Severing
Severing
About
- Username
- Severing
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Brandon48 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3406096#Comment_3406096
Well I can’t imagine getting rid of hooks is a realistic suggestion, could be wrong?
But yeah the whole point is to make it annoying for killers to want to be around hooked survivors so don’t get what the argument against it would be? One problem I see with it is that ranged killers and others could charge their power just outside of the radius and shoot in leaving the change more of a nuisance rather than effective.
Other ideas such as buffing reassurance and getting rid of healthy grabs are good and maybe the solution is lots of little things and new perks like that if no one can think of a one-all-be-all solution?
Just today a doctor was spam shocking me so I physically couldn’t unhook the survivor at all due to the spam scream animation. The survivor died and the killer got a 4K, surely this isn’t the way the developers want killers to be playing or ‘winning’ their games.
Irregardless it’s good for these discussions to happen I think.
Getting rid of hooks is not necessary, changing their mechanics is.
Having an annoying mechanic is a problem for any game ever made. This proposed solution would have a mechanic that is obnoxious and mostly ineffective. Games are ultimately made for fun, no matter how balanced it may be, no one will play it if it is not fun. Objectively, there is no reason why a game should aim for an obnoxious and fruitless solution rather than a successful and uneventful one.
Buffing perks is also not an ideal solution, if they do actually attenuate the problem, you may have a solution where people feel forced to select a perk and penalised whenever they do not, which may adversely impact perk diversity. For people who equipped it/are under its effect? Great! For whoever did not? We are back where we started. Do we really want to choose in between a perk that we enjoy and one just to not feel miserable? There is also the potential problem of the perk, if poorly designed, being weaponised and becoming a nightmare even in situations where the killer is playing nicely, old DS is the prime example. And in the end, it is very unlikely that any perk will ever directly address the problem as that is an issue with the hook's nature of being a defendable stationary object. Perks such as Reassurance may alleviate the symptoms but they do not attack the disease.
While I cannot say what the developers intend, I can agree that manner of play is incredibly boring but I still insist that the problem here is the hook, not the Doctor. Even if Doctor were to have no power, he could still camp with the basic M1 and make the game miserable for at least 1 person and tedious for the remainder. Regardless of the result being a 4K, 1K or even 0K, it is still not an enjoyable process.
-
@Brandon48 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3405214#Comment_3405214
Playing against an aggressive swf team isn’t the situation where camping and tunnelling is a huge problem though. I’m sure they would actually expect you to do so if they’re playing that way. Comp-like style.
There needs to be a way to disincentive ‘lazy’ killers who are just looking for an easy win or just ensure others have a miserable time.
Suggestions:
Camping - All killers powers can’t proc around a radius of a hooked survivor. Not just certain ones like dredge or artist. It’s currently really inconsistent for some reason?
Tunneling - If there are at least 3 survivors in match, no blood points are given if the same person is hooked twice in a row.
Something like that.
I cannot think this countermeasure to camping to be good one. It does not actually prevent camping and for many killers it hardly makes a difference, this only makes it obnoxious to maneuver around the hook for the killer. Playing as the killers that do have it, it is rather irritating trying to use a power in a direction facing away and being unable to do so because you just hooked someone and now have to walk X metres because reasons, potentially losing the timing for your power in the process.
If you want an actual anti-camping measure, look no further than the Cages of Atonement, they are far more effective against camping while also being undisruptive to killer gameplay. Hooks are and have always been what enables camping and they are the core of the problem, not killer powers.
-
@Archael said:
If killer would see in 360 degree... Would he benefit from that? Would his perfirmance improve since they can now see everything around?
What about 270? 180? If this would not be an issue, then i cannot say anything more... If one can see the issue with such numbers, then where is a line? Why few degrees from now is only accessibility, but few more is suddenly an advantage?
If one could properly operate with a 360 FOV, yes, it would be a benefit over 87, but I do not think that performance would be significantly impacted at all due to FOV bearing little say on chases. Personally, I would argue against this as I do not think a survivor should be spotted by a killer who is looking into the complete opposite direction, that would just feel annoying and unfair to the survivor. Now, I think that the objective conclusion is that a good killer is good regardless of FOV and a bad killer is bad regardless of FOV. Still, 360 degrees would be rather silly, probably even more sickening than the current narrow 87 degrees, would be superfluous and thus unneeded and unjustifiable despite likely not inflicting any major hinderances to game balance.
Values such as 270 and 180 will be the same, I do not see them causing any major issues but also do not see why they would be needed. The added information to the killer might make it harder to approach or walk by unseen as a survivor and might reduce the time you have to hide when the killer is looking around, but in those situations the killer can already achieve the same effect by moving the camera quickly. Stealth would be a bit harder but not impossible by any means even with those values.
Now, why are +15 degrees okay but +150 are not? I think that would depend on what you believe defines "okay". If the answer is balance then I would say anything is objectively "okay". However, overbearing value such as 360 might feel unfair and unfun to the other party independently of its actual weight on balance. So, when we take player experience into account we can see why extreme values would be discarded while those in-between would not.
And I disagree, a few degrees is not only accessibility, it is both accessibility and an advantage, it is simply not all that great of an advantage nor one that adversely affects the game. It is known that narrow fields of view may cause motion sickness or discomfort, so can wide ones. Thus, ideally we would have a slider where the player is allowed to adjust in between a lower value that is sufficiently narrow and an upper value that is sufficiently wide while also not causing the other side to feel cheated.
Since we already have a narrow value in the current FOV, the discussion turns to the upper limit. I would argue that the 102 of Shadowborn is a nice compromise as it seems to help people who have issues with the base FOV while also not being high enough to cause a sentiment of injustice by those caught within its cone even when one is used to playing against the narrow 87 degrees FOV. If you disagree, I will be glad to hear why.
-
I think the answer would be that Bubba is just much older. Another potential answer is that his power does not work by placing down something that passively denies an area; if Bubba is not actively there revving the chainsaw nothing happens. Though since Skull Merchant cannot do much without being in the vicinity either, the former is more likely.
Aside from this question, any killer can often guarantee a kill by camping even without an instadown, Bubba is simply more effective. I believe part of the reason you do not see as much hard face-camping with other killers is because the people who would do this will choose Bubba due to his inherent advantage.
Quite frankly, I wish the restrictions for placing/using powers near a hook would be gone entirely and that this issue be attacked at its core: the hook itself. Pyramid's head's cages are a far better solution in my view, both for the survivor and the killer.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3396796#Comment_3396796
Game dying today would not cause the universe to implode.
But larger FOV refuce the agency possible. I would argue that being able to see survivor next to you mid-rush is about as game breaking as survivor being able to see killer thru loop (and comparison stands - it's possible also now on some loops and it wasn't possible on some loops even with old stretched resolution).
Like if this is such a problem, then let killers stretch their resolution, but don't show them valuable info. Make it a mirror of what they can see, or hide survivors and other important objects on those parts of screen - that should be perfectly ok if health is the only argument. It fixed accessibility so it should be strictly accessibility feature
Shadowborn causes no gamebreaking issue. If you believe that basekit Shadowborn would break the game and cause it to die then state your argument.
Larger FOV does not decrease the survivor's agency significantly nor directly, survivors' main defensive tools are vaults and pallets, FOV does not win a killer the chase. Stealth is too mostly unaffected as it is most effective by entirely hiding behind objects, again, extra FOV does not grant you wall-vision as the killer.
And I do not believe that being able to see a survivor amidst Blight's rush gives any tangible advantage as the rush requires timing, positioning and aiming: if Blight could not hit you in the first place he is not hitting you regardless of what he can see. And even if he cannot see you he can still judge your current position by where you were and your movement speed, hitting you anyway; I myself do this as Nurse regularly. Once more, state your argument, how does seeing someone mid-rush break the game? You can see people mid-rush within the normal FOV already and no volcanoes have erupted because of it.
Ah, did I mention that tournament Blight players who aim for the best possible result do not frequently, if at all use Shadowborn? It seems you forgot to address this part.
And how does the comparison stand? What is still possible? You did not make that clear, please elaborate. If you are talking about seeing the killer around corners, yes, it is still here but the problem was not the fact that it existed, it was its magnitude and frequency. And really, regardless of whether it was healthy or not for the game, stretched resolution did not kill or break the game despite existing for years, this point is now mute.
Now, Resolution and FOV are different things. I have no idea what you mean by "make it a mirror of what they can see"'. Fading objects and entities away once they are outside of the 87 degree cone would work but I do not see why they would do it since the 102 cone is not a problem in the first place. And now I truly believe that you have no reasonable argument and no productive discussion can be generated from this interaction but well, I was bored.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3396719#Comment_3396719
Yes. Like all the Blights and Onis absolutely use it only for health issues. And all the survivors using stretch res just liked the feeling of moving quicker only... Copium
Survivors have a third person point of view that they use to see around corners or over loops. Stretched resolution had augmented that to a point where they had information on the killer's position with much more frequency and safety than what could be considered healthy or fair. This cannot be compared to the first person point of view of the killer who cannot see you behind objects no matter how much the FOV is increased.
As I believe I have pointed it to you on another thread about the same subject, I have seen no tournament Blights or Oni that use Shadowborn. If players whose objective is the best possible result do not frequently, if at all bring the perk, it is likely that it is not a very good perk to begin with. And then again, even if non-tournament Blights and Oni do use Shadowborn as often as you like to claim, you still cannot use that as an argument without data that indicates that Shadowborn has a significant impact towards a positive match result.
Besides, we are not talking of +70 FOV for killer, only up to +15. That would hardly cause the universe to implode.
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3395667#Comment_3395667
If 17% doesn't matter, then there is no reason to implement it, right? Glad we cleared that up.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3395668#Comment_3395668
Intended game design. Not a game problem.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3395670#Comment_3395670
And I could argue that games that used graphics are not accessible to blind people. Not EVERYTHING is an accessibility feature. Lots of games have epilepsy warnings on them for that very reason. The vast majority of people whining about this do not have motion sickness, they just want a bigger screen. It's the video game equivalent of bringing your dog into a grocery store and lying and saying it's a service dog because you wanna bring it with you.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3395675#Comment_3395675
I'm referring to any element of gameplay that avoids detection from the killer, whether that is hiding behind a rock or muffling your sounds with Bite The Bullet.
Answer to line 1: Please do take things within context. I was addressing the balance aspect of the FOV slider. From a pure balance perspective, yes, there is no reason to add it nor deny it. From the quality of life point of view there is sufficient reason for its implementation. And you did wholly ignore the latter part of my commentary elaborating that the current FOV is not the primary source of stealth, which should have been your main focus since it seems to be the "core gameplay" you appear so concerned that Shadowborn adversely affects to a significant margin.
Answer to line 2: Again, double standard. One can state that tunnelling off the hook is intended by design as the hooks themselves permit such tactics. I could say the same about body-blocking someone into a corner until the endgame collapse or just letting all 4 survivors bleed out on the ground. The former is only partially-addressed as of the present whilst the latter two are not at all. Why can a few unfortunate side-effects of flaws in game-design be labelled as "intended" while others are "game problems"? Who is the arbiter? You? Even if not, why is it that you hold this judgement, why one way and not the other?
Answer to line 3: Yes, unfortunately we do not live in a world where everything is accessible to all. That is the sad truth. However, we can make things accessible within reason, where possible. Such is the case of a mere +15 degrees FOV slider, it bears positive impacts to the entire killer playerbase and only a miniscule, likely to be often unnoticeable adversity for survivors.
And yes, there will be people using it only for the small advantage of a wider view, some for pure comfort and others for necessity/accessibility. The soon to come visual terror radius will be one such case. Now, do group 1 and 2 render the well-fare of group 3 invalid? Why are the wishes of group 1 and 2 invalid at all?
Additionally, you cannot state that the majority of people asking for this feature are lying and do not possess motion sickness as that is simply data you do not have. Some do not give a motive, some say they find the current FOV unpleasant, with varying reasons, and others tell of motion sickness. If we go by your dog analogy, we are not passing a dog for a service dog; the dog is a dog and we simply want it in and we are asking it be allowed in because it is, for whatever reason, meaningful to us. After all, is it truly an issue if the dog causes no problems?
And really, saying that a general collective of people asking for a feature are whining is just rather rude, more so is accusing them of lying without proof. If you believe this accusation to be genuinely true, then with just a smidge more of thought you will realise you cannot test its veracity and it falls apart. If you are conscious that you do not hold the information necessary and still accuse, then it is a false accusation, at which point it is ironic, do you not agree?
Answer to line 4: If you truly are concerned about stealth universally, I am afraid to inform you that aura perks such as Nowhere to Hide, tracking perks like Stridor or scream perks similar to Infectious Fright or even just the human perks Eyes, Ears and Brain are far greater enemies to hiding than basekit Shadowborn could ever hope to be.
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3395651#Comment_3395651
Except BT was changed as a shift to combat tunneling off the hook which was a game problem. You just want a wider screen.
It can be easily argued that the narrow FOV that enables disorientation by merely running in circles at the killer's face and causes motion sickness to some is a game problem. This argument is nothing more than a double standard.
-
@WesCravenFan said:
Changing the Killer POV affects Survivor stealth, which is part of the core gameplay. If you want the Shadowborn benefit, pony up the perk slot.
A 17% FOV increase hardly has substantial impact, if it did, Shadowborn would see greater usage. Besides, the primary enabler for stealth is to break line of sight entirely by moving behind objects, not to run out of the cone of vision.
Furthermore, stealth is not a survivor's primary defensive or evasive tool, Looping is; and 15 degrees of extra FOV are not going to do anything about that.
I find no reasonable argument that justifies a FOV slider going from the current 87 up to Shadowborn's 102 ought not to be made.
-
It should have been added years ago. Most games have a FOV slider on release and it is unfathomable that Dead by Daylight does not yet.
-
As of the latest PTB, the above appears unchanged aside from Huntress who has had the upper vertical camera limit raised to its previous state, the lower limit remains restricted, however.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376829#Comment_3376829
How does you propose to do it then? Give that answer to bHVR not me. jeez.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376847#Comment_3376847
You state that FOV is directly connected to the game balance and follow by saying that this is the worst game for a FOV slider, this implicates that you do not believe it should be in the game.
Your quoting of me is inaccurate so your implication is probably influenced by that.
- I said FOV is directly connected to the game balance. ( yes Correct.)
- I asked them how they propose to implement it. (You seemed to miss that part)
- I said that this probably is the worst game to ask for it, given 1.
idk how any of this "implies" I don't want it, at best that Idd think it be very complicated to do cause it messes with the balance.
The quotation itself cannot be inaccurate, any observations and implications perceived may.
Reading this comment now I can see that viewing it as neutral towards the concept of a FOV slider is possible and my interpretation was a result of it being vague.
"FOV is literally tied to game balance with the direction a Killer is looking, how do you propose such a change going through easily?You probably picked the worst game to play when asking for this to be added imo."
The concrete information that can be inferred from this is: You care about balance and are concerned about what a FOV slider would bring. You see the content of the request as being either improbable, unreasonable, undesirable, impossible or a combination of these.
The reason you are concerned can only be because you believe the impact on balance may be negative and you do not wish that, naturally you would also not want what you believe to cause this unbalance, here being a wider FOV.
The problem is that your response fails to clarify what kind of FOV would provoke unbalance as well as how. The title asks for a FOV slider without specification and the post itself only gives Shadowborn as reference, thus I assumed you were contrary to any kind of FOV augmentation when in reality you appear to mind only severe instances.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376745#Comment_3376745
How would I be opposed? I literally asked them how they would propose it.
"FOV is literally tied to game balance with the direction a Killer is looking, how do you propose such a change going through easily?
You probably picked the worst game to play when asking for this to be added imo."
You state that FOV is directly connected to the game balance and follow by saying that this is the worst game for a FOV slider, this implicates that you do not believe it should be in the game.
The original post did not ask for a dramatic increase, it was a general request for a FOV slider, If you are opposed only to extreme increases of FOV, you are opposed to one type of FOV slider, not a slider in itself and your first response does not articulate that well.
Hope this clarifies.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376695#Comment_3376695
a FOV slider that goes up to the same value (as shadowborn) would not either.
Is that what OP is asking for? Their post was not very constructive so its hard to tell. So you lads only want a FOV up to 15?
Maybe you ought to make that clear in your posts, just sayin.
They did not give any definite values but Shadowborn appears to resolve their issue, there is no reason to assume they want anything more. And yes, I believe that a slider as narrow as 87-102 might be enough.
Your post was also unclear, it made you seem opposed to any FOV increases rather than just radical ones, which is why I gave the example of Shadowborn.
-
@Emeal said:
FOV is literally tied to game balance with the direction a Killer is looking, how do you propose such a change going through easily?
You probably picked the worst game to play when asking for this to be added imo.
This is false. Shadowborn's latest iteration has been in the game for years and has not broken the game, a FOV slider that goes up to the same value would not either.
-
There are situations where it is uncounterable. Besides, it is obnoxious having to second guess every swing until you determine who has Dead Hard or not.
-
● A proper graphics configuration menu
● A proper sound configuration menu
● A Field of View Slider
● Dedicated servers still have subpar performance after nearly 4 years
● Decent hitboxes for projectiles(Huntress hatchet is a sphere and Survivor hitbox is a pill, which results in wacky hits)
● Map Design
-
Had a match today where an Ada was trying to loop me in Mother's Dwelling but prematurely ended the chase by running into/getting stuck on a not-so-visible tree stump. Despite working to my advantage, my thoughts witnessing the scene were "I know, I know".
-
@Batusalen said:
Well, there is only one reason to not being able to do it: The game is designed to have a constant FPS. This is pretty common to do in console exclusive games as normally a console have limited hardware that only allows for a certain number of FPS and it is technically easier to calculate certain things like physics, collisions and such this way.
If I'm right and DbD was designed this way, changing it would mean changing all the base logic of the game so I don't think this is happening.
They are able to do it. You can currently elevate the FPS limit by inserting a line of text into the Engine.ini file and modifying settings in the GameUserSettings.ini file. If I recall correctly, you used to be able to do so without the Engine.ini file but that changed for some reason. Given that raising the FPS cap is already something possible by altering the files, all they have to do is grant us the hability of changing these configurations from within the game menu.
Really, the only reason they have not done so is because someone somewhere does not want to.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3372514#Comment_3372514
I am not so sure about that. 102 FOV is a lot
I disagree, it is a 17% increase. Most games have sliders that up to 100 or much more, I cannot recall the last first person game I played that did not have such a slider, outside of this one, of course.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3372345#Comment_3372345
When you play against Oni that has active power - a lot of times best strategy is not to run "to the open" (which in this case is everything that does not provide large enough curve, has no window or pallet) or try to go behind a single tree and so on, but instead hide behind a corner or go into small gap between wall and some obstacle (say tree hugging a wall or rock) and so on. The idea is, that the killer will not notice you immediately and will not have enough time to react before he goes over you - which means he needs to cancel his movement and re-adjust. BUT - if said Oni notices this, then he will just hit with your power resulting in immediate down. So by making FOV larger, and Oni will notice much easier - which takes away one of few options how to counter him when he's in power.
This same thing is true also especially against blight and to a lesser degree against spirit, nurse and wesker (same principle, it's just they can adjust/reorient better - especially spirit).
I do not know of any killer where the optimal strategy is to run into the open, also known as a dead zone, unless I misunderstand what kind of open space you refer to. Mid chase hiding is already unreliable, the killer can judge where you should be based on scratch marks, sound cues, your movement speed and where they last saw you.
Optional Shadowborn would not eliminate the option of hiding, only make it somewhat weaker in specific scenarios. Shadowborn would not guarantee that Oni would even be able to hit you considering they have a limited turn radius which varies according to their sensitivity, even if they can turn, they might just miss either way. Shadowborn is 15 degrees, it is roughly 17% wider, it is not that ridiculous of an increase.
So, it would weaken hiding mid chase, but you still have the other options that are more often than not, better than hiding mid-chase: not every loop is unsafe against Oni, windows are still viable and you can still pallet-stun the killer which may even cancel the power, this is hardly being out of options.
Also, most Oni players that I have seen will opt for other perks over Shadowborn, I cannot remember ever seeing a tournament where the Oni had Shadowborn, I do however remember one where both teams' Oni had 3 slowdowns and Bamboozle, a perk that actually completely negates windows when activated. If tournament players whose goal is to achieve the best possible result opt for other perks over Shadowborn, is it not possible that Shadowborn is simply not that good of a perk?
Most tournament Nurses and Spirits and even Blights do not use Shadowborn either.
The point is, Shadowborn likely does not negate as many options nor is as powerful as you are concerned, and other perks or killer powers negate far more than it ever could or just provide a much more tangible impact on the match to the point where Shadowborn or a perk of its ilk is rendered irrelevant. Seriously, aura perks weaken stealth more than Shadowborn ever will. Additionally, the people that do use Shadowborn either always use it on a certain killer or never do as the increase on FOV makes you appear faster and objects to seem further away, causing you to misjudge distance and velocity compared to your old FOV. If any of the players who do not use it tried to, it is probable that they would be adversely impacted rather than positively in the start, this alone will likely make some people maintain the old FOV even if they could make it wider.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3372336#Comment_3372336
Sure. Like dodging Oni's ability all about distance and has nothing to do with (mid-chase) hiding.
I am afraid I could not comprehend your statement, would you like to elaborate?
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3372328#Comment_3372328
u know fully well that this thing would not stand. The backlash would be huge - "we nerfed 6 best killers in exchange for making base FOV larger". The complaints would be endless
Anyway - that's not even the point. I am not talking about strength per say. I am talking about reduced options for survivors.
You had plenty of options before the killer caught up to you though, windows, pallets, hiding, running early and forcing 20+ seconds of pure W holding before the proper chase even starts, etc.
When the killer is within lunge range there is nothing you can do besides trying to disorient them, that is true, but that is because that is also when they are supposed to hit you. And even if you do try said tactics, killers will often not fall for them and you will be hit anyway. So, is keeping this already unreliable option from becoming impossible at worst and weaker at best really worth maintaining the current FOV restriction which is severely discomforting for some and nauseating for others?
Personally, all people that I have met who used Shadowborn used it for comfort, not for the advantage and I doubt that having a Killer FOV slider that goes up to 102 (Current maximum with Shadowborn) would change much.
Then again, BHVR has not added a slider for 6 years and I doubt this will change now.
-
So, it actually was approved and this was it, so I just edited it into nothing. Will do the same if any of the others also are. Again, sorry.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3371998#Comment_3371998
You can still miss your shots with aim assist
Well yeah, of course you can, no one said otherwise.
I just want to be able to toggle it on and off, so anyone that want to use it does and those who not, don't. There isn't any reason to not do it.
There is a reason they won't do it: because every killer would turn it off. Aim dressing (according to the dev) never benefits killers. If that's the case, then there is no reason any killer would ever keep it toggled on.
The desire to turn "aim assist" off has been brought up before, and the only official answer I've seen it get is the explanation of the difference between aim assist and aim dressing. If a forum poster wants a different response, my best advice would be to use the terminology the devs insist on and request something more appropriate, like fixing aim dressing so it stops hitting trees and rocks. As much as I'd like the option to turn off aim dressing, it's unlikely BHVR will let killers turn off something that isn't there to really benefit killers in the first place.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3372077#Comment_3372077
I was trying to point out what the devs have said in the past so that people could formulate a more adequate request that might get a new and more desired response. People on the forums have brought up wanting to turn off "aim assist" in the past, and the only response I've seen it get is that it's not aim assist because it doesn't assist. It's unlikely we'll get any response in the first place, but if we do get a response and we want a response that isn't just correcting terminology, then we should call it what the devs insist it is, "aim dressing," and we should point out how detrimental it can be to gameplay and that they need to improve it.
Asking the devs to give us the option to turn off something they insist isn't in the game will almost certainly keep us at square one.
If you want to get someone to address an issue, you have to come at it from the appropriate angle. I hate aim dressing, and I want the devs to fix it so I stop hitting trees and rocks and corners.
I disagree, they are just as unlikely to give us the option to disable it regardless of the terminology employed as it can only be some unknow issue so large that they cannot possibly solve despite their company's profits with this game or negligence. Likely the latter.
The Developers are not doofuses, if someone says they want to turn off aim assist, they know that person refers to their "aim-dressing" and after either listening to that person's complaints or someone else's, or even just playing the game for a moderate amount of time, they can see why people would want it disabled.
Aim-dressing might not have been added to benefit the killer but at times it does, then at others does nothing and sometimes causes the killer to miss. In addition, it cannot even properly execute its function of "Making hits look nice" because latency is a far larger issue on that front than a misaligned model could ever be, have you ever thought about how Huntress has by far the most atrocious looking hits and Aim Dressing does not even apply to her hatchets? We now have a "feature" that is inconsistent, malfunctioning, redundant and insufficient. This is no feature, this is a defect.
Regardless of the original request being for an option to "disable auto-aim", to "fix it" or even "delete it", anyone who gives this reasonable thought would see: (1)The source of the issue. (2)The problems wrought by it. (3)Potential solutions, whether the ones requested or not. Do you find it conceivable that not even one Developer has had these thoughts? If they did not, have the means to fix the issue and do nothing: they are incompetent. If they did, have the means to fix the issue and do nothing: they are negligent.
I believe in the second option, as this same negligence is shown in other areas of this game, such as the lack of a proper graphical configuration menu, the equivalent sound menu and a FOV slider. All three could be considered standards of the game industry that Dead by Daylight refuses to harmonize with despite multiple individuals having already petitioned for them several times in the past.
Tried to post this one last time as I had doubts as to whether the approval thing would actually lead anywhere.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3371998#Comment_3371998
You can still miss your shots with aim assist
Well yeah, of course you can, no one said otherwise.
I just want to be able to toggle it on and off, so anyone that want to use it does and those who not, don't. There isn't any reason to not do it.
There is a reason they won't do it: because every killer would turn it off. Aim dressing (according to the dev) never benefits killers. If that's the case, then there is no reason any killer would ever keep it toggled on.
The desire to turn "aim assist" off has been brought up before, and the only official answer I've seen it get is the explanation of the difference between aim assist and aim dressing. If a forum poster wants a different response, my best advice would be to use the terminology the devs insist on and request something more appropriate, like fixing aim dressing so it stops hitting trees and rocks. As much as I'd like the option to turn off aim dressing, it's unlikely BHVR will let killers turn off something that isn't there to really benefit killers in the first place.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3372077#Comment_3372077
I was trying to point out what the devs have said in the past so that people could formulate a more adequate request that might get a new and more desired response. People on the forums have brought up wanting to turn off "aim assist" in the past, and the only response I've seen it get is that it's not aim assist because it doesn't assist. It's unlikely we'll get any response in the first place, but if we do get a response and we want a response that isn't just correcting terminology, then we should call it what the devs insist it is, "aim dressing," and we should point out how detrimental it can be to gameplay and that they need to improve it.
Asking the devs to give us the option to turn off something they insist isn't in the game will almost certainly keep us at square one.
If you want to get someone to address an issue, you have to come at it from the appropriate angle. I hate aim dressing, and I want the devs to fix it so I stop hitting trees and rocks and corners.
Ok, I have tried to post a response roughly 4 times now only to see it vanish before my eyes and by the last time noticed the miniscule "Your comment will appear after it has been approved" notification. . . apologies for the probable impending flood of notifications on your end. . .
-
@TragicSolitude said:
The ability to disable it isn't in the game because it's not for us. "Auto aim" helps players get hits they otherwise wouldn't; that's not in the game. What DbD has is "aim dressing," which adjusts a killer's hit to make hits that connect look like they connect. Unfortunately, the way it works, it can screw up a hit. The difference between "aim dressing" and "auto aim" is that aim dressing will never help a killer get a hit they otherwise wouldn't. That's why we can't disable it.
Here's the source of my info (from a game dev):
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/1026216#Comment_1026216
Is this okay? No, it sucks, it shouldn't screw up hits and I hate that this is a thing.
The part about aim dressing not helping getting hits is false. I have multiple times simply spun my camera after blinking as the Nurse and "Aim dressing" forcibly locked my camera onto a survivor I did not even see and would have otherwise missed by overturning.
They may call it whatever they like, their aim dressing is effectively aim assist and suffers the same problems that this feature has in other games. It is just deplorable that they have not given us an option to turn it off after 6 years. It is just negligence at this juncture.