principle as to why, after so many years, scientific sources become out of date: things change. Additionally, like the famous quote says, people will optimize the fun out of everything. All it takes is a few major content creators to accelerate this optimization. We are at the point where this game will forever be a tug-of-war on balance because people are just that much better than they were 10 years ago, as well as the design changes I previously mentioned.
The fact that the devs are as willing to remove foundations is, again, why we have so much instability and whataboutism on so many topics. The first case was the incorporation of SWF. Yes, I know it was always planned, you can stop typing that response, but it was a necessary evil that contradicted most of the game's design which was focused about obscuring as much information and communication as possible.
SWF was added less than a month after the game's release. This nothing point about "it wasn't always in the game" is grasping at straws, if anything. For all intents and purposes, SWF has been in the game for 99.3% of DbD's existence since launch. Let's not treat the 0.7% as a long standing design pillar of the game, ESPECIALLY when SWF was planned from the start. Calling it a "necessary evil" would be calling the fundamental game design of team play against a power role a "necessary evil." Do you truly believe that there would be any meaningful number of survivor players left with today's DbD if you could only soloq on survivor, and then be met with a killer who camps, tunnels, is extremely efficient, proxy camps, runs 4 slowdown, etc.? I highly doubt it. I usually dislike this phrase because most people use it for changes they don't like, but if you truly consider the gameplay loop of team play versus the power role a "necessary evil" in a negative sense, maybe DbD isn't your cup of tea? If you acknowledge that DbD MUST be this way in order to function, that kind of takes the wind out of your argument's sails because you're logging in KNOWING that it must exist for the game to exist.
The reason I praise the HUD update is because it tied into other game foundations when trying to address the dichotomy. Instead of just giving everyone aura at all times, it gave contextual info that allows players to use game sense to deduce more information than it told. Many perks get used in similar ways, in fact the best use of Empathy used to be to track killer movements based on the aura of the injured player: If they're fast vaulting and throwing pallets, you knew the killer is right on them before having the hud give you that information. If they were curled up, someone else was already healing them. That type of meta information is how game sense is used to take information not given to the player and make educated and informed decisions based on what the information you're not told explicitly. By contrast, WoO is an amazing perk for learning layouts, planning tile chaining, and managing existing resources without visual confirmation: Unfortunately, it is so direct and blatant that it has a "Why would I not run it?" effect that builds dependance, which then devolves it into a yellow paint perk. The more things are given over on a platter, the less people feel the need to develop the skills that it replaces when it should be only supplementing. The end result is that people don't embrace those foundations, they become willing to pay a cost to remove them outright then turn around and lament what it costs them to do so.
I agree with you, I do think this game goes overboard in spoon feeding information that used to require skill in the past. I don't think that's entirely a function of soloq vs SWF but rather new player vs veteran player. DbD's entire monetary model is to sell as much DLC and skins as possible to maximize a profit. If you've already purchased all the DLC and all the cosmetics you'd want on your main characters, you are essentially an empty wallet to them. A new Sable/Mikayla/Vittorio/Renato can come along and drop easily $500+ if they enjoy the game, so they lower the bar to entry by essentially putting the bar on the floor. Same thing for killer. There's a reason almost all major licensed killer chapters release completely broken and are brought in line a month or two after the patch. New player money.
I wholeheartedly disagree, at least to the degree you imply. As someone who only rarely played swf at all back in the days between spirit and slinger, there is more ability to silently coordinate off of other players without the need for direct coordination with them. The distinction is that reactive play is a skill that gets developed and cultured through game sense: If someone is chasing you off hook to try to heal you immediately, you can make an educated guess on the presence of a perk like We'll Make it being in play. There is a massive assumption in the community that every other player is dumber than oneself, so there is never any attempt to understand that many players do things for reasons. Its why the arm flailing on hook to denote camping fell apart, the understanding was that it was to denote the camp, but some people were ignorant to it while others assumed it was just one of those people spamming a button out of needing stimulus. The lack of faith in other players, regardless of how justified they felt it was, caused it to become a less effective signaling tactic.
I would agree if the matchmaking system worked as intended. There should be no reason why I am getting 10 hour sable players against a 250+ win streak blight who is streaming to 150 people. Zero reason, yet it has happened multiple times. I can't play off people who don't know how to play the game. I recognize your comment about the game handholding players, but like I said, this is a new player and matchmaking issue. I'd rather have a 5 or 10 minute queue for a competent team, rather than a 1 minute queue with a coin flip on whether or not the game is over at 5 gens because the 10 hour sable got sacrificed at 5 gens. Let the newer players match with newer players and have them build up their skills.
Pot, kettle, etc. This is why I actively don't like engaging in your posts, so please miss me with that.
Yet you typed up 6+ full paragraphs to argue against my points. Also saying pot, kettle would imply you are admitting to said pedantic/dishonest behavior. I don't want to end on a one liner out of the intent of discussing in good faith, so while I agree with some of your points, all I was trying to explain was that 2016 dbd, for better or for worse, is not what we should be entirely comparing against when talking about current balance.
This is rooted in your expectation that the game's core design principles won't change over time, hence my comment. It's not 2016 anymore, it's 2026.You say this while responding to a post where I outline multiple things that have changed since then, including one I actively praised. There's no point in us discussing anything, I tried giving you a chance.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
Yikes. You'd think based on some of these responses that h the topic was bringing back old dead hard for distance or letting survivors carry a pallet around with them or something.
This community continues to frustrate with the insistence that kicking every gen on cooldown or tunneling the first thing that moves is supposed to be "genius tactical strategy" that should never be inhibited or changed in any way, yet also the idea of "I should let the person with we'll make it unhook instead" is somehow a ticket to impossible games and shouldn't be allowed for people to even consider as an option. Come on.
To topic: yes, you shouldn't have to expect your teammates to be literally psychic to be able to get value from your perk. Even simply allowing survivors to see each others loadouts would go a decent way here.
This community continues to frustrate with the insistence that kicking every gen on cooldown or tunneling the first thing that moves is supposed to be "genius tactical strategy" that should never be inhibited or changed in any way, yet also the idea of "I should let the person with we'll make it unhook instead" is somehow a ticket to impossible games and shouldn't be allowed for people to even consider as an option. Come on.You might be less frustrated if you didn't boil down everyone who disagrees with you as being a hive mind that is perpetually illogical while everyone who agrees with you is a bastion of Vulcan virtuosity. The most frustrating thing about trying to maintain neutral stances that focus on game health is constantly being lumped into strawmen instead of people trying to understand a position they might not agree with, but this entire sentiment is just a derailment about meta tribalism.
As to the last part, there is a massive difference between being psychic to get value and having the game sense to allow someone to use their perk in a situational way, and I'm sorry your faith in your teammates is that low that you feel that way, regardless of how justified it may feel based on the disappointments that have led to it. People honestly don't realize how burnt out on this game they actually are half the time.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057016#Comment_4057016
The devs have literally said that they don't cater to a stealth playstyle anymore because the community evolved away from it in favor of chases. It is all about design philosophy and nothing to do with foundations if the devs are completely comfortable in removing old foundations from the game in favor of a new design philosophy.
Whether you want to admit it or not, this game requires coordinated play (or at least very good macro knowledge from soloq survivors) for the survivor team to have a chance at winning. Gone are the days where you can just stroll through a match with nothing but self care and iron will and have a good chance at surviving through the exit gate.
I'm not sure if you're being willfully dishonest and pedantic with your apples and oranges comment, but after 10 years, any live service game will only have very few core similarities of what it once was. Dbd is no different.
The devs have literally said that they don't cater to a stealth playstyle anymore because the community evolved away from it in favor of chases.This is true, and ties back to my comments about the community maximizing efficiency over time. Stealth has always been a less efficient playstyle in the majority of cases it gets used, which is why perks like Distortion had the changes they did to promote it as more of a situational ebb and flow and less an avoidance of interaction altogether. I don't necessarily agree with where they landed on it, but their reasoning was tied to the fact that interacting with the killer has always been a core aspect of the game's design, and complaints about the inefficiency of Urban Evaders goes back ages.
It is all about design philosophy and nothing to do with foundations if the devs are completely comfortable in removing old foundations from the game in favor of a new design philosophy.The fact that the devs are as willing to remove foundations is, again, why we have so much instability and whataboutism on so many topics. The first case was the incorporation of SWF. Yes, I know it was always planned, you can stop typing that response, but it was a necessary evil that contradicted most of the game's design which was focused about obscuring as much information and communication as possible. Ever since, every justification for breaking those design foundations has gone back to "but SWF get that info" or "they get to maximize X perk" which is what has led to the dichotomy between the two to as much of a degree as it has. It becomes a design limitation the same way that the Nurse did, between limiting the potential effects of them (but Nurse can do X with Y perk!) to the point that she needed to have her teleport basic attack be considered a special attack because of stuff like backpack builds. To say that removing a foundation is necessary to evolve a game, you're admitting that either the foundation was faulty or the ideas contradict the game itself, both of which cause further instability with every contradiction.
The reason I praise the HUD update is because it tied into other game foundations when trying to address the dichotomy. Instead of just giving everyone aura at all times, it gave contextual info that allows players to use game sense to deduce more information than it told. Many perks get used in similar ways, in fact the best use of Empathy used to be to track killer movements based on the aura of the injured player: If they're fast vaulting and throwing pallets, you knew the killer is right on them before having the hud give you that information. If they were curled up, someone else was already healing them. That type of meta information is how game sense is used to take information not given to the player and make educated and informed decisions based on what the information you're not told explicitly. By contrast, WoO is an amazing perk for learning layouts, planning tile chaining, and managing existing resources without visual confirmation: Unfortunately, it is so direct and blatant that it has a "Why would I not run it?" effect that builds dependance, which then devolves it into a yellow paint perk. The more things are given over on a platter, the less people feel the need to develop the skills that it replaces when it should be only supplementing. The end result is that people don't embrace those foundations, they become willing to pay a cost to remove them outright then turn around and lament what it costs them to do so.
Whether you want to admit it or not, this game requires coordinated play (or at least very good macro knowledge from soloq survivors) for the survivor team to have a chance at winning.I wholeheartedly disagree, at least to the degree you imply. As someone who only rarely played swf at all back in the days between spirit and slinger, there is more ability to silently coordinate off of other players without the need for direct coordination with them. The distinction is that reactive play is a skill that gets developed and cultured through game sense: If someone is chasing you off hook to try to heal you immediately, you can make an educated guess on the presence of a perk like We'll Make it being in play. There is a massive assumption in the community that every other player is dumber than oneself, so there is never any attempt to understand that many players do things for reasons. Its why the arm flailing on hook to denote camping fell apart, the understanding was that it was to denote the camp, but some people were ignorant to it while others assumed it was just one of those people spamming a button out of needing stimulus. The lack of faith in other players, regardless of how justified they felt it was, caused it to become a less effective signaling tactic.
The people who want more info handed to them and the people who refuse to fill in blanks are one in the same. It creates a dependency on information instead of allowing oneself to embrace the incomplete nature of decision making. Thats why I compare it to having the solution to a puzzle while doing it, as those types of unknowns have always been a foundational aspect of the game. Its why you can't see the killer in lobby, its why tiles and resources are procedurally generated, many core aspects of the game loop were built on unknown unknowns. In fact, its why map offerings needed to be nerfed, as they allowed people to maximize builds specifically around the presence of things like a slew of drop points (and related design flaws) on old Haddonfield. That adds variety to gameplay and makes it less formulaic, and is a type of emergent gameplay design that entices people to PVP games in the first place. The more you erode those foundations, the more formulaic gameplay gets: Instead of adapting to situations as presented, it becomes a series of "if x, then y" statements outside of the human element of your opponent. When people talk about the game being in between competitive and a party game, that foundation is exactly what they're talking about, its not counter strike or league of legends and its not fall guys, it bridges the gap between the two to put an equal focus on variety and skill expression on more than a superficial level.
Gone are the days where you can just stroll through a match with nothing but self care and iron will and have a good chance at surviving through the exit gate.You still can, and people still do, but it becomes more circumstantial than it was in the past for multiple reasons. Aside from more tools being given to the opposition (power scaling in this regard will always be an arms race,) the opposite is also true. Gone are the days where people needed to permalock BT to their build because it isn't even needed anymore. Gone are the days of relying on using DH as a "push button to teleport to pallet" days, as are the "run Overbrine to have hours to defend gens" days. People build reliance due to refusing to engage with aspects of the game, which is why that becomes dangerous when it relates to foundational aspects. Its easy to understand that people barely memorize phone numbers due to having contact lists in their phones, but they should still be memorizing emergency contacts despite that convenience. If you don't have access to the phone and need to make an emergency call like that, if you don't memorize the number you are not able to, which is why overreliance on a convenience can be detrimental to that type of consideration. Essentially, once that type of redundancy affects core gameplay foundations, it inhibits the player from being able to develop those abilities unless they actively attempt to in spite of them, which is why so many people feel so many things are necessary to function within the game. This is something that applies to both roles very much, regardless of how justified people feel it is based on conditions of the game around it. Absence can make things more difficult, but it is never impossible outside of game breaking scenarios/exploits.
I'm not sure if you're being willfully dishonest and pedantic with your apples and oranges commentPot, kettle, etc. This is why I actively don't like engaging in your posts, so please miss me with that. Ghandi's answer to "An eye for an eye" was simply to continue "leaves the world blind." You wanted to force a dismissal, I answered it with a perspective supporting open mindedness.
-
@Terror_Misu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057091#Comment_4057091
You're literally hung up on history which isn't repeating itself rn.
History is what we learn from. This is not a leap of faith stance @Ryuhi is taking with a company like Konami, its an intelligent stance reflecting the history of Konami.
I feel you have zero knowledge in history regarding Konami, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting what you are. Do some research or don't, but Konami hasn't changed, they are the same as they were in history, which is very scummy with respect to their staff and IP collection. This stuff matters to people.
But hey, if none of this matters to you, continue to consume, consumer. Its what we were meant to do.
Honestly my point isn't even necessarily as much about how they handle IPs, that part was mostly relevant due to the comments about MGS and how konami gave another company cart blanche in regards to its lore and representation. The main point was that there is no other reason konami would(n't) make a decision regarding their content in other games or mediums that isn't centered around profit. That means that something like another future collab or licensing renewal absolutely could lead to improvements like they want, but that decision (and even consideration) would center around that fact alone. Honestly thats not even limited to konami, which is why speculation about things like lore freedom opening the gates or other similar justifications are meaningless. These aren't fangames or labors of love, they're marketed products to the people who own the rights. Konami in particular are just historically extremely blatant about their priorities.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057084#Comment_4057084
You're literally hung up on history which isn't repeating itself rn. The master collections for MGS have had ample free updates to make them preserved in a really good state, even just went through MGS1 and upped the resolution as an option literally announced at this recent state of play, pay attention that master collection vol 1 came out in 2023.
Also: "Company aims to make money" lmfao, every company does.
But yes, Silent Hill deserves way better from BHVR which is the original reason I made this thread, especially with its recent comeback.You're purposely missing my point so there's not much point in repeating myself, but keep in mind your topic title and original reasoning. Its not about them "aiming to make money," its about their pursuit of money being more than a little important to whether or not your demands will ever get met.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056518#Comment_4056518
Because it's not the only crossover I've noticed this trend with, when it comes to any of Konami's IPs.
You'd be unaware to not notice the trends over the recent year or so. You dismissing a comparison because you feel like it when I've given plenty reason to doubt BHVR's state of the Silent Hill representation in the game, not to mention it also could mean we could get MGS since it can be Horror Adjacent at times too.https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/T1TADQXBNTO9/image.png
Cheryl and the others need some care to bring them up to the quality, I'm speaking from a place of passion as I'd like to see my favourite characters have the same quality recent cosmetics have.
@Ryuhi As for you, Konami isn't the only company who does pachinko lmfao, you need to see the resident evil ones, they are hillarious. Considering Konami has done MGS Delta which people love (if even it is Pricey), preserving MGS4, 2 SH games which were wildly successful and now they are releasing a new castlevania game by the people who made Dead Cells, you're insane to say they disrespect in modern times.Its not about them being the only company that does pachinko, its about pachinko being their primary use of their video game IPs for decades, and yes, I can say that them licensing out castlevania to another company who will do better work with it as they drove off most of the talent behind the series to do a competing product. Seriously, if you know how konami operated up to the mid 00's through to today, their respect for their treasure trove of IPs is night and day, which was my point. Again, its not about "respecting lore" or anything like that, any and all decisions they make about the uses of their IPs is about how much money it will make them, and every time they dump out a lackluster Contra or MG Survive it kinda reenforces that point. If revamping the models they have in this game will make them more money instead of less, that would be what makes it a priority for them.
-
@ImWinston said:
- Guys, I'm glad you're using this post to discuss so many topics... but I'm asking for a very simple blue icon at the bottom, like so many other perks already have. There's no need to rank the strongest killer or talk about DBD 2016. "Shoulder the burden" is already one of the most "challenging" perks in the game, but Devs are making this perk even harder for SoloQ. I'm not asking for a buff, just a quality of life improvement.
The point of mentioning early DBD is because its talking about the base foundations of what DBD is. It sounds simple to say its just an icon, but think about what impact removing procedural generation on tiles would do to the game: The more free information that players get spoonfed to them instead of needing to at least use critical thinking with context, it removes degrees of the game's design. Thats why something like the Hud Update worked, because the information it spells out is only half of the info it allow you to deduce by applying it to context around it. You're talking about removing a large chunk of the risk of the perk despite how strong being able to delay a killer removing a survivor from the game is to its actual structure, which is most of the reason its a desirable strategy in the first place.
I also extremely disagree with the concept of making DBD harder for SoloQ, which is another reason I mentioned early DBD and the foundation of the game. If you focus on the differences in killer designs or what has been removed, you ignore what has been gained and how strongly those things have changed the core gameplay loop for the positive. Nurse has always been strong and used to be even stronger, despite the fact that Kaneki and Blight weren't always there. We're out of the OverBrine meta, and Chess Merchant died ages ago. Those types of sentiments focusing on one side but ignoring the other is refusing to look at the whole picture.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057015#Comment_4057015
100% agree, due to the end game celebrations the killer has to endure the vast majority of the time they lose, its often best to make damn sure they dont lose….via any means. Tunneling, slugging, camping, whatever "toxic" tactic they can to make sure they avoid this end game nonsense as much as possible.
The survivors that often complain about killers tunneling at 5 gens….look at your peers that tbag at the gates, they are probably one of the reasons killers are tunneling you out asap.
Likewise, many survivors feel the need to be sore winners because they might have dealt with the toxic type of tunneling (no, most tunneling is not but yes, it does exist) or W/Sing or whatever reason they justify as well. Everyone should be better regardless of role, but you're certainly right in how these things bleed into the next game as much if not more than the current one. Thats why I feel like some solution should be found even if it can't be parity with what the devs have decided thus far.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057011#Comment_4057011
- kindred isnt used much because people are slowly seeing soloq as not a team. Why bring a perk that helps a team thats not willing to help you? Great we can all see eachother when someone else is on the hook…. lets ignore that, leave them on the hook while we do gens. There is no value from knowing the killer is near the hook now either due to having anti camp meter visible to all which says the exact same info.
- look at nightlights top survivors perks, almost every single one is for the individual not the for team.
- Hex perks means the survivor has to waste time cleansing the totem so even if its discovered right at the start, there is still value to be had especially if combined with other hex perks.
- Its not always a bad choice to bring an oddball perk that you might get value from but when its a case of most cases you get no value from it and you lose then yes its a bad choice to bring a perk you MIGHT get value from instead of a perk you WILL get value from.
Just need to use logic and experience to judge what most commonly happens in matches and plan for it, not plan for the minority situations.
kindred isnt used much because people are slowly seeing soloq as not a team. Why bring a perk that helps a team thats not willing to help you? Great we can all see eachother when someone else is on the hook…. lets ignore that, leave them on the hook while we do gens. There is no value from knowing the killer is near the hook now either due to having anti camp meter visible to all which says the exact same info.The difference in success and failure isn't hard work, but hard work and opportunity. If you don't put in the effort, you cannot utilize the opportunity. If you operate on a fear of failure (in this case, most of the defeatism in this point) then you remove the potential for the value, which has been my point the whole time. You ask why bother, I say to break that very cycle. Kindred provides plenty of personal value on the whereabouts of your team regardless of whether you are the one hooked or not, with the benefit to the team coming from you being the one hooked specifically. That change was made specifically so that you would always get value helpful to bridging the gap between solo and swf specifically, yet points like your own focus on the potential failings of them rather than the benefit you gain in spite of them. Its the exact focus I'm talking about. Its not about bridging the gap in facets like information, you don't want your agency to have any dependency on theirs.
look at nightlights top survivors perks, almost every single one is for the individual not the for team.I actually went into a pretty indepth analysis about that in another topic recently, in how solved the meta is due to their focuses on both sides. Survivors favor supplementing (to the point of replacing in some cases like WoO) skill and decision making to last as long as possible in chase with a secondary focus on gen speed (which is most likely due to how highly prioritized slowing gens is for killers in the same meta) and the fact that they are more focused on being selfish than helpful kinda proves my point. I'm saying it shouldn't be that way and that decisions in the game are what have been pushing the game in that direction, while you're kind of… admitting it is what it is? The herd mentality doesn't mean the individual needs to adhere to it, so I don't know if I understand beyond seeking validation.
Hex perks means the survivor has to waste time cleansing the totem so even if its discovered right at the start, there is still value to be had especially if combined with other hex perks.And 4 flashlights means the killer needs to use a perk slot on something like franklins or lightborn, which then make those flashlights lose value immensely. There is a give and take with risk/reward, which has kind of been my point. If you bring a teamwork perk and can get great value from proper use of it, that isn't the same as saying its pointless to bring because you might not. You can argue about the value of the individual perks on that matter, but my point is that wanting to have that kind of information is wanting to keep the reward while trying to remove the risk in its design. Its a point that gets fought vehemently whenever the risk being too high for hex perks as a concept comes up, and it applies to a lot of things in the game (especially invocations and even boons, let alone perk choices or powers that can be situationally nullified entirely.)
Its not always a bad choice to bring an oddball perk that you might get value from but when its a case of most cases you get no value from it and you lose then yes its a bad choice to bring a perk you MIGHT get value from instead of a perk you WILL get value from.There's that focus on the risk again, this time the goalposts have moved to "most cases." If thats how you feel, you shouldn't be considering anything that relies on risk reward ratios at all, and most don't, which is why the meta is as self centered and consistently safe as you saw on nightlight. The community has been trying to out-efficiency each other as hard as humanly possible for a while now, and its why 90% of the perks in the game are considered useless clutter to so many people.
Just need to use logic and experience to judge what most commonly happens in matches and plan for it, not plan for the minority situations.I agree completely, but the key factor missing from that statement is being able to adapt to when things don't go according to plan, i.e not getting value from those preparations. Its something that has been a standard in the game since its inception, but for some reason there has been a growing insistence in many players that it should apply to everyone but themselves because of a lack of temperment when things don't work out how they hope.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057011#Comment_4057011
If your design philosophy is stuck in 2016, I would like 2016 survivor and killer balancing along with it. People used to not have electricity and gather and hunt for food, but times change; just like this game. Killers are 100 times better than they were back when survivors knew nothing about each others' perks. Killers like blight, spirit, oni, wesker, singularity, ghoul, vecna, etc. did not exist back then. To compare apples to apples, you have to stop bringing an orange into the conversation.
If your design philosophy is stuck in 2016, I would like 2016 survivor and killer balancing along with it.Its not about my design philosophy, its about the design foundations for the game. The fact they have been ignored so many times over its life is why we have so much whataboutism, because there are more exceptions than rules now.
People used to not have electricity and gather and hunt for food, but times change; just like this game.How do you not feel this is hyperbolic?
Killers are 100 times better than they were back when survivors knew nothing about each others' perks.As are survivors, when Red Ruin needed to be completely reworked because it was deemed too difficult for the average player, yet now the exits can be powered and opened in less than 5 minutes. You're trying to find reasons to dismiss an argument you disagree with rather than actually trying to view them impartially.
Killers like blight, spirit, oni, wesker, singularity, ghoul, vecna, etc. did not exist back then.Neither did most of the perks that have changed the game for both sides dramatically. Again, I can't tell if you're trying to take your hyperbolic posturing as logical or trying to make some strange point beyond "woe is survivor in current day."
To compare apples to apples, you have to stop bringing an orange into the conversation.Apples and oranges are both fruit, the metaphor only works when relative to the scope of what it is trying to be applied to. I very specifically avoid focusing on details unless necessary because I don't try to use them to attack logic I don't disagree with, but instead to help bolster my own to attempt to provide understanding.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057004#Comment_4057004
Its about using the right perk for the right role. Its like running trail of torment on a wraith….sure you could do it but you wont get much value from it. Same with survivors going into soloq, sure they can use STB but you wont get much value from it. Or SWF bringing Empathy when they can use comms. Generally its best to pick perks that best suit your role depending on if your a specific killer or solq or SWF or going for a particular challenge.
There's a difference between the "right" thing and the "only" thing, which was my point. Having risk/reward in your build isn't inherently a wrong choice, but it gets treated as one for so many people. Meanwhile hexes can still spawn in plain sight of someone's camera pan while they load in and its considered perfectly acceptable. Not knowing whether you'll get value from something like a teamwork perk is not the same as claiming it is an objectively bad choice without that information, as "All Cretans are liars" and whatnot (actually learned that one here, its a great paradox for this game.)
That said, since Empathy was mentioned, curious that Kindred wasn't. Its pick rate should be higher than anything with how much this type of concern gets brought up with comparison to SWF, yet its never even in the top 10 on nightlight or official channels. It is the defacto solo queue perk, and only one out of 4 even needs to run it to get guaranteed value for at least someone on the (if not the entire) team, yet it sits low on usage lists.
sure they can use STB but you wont get much value from it.is the reason, because its not about "might not" but a focus on "will not" regardless of whether that actually comes to pass or not. Its self perpetuating defeatism more than it is an objectively incorrect choice, as people don't allow room for anything other than plans to go exactly as they intend. Its such a boring way to play, and an even more frustrating one when you can't prepare for not getting optimal value from things (or even the game itself.) -
@runningguy said:
pc players can say in lobby chat they have it.
However, this just further reinforces the concept that SWF is a team Soloq is not. Makes sense to bring a team perk in SWF where it can be useful but bringing team saving perks into soloq where you are not an actual team and may not even have the same goals (escape, challenges, adepts, meme ect) might not be a good idea.
Bringing something like healing shouldn't be centered around "I can't bring it in case its a Plague" or "I may never be in a position where I can utilize it" but more "I'm bringing it because it can be the difference in being able to self heal or healing someone quickly if needed." There's always so much focus on the possibility of lack of value more than the potential of it, which is why everyone refuses to move away from the safest options possible. Its a self perpetuating problem because people can't deal with something not going their way or facing an unexpected scenario.
-
@ImWinston said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056995#Comment_4056995
- Excuse me, but with this in mind, why do killers see each other's auras in 2vs8 mode? In theory, they can work just fine without this feature, but since they have to work as a team, they (rightly) have this option. I'm not asking for anything "crazy" or strange compared to other perks (for example, "Prove Thyself"), just to announce it somehow.
Excuse me, but with this in mind, why do killers see each other's auras in 2vs8 mode?Because many tenants of 2v8 mode break the game's foundations as well, for both sides. The problem with design changes that deviate from the game's foundations is that they opejn the gate for a slew of whataboutism like that exact example. 2v8 was always intended to be a mode for fun and has been as prominent as it has due to popularity more than anything. That doesn't mean it respects any of the design choices of the main 1v4 mode, and shouldn't be used as justification for forcing its ideas retroactively.
The point of my stance is that the more things get dumbed down in that manner, the more they detract from the variety of the game. The fact that the meta has always been as rigid as it has will always be proof that people will optimize the game itself out of DBD if you let them.
-
I think the bigger question with those types of perks is "Why can't people play with the assumption something could be in play, and adapt to whether or not it is." Its the foundation of so many elements of the game for both sides, and especially in their interactions between each other, but it seems to be a mindset that vanishes whenever faced with an unknown about teammates for a lot of people.
The game used to be designed around knowing pretty much nothing about your teammates besides their health state, you didn't even know what survivor they were or what they were doing outside of visual confirmation, and people managed just fine. The HUD updates over time have given a tremendous amount of information that can be used to deduce even more than it tells, but it feels like we need to have everyone's loadout and cooldown timers visible next to their portrait before people stop asking for more. And that might sound hyperbolic but honestly, it could go even further.
When you have a game balanced by chaotic averages, where strengths and weaknesses can vary wildly depending on circumstance in the game around them, having too much information is like seeing a puzzle's solution while attempting it. Those unknowns are what create emergent gameplay, making it so there isn't a set solution to every situation but rather a series of viable ones that each player adapts to given what they know and what they estimate. The reason the game feels so "solved" now is because people have been able to put efficiency over those types of considerations, so changes that boost efficiency for either side, directly or indirectly, only serve to make the game more stale.
I get people want all of the benefits of SWF without having to participate in it, but parity between the two isn't supposed to just be one side pulling the other up to its level. Like with the variance in killer tiers, they should be normalized to have their strengths and weaknesses addressed evenly rather than pulling either one up or down directly. If perks like WoO weren't yellow paint in perk form, people might actually have 4 slots instead of just 3, and perks like Kindred or Empathy that bridge the gap substantially might actually get more use in being able to do so. I still stand by my claim that the abandon feature did major damage to the viability of perks like unbreakable and deliverance simply by actively discouraging their best case usage scenarios, while people instead focus on "How could I know they were in play before hitting abandon" instead of actually playing the match out and finding out.
-
@ShootOut37 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056767#Comment_4056767
Youre just making statements about subjects you dont know, BHVR didnt say anything about reasons of changing it, not even listed it in the official changelogs as far as I know. It was the biggest selling point of the character for many people including me. Listen to Joe Keery in the ST series or in his songs, he has voice like it was before the update irl. As for that it annoyed somebody: some people just cant be pleased. It wasnt game breaking or bugged, it just had its own charm. And again it was the reason why I bought the character in the first place.
BHVR didnt say anything about reasons of changing it,That is literally my point, NONE of us do. Like I said before, it is entirely between BHVR and the license holders, and that was an example of what could be the reasoning as to why it was changed, because they might not want it to be
the biggest selling point of the character for many peopleAs for that it annoyed somebody: some people just cant be pleased.Thats not the point. Audio tracking is an important skill for killers, and audio awareness is important for survivors, as well as constantly giving away location of nearby teammates because haha silly scream build being pretty detrimental to their experience.
And again it was the reason why I bought the character in the first place.I know survivors are just skins beyond their perks they add to the pool, but have a better reason. Thats the same argument as the people doing the skin mismatch meme for cheryl ages ago, and it was no more justified then. Memes are not valid reasons to make purchasing decisions, especially when compared to things like perks or even whole killers functioning entirely different than advertised post release. When buying something in a live service game, you are always agreeing to be subject to changes made after the fact, and the stegull meme had plenty of time to run its course.
-
@DxveWolf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056767#Comment_4056767
aint reading all of that, im glad for you or sorry that happened,
bring steagull backIf you can't read a few sentences on the subject why would you expect your demands to be met?