Tenebro
Tenebro
About
- Username
- Tenebro
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,478
- Last Active
Comments
-
- Ye, whatever solution can be a lot better than the actual state 😛
- I forgot to mention that I'm against the prerequisite of doing all the master challenge in a single game (this is one of the biggest design problem that leads to wasted matches). So you can split the progress of the master challenge across multiple games ... the difference with the normal challenges is that you have to play even better to gain progress.
-
Ruin shouldn't be a problem for new players if they fix matchmaking.
-
@Elegant said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1006209#Comment_1006209
I think they are aware at the state of the maps. But, it takes a lot of time and effort to fix them and they won't make any money off of fixing it. In their roadmap they promised that they would rework a map every so often as part of the year roadmap. But, even though they really need to just take a chapter off and focus on the maps, they very likely won't because of the drop in revenue it would cause. Personally I would be ok with buying a map update DLC that everyone needed in order to play the game if that would get them to focus on map changes. The maps are the only thing holding this game back. This is the only multiplayer game where i don't have a favorite map and don't really love any of the maps. I'm just indifferent to all of them.
They are 230 people, if they want they can handle it easily.
-
@Almo said:
In "Player Mode" for this post.
I play both, but I prefer Killer. I'm very much looking forward to new Ruin. I find it much more engaging as Killer because I have to be active to get use from it. As Survivor, I like having some control over whether it will affect me or not by deciding to stay on the gen or not at certain points in the gameplay.
Come on ... it's better to not write anything rather than writing this. The community proved this is wrong several times, and I agree with them. You devs don't accept that (or don't want to understand, I don't know) ... and it's ok, it's your game, your company, your business. But please stop joking about this, you will only get more people angrier (where is your PR team?). Please stay in silence, release the patch, and hope for the best!
Because if this is the logic, then nerf Corrupted Intervention too (why not?): as a killer it makes me relax in early game with less gens to care of (I have to be much more active if I don't use this perk), it doesn't require too much skill or choices to get advantage from it, and it'll get you depressed if you don't find anyone; as a Survivor, to counter it I have to stay hidden for 2 mins with my team doing nothing, and if I chose to be active because of boredom, I will for sure decrease the chances of escaping because I'll play in a phase where the killer is "boosted". So let's get rid of this perk, promotes bad gameplay from both parties.
-
@Zamblot said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/996266#Comment_996266
To be fair the guy who said this game is bad for new players is completely right. Ive got a few friends into the game but most of them don't play because the game normally lasts ages with them and they repeatedly die at the end, even if they are playing alone and not with me. I get a learning curve but the game is just so killer sided in the beginning. Are you saying that there should only be a learning curve for survivors and one that's so hard and boring because you never escape that everyone quits? Im a good player now and enjoy the game somewhat but if my friend hadn't nagged me it wouldn't have taken me long to quit
Ye, the game is trash for new players, and it will still be trash because devs aren't solving the problem the right way. They still think nerfing Ruin is good for new survivor ... if it was me, instead, I would rather FIX the matchmaker (including systems like TrueSkill or ELO or something similar), handle disconnections for real (they are already testing this, but as usual they take ages to do anything), easing leveling bloodweb for new people (so they can get some decent perks or addons as soon as possible .... to avoid playing "perkless"), balance some well known broken maps (or at least decrease the chances to find certain maps if the players in a game are new), solve the "derank" tactic and smurfs accounts (as other online games already did since decades), and so on.
A new player shouldn't never face a good killer with Ruin ... but hey, let's nerf Ruin because Mastchmaker is broken and they don't know how to fix it ... 230 people, and nobody can fix it ... incredible :(
-
@CLAUDETTEINABUSH said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/997445#Comment_997445
What game dev? I am interested
I don't work in the game industry ... but I know how the things work in sw development, servers administration, etc. for big projects 😉
-
@Zanely89 said:
I remembered reading him justifying the change by comparing it to Devour Hope and said something like "Devour don't proc every game, but when it proc the panic of survivor trying to find the totem is unreal".
How many trial do you see Devour proc? How many trial do Devour get to 5 stacks? When do survivor know there is a Devour hex totem in the field and compare it to PTB ruin.
With the addition that survivors don't know there is a Devour Hope until it procs, while the new Ruin you know it's there from the beginning.
-
@Mister_Holdout said:
Just because these devs got hired by BHVR doesn't mean they are good at their jobs.
DbD is over 3 years old and the devs still have not taken any major actions to address the core problem of optimal survivors. Veteran players have been telling them for years now that optimal survivors are very hard to deal with while playing most killers. In other words, the odds are heavily stacked against the killer (in most cases).
But have the devs taken bold action yet? Nope.
It's not like we're expecting them to fix everything in one update. But you know what? They could have done something like this:
Hey community, we understand there are balance issues in red ranks. As such, we will be steadily reworking the maps to make them more balanced for both sides. Also, we will be looking at SWF to make them less arduous to play against. And finally, we will be adjusting overpowered killer setups that are simply unfair for survivors.
If the devs focused more on things like this ^^^ ,they wouldn't be getting so much heat from the community right now.
Instead, we mostly get band aid fixes that rarely address core issues. And most recently, the devs basically told red rank killer mains, we think the balance of the game is pretty good, so we're nerfing ruin to make it easier for new survivors.
It shouldn't be surprising why a large portion of the community is upset (and rightly so).
This ^^
As a dev myself, I really can't explain why they are doing so few changes to the core gameplay (and in general too). There are now 230 people working there, and I can't believe this is the result of their work. They seem to not recognize the real problems, and focus elsewhere. They go 1 step in the right direction, then 2 steps backwards. Also, if they do something, they do it slowly (sometimes it takes months to solve something easy). Here a couple of examples.
Example 1: why focus on Ruin for new players?!? It's obvious the problem is the matchmaker, new players should play against new players, not against veterans. You solve this problem fixing the matchmaker, not nerfing some aspects of the gameplay. New players shouldn't verse against Ruin in the firsts hours of the game. This is so obvious that I really can't think anything else. But the matchmaker was always broken, and they never managed to fix it even for "random" matching: some queue times are so long not for the lack of population, but because it's broken! They have 230 in the team: if in 3 years the team that was trying to fix the matchmaker didn't fix it the right way, then switch people, make another team, do something!
Example 2: SWF. I know this can be hard to deal with ... but no so that hard. Close the gap! It's so difficult? With 230 people I expect in a couple of months this problem to be "almost" solved ... if not, there is something wrong in your organization. Until now they did nothing for the SWF problem. There are plenty of solutions the community proposed, pick up some of them if you devs are not competent enough to solve it on your own. Whatever choice you will make, it can't be worse than the actual state of the game ... but DO something!
Yes ... I can go play another game, but this one has so much potential that is a shame they don't take advantage of it. I could play it a lot more, and even spend some moneys in the store if it actual gets good.
-
@Almo said:
This is why the Gatekeeper emblem was changed with Ruin. In terms of emblem points, it's no longer important to keep 5 gens up the first two minutes to get all those points.
In terms of the game's power curve, it's expected the first couple gens go fast. 4 Survivors, one Killer... several chases to get one Survivor out. But as the number of gens to patrol decreases, it becomes easier for the Killer to patrol, and their power rises. As the Survivors die off, the Killer's power increases more as there are fewer Survivors to work on gens.
Old Ruin gave people who depended on it the idea that it should not require input from the Killer to keep the first couple gens from popping in the first couple minutes. But that is not how we intend the game to work. My apologies for leaving old Ruin in place as long as we did; it was hard to find a good update, and we knew there would be a huge outcry from the players when we did the change, no matter how good it was. The moment I joined the project in August 2018 I knew Ruin was something I wanted to change. It took a lot of time and a lot of discussion with the other designers to find something worthy to replace it.
New Ruin requiring Killers to act in order to get its benefit is by design. Its lack of large impact in the first minutes is by design. Its subtlety is by design (by subtle I mean that one of its large benefits isn't mentioned in the text: no need to spend time kicking gens). Because we recognized Ruin's impact on the Gatekeeper emblem and Killers' ability to pip, we made the alteration to that emblem.
We can easily understand players' frustrations with this deep change to one of their core tools. But the opinion of all of us on the design team is that the new Ruin will make the game healthier overall. Our willingness to stand by it in the face of such anger over the change is an indication of our confidence in the new design and the benefits it will have in the long run.
So in the first part you are saying that killers have to tunnel to decrease the survivor power ... and I don't think, as a survivor, it would be so much of a fun. Yes, there are DS & co. ... but a game shouldn't be balanced around "necessary" perks. I like the Ruin change, I don't like it's still a Hex and the mentality behind this change: I would first solve the early game and the matchmaker problems, and after I would take some time to change Ruin the right way. You guys still don't understand what is the problem here ... everybody else did, except you.
Another note: you are saying the killer are required to act ... don't you think that killers have already so many things to do, in particular early game? You are adding this one on top of everything killers should do, easing the life of survivors. The result? Killer will be even more stressful to play, and survivors even more boring ... except for new players, but hey ... there shouldn't be a matchmaker to handle this?
-
@Almo said:
I've been in a few games where new Ruin stayed up the whole match (both PTB and internal tests). It has a humongous effect on the game if it remains. It's just too much power not to be a Hex.
One thing I think people are missing is they consider themselves, their gen, and the Killer. 1v1 it would not be that good. But when Ruin affects several gens at once because there are more than one Survivor, it's can be a huge amount of regression.
If the Survivors are three-genned, its effect is really nasty. No need to kick gens while pushing Survivors away from them.
So you made the 3 gens situation even worse: if ruin is near the 3 gens you are patrolling, you can stall the game ... and considering it's the only thing the new Ruin is good at (if it will survive until that point), it doesn't seem like a good change for the game health.
-
@Rivyn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/976233#Comment_976233
You can't expect every killer to be at the level of Otz.
In fact, even Otz have problems without ruins, but most of the time, in particular these months with the archives, survs make many mistakes: I can easily win with the weakest killer, perkless and addonless, but if survivors decide to escape, even with the best killer, full equipped with mori, I can't do nothing ... at best 1k ... nothing more.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/967785#Comment_967785
I noticed. It gave me a notification you wrote me something, but lead me to an empty screen.
I got "behaviored" 😂
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/967772#Comment_967772
The game's content that was bought WAS full when it was released, them adding more characters to the list doesnt change that fact. Many games have content released after the initial release in the forms of DLC. You brought up fighting game characters for example, but you can look at games like the last 2 Mortal Kombats to see a similar situation. The game was a complete title BEFORE Jason was added to MK10, its worth the same exact value AFTER the character is released.
Right now (not 3 years ago) the game you pay is only a fraction ... make it free to play, as now you have the store, the season pass, DLCs, etc. ... and even then, some things costs too much to get started and enjoy the game against people that own almost the entire game.
-
Damn ... even the forum is bugged ... I wrote a message and it doesn't show up ... come on 😓
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/967712#Comment_967712
Where'd you get 1/20 from? The game starts you off with 7 survivors and 5 killers, so your exaggerating GREATLY. Most of the characters can also be earned by just playing the game, which is similar to MANY games that dont give you EVERY toy in the game the first time you boot it up, but requires you to play it for awhile first. The idea to be able to pick your first characters though would be neat, although they couldnt add the licensed characters to that list.
Ultimately though, I feel like the problem lies in the idea of not having everything when you buy the base game. When the game originally released and ppl bought it, they bought a full game. The fact that the devs have made new content since then doesnt change the fact that its STILL a full game.
Now there are 20 survivors and 18 killers. Considering some key perks are behind locked characters, considering you still PAY for the base game (i can understand only a little if it was free), considering that most skin (not reskins) are not included in the base game, as a new player you have to work hard to reach a first playable, enjoyable build. After almost 2000 hours in this game, I just reached to buy with shard only a 3-4 full set of skins and a couple of "dlcs" ... that's a bit to much for a new player, isn't? Other games allows you unlock other characters after a couple of games, or they are already all included, some skins (real skins, not reskins) are very cheap (the get you buy the more expensive ones), etc.
As it is now, I'll never, ever, buy DBD as a new player ... they only thing it doesn't have is the monthly fee to play it, damn.
-
They should at least decrease the shards amount of some killers\survivors not included in the base game (which we all remember that still costs 20€), like every other "moba" style game already does (and yes, some of them give the base game for free ... here we have to pay for it). Or due to the nature of this game, let choose the firsts 1-2 killers at reduced shard costs for new players, and include a monthly\weekly free killer\surv rotation (or increasing the chances to find splinters of "every" killer in the bloodweb).
As a new player, if I buy the base game at 20€ (or 10€ if in discount), it's very very sad to find only 1/20 of the game I just bought. Also you have to consider that for a new player the initial grind should focus on viable builds, so you have little resources to do anything else.
-
@anarchy753 said:
TBH they should at the very least turn Flesh and Mud and Spark of Madness into free content for PC. It's been free on console since launch.
The price tag just to collect characters keeps going up and up, and it's incredibly difficult to convince new players to get into the game when they see more than 75% of the cast is behind either a paywall or hundreds of hours of grind per character.
I agree, if I had to buy DBD nowadays, I would never, ever, buy a game where you have to pay for the base game, for tons of DLCs, with a cosmetic store where most of the cool skins are behind the paywall of 10$ each, with a "timed" season pass (the archive) that force you to grind/pay for its content, and for the overall grindy nature of the game that makes it hard to obtain at least the base kit to have fun (I'm talking about decent perks and addons). Ye, you can obtain some of the content "for free" if you are willing to grind a lot ... but, as a new player, you have to grind for the good builds first ... so, as a new player, I would never ever consider it (not mentioning all the bugs, the worst matchmaker for an online game, the stressful game experience due to bad balance, etc.)
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/967638#Comment_967638
Debatable on both points
I feel balance has never been better
And there are never enough skins : p
I agree, I think they did a pretty good job so far 🤭
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
Honestly it's a great game but with flaws
It's still the best game in this genre and nothing that tried to do this has even come close to dbd
The game gets better and better each chapter though (minus the bugs)
People just need to stop making such a drama about balancing
It's a asymetrical multiplayer game with tons of different perks and killer powers
Trying to create a perfect balance out of that is a fool's errand and it will never be fully balanced
Once you realise that, and learn to swallow your losses, the game is a ton of fun
The problem is that we aren't talking about the lack of a perfect balance, that would be great ... we are talking about the total lack of a balance, with very few steps in the right direction, and other few steps in the wrong one ... sadly 😔 ... but hey, there are a lot of skins!!! 🤣
-
@joker7997 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/965588#Comment_965588
This guy has it right. I had no idea they employed 230 people is that true?? Even worse than i ever thought or could imagine!
Source: https://deadbydaylight.com/en/news/2019-year-review 😉
-
@Colton147 said:
Employees in Cosmetics/Chapters/etc. are in different departments. They may do their jobs faster than the employees in charge of balance/design/bugfuxes/etc. It takes time to fix bugs and balance the game; it is faster to create cosmetics.
I agree, it takes time to fix bugs, but not "that" time. They are 230 people at bhvr, not 2 or 3: if a department is overstimated, take some resources from one dept and put them in the one that needs them.
Example: do you remember some time ago that the Haddonfield map intro music suddenly was so loud? Well, it tooks 3 months to get resolved! Not a couple of days, not 1 week, not few weeks ... but months. This raises 2 questions: 1) what was doing the QA team? It was on vacation? 2) I refuse to believe that 1 guy worked for months on this issue, so ... why they didn't put a guy to resolve this issue asap, maybe in a couple of days?
This is only an example, there are too many things similar to this. They are slow in everything. The dept of maintenance needs more people? Toss them in!! Fix the game, damn.
-
For me the game is a total mess, never seen a "moba" style game with so much problems. Devs don't seem to understand what is the right way to follow, and for being 230 people they are too slow in doing everything, and even if they do, they usually do it bad: it seems the result of a work of about 20-30 people at most, with poor programming skills.
Said that, this game has some great, addictive, funny core base game mechanic, and the lack of some serious competitors (I'm thinking at you, Last Year), makes it the only "playable" game in the asymmetrical genre. Also, with all the licensed killers, this is the only game that allow you to play Freddy, Michael, Amanda, Ghost Face, Leather Face, etc., all in single game. I think it will have a long life, at least until some serious company decide to invest in this genre: if that happens, then the devs have to act like real devs to have a chance to make it.
-
Devs in the last stream said that this thing of rescuers hiding behind the hooked survivor is a glitch and it isn't meant to be there at all. Obviously, because they are a small team with only 230 people working on the game, if we are lucky the fix will arrive this spring .... considering is a killer problem, maybe this summer 😂
-
@FearedbytheGods said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/962051#Comment_962051
Not that it was undeserved, but lets be clear here.
The devs unit of metric is 2 dead, 2 escape for survivors. The current kill rate for killers across the board is near 70%.
So when you see the current 'poor killer posts' like the OP, I'm really just asking people to make up their mind. Because its clear the OP doesn't understand this metric.
Based on your statement, if its 'deserved' then it means that people are happy with the killer nerf to bring them back in line with the devs vision. If people feel its 'undeserved' then you are literally looking back at the release of the game and things like infinites ( REAL infinites too, not the pseudo-infinites I see some trying to claim) and question those nerfs to survivor.
But really the OP is just after tribalistic talking points. Like minded people read the title, come to the thread and type 'I agree with you'.
If devs metrics are really based on these stats, this explain why the game is in its current state. I think to myself that when they show these numbers, these are only to entertain the community, not for real balancing.
In the past it was demonstrated by some community members that even if survivors have by far the power role in this game, it's not that hard, even with the weakest killer with no addons or perks, to do 4k. This means that these stats are all screwed due to the current state of the game, which nullifies the validity of these statistics in terms of balance.
-
@FilthyQuentin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/950010#Comment_950010
Then why is Ash in the game since he's not like any other usual survivor in films. Well he is the same like others in the first movie but we got Ash from the Ash vs evil series where he fights evil and doesn't run away from it.
Lol, I missed the Almo post ... so are we talking about David being the same of Claudette? Or Kate the same of Jane? And so on? They are not the same, they should be similar eventually, but not clones. In movies they are not clones, and even more so they should be different in a videogame. Passive little buffs can be an idea (for example shorter wiggle time for Jane "for obvious reasons"😝, or a bit less scratch marks for Kate, etc.), or, considering the amount of perks available nowadays, increase perk slots for both killer and surv from 4 to 5, being the fifth a special slot whom could be equipped only with the character specific perks. Or something similar ... we aren't talking about developing game changing mechanics, like a "custom power" for survivors ... but just something to be a little unique.
Can't believe that a runner like Meg can't run faster than a old smoker man like Billy 🙄
-
@Waffleyumboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/957518#Comment_957518
I don't see your point. Are you satirically pointing out how people lie and exaggerate to prove their point on here?
I want to point out that this game is balanced in its unbalance, the devs know it, but people still try to defend ones side or another reporting examples that ... don't mean nothing.
One real problem is that some games finish too early, due to the extreme snowball power survs have early game. One single error or simply being unlucky to find soon a survivor can cost the entire match for the killer. This is why many killers run Ruin, in the hope to slow down just a bit the pace of the early moments.
Viceversa, a single survivor game experience can be destroyed by a killer if he decides to tunnel. Even if this behavior could cost the killer match too, the single survivor experience is ruined for that game. This is why many survs run Decisive Strike.
I know it's hard to balance an asymmetrical game, but there are some easy fixes suggested over time by the community that devs refuse or simply ignore. Devs are following the road that will make this game even more hard to balance, maybe they gave up with Dead by Daylight trying to squeeze out the most from it, to gather the resources to make a Dead by Daylight 2 with the base core gameplay finally changed. But from my point of view is sad seeing people trying to defend one side or another, thinking this game has some sort of balance. That's why I wrote that.
-
@yadielrodriguez said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/951033#Comment_951033
I got a 4k today with wraith no Ruins and 4 gens left
I managed to do that with the wraith perkless and addonless, with all the 7 gens almost untouched at rank 1 against rank 2 and 1 survivors. This confirm that the game is in survivors hands, and that there are a lot of surv that throw their game away ... maybe to have fun, maybe to achieve some Archives challenge, who knows. I also managed to destroy a full equipped red rank spirit with pink mori, with perkless and addonless survivor.
-
@Dezekiel said:
KEEP IN MIND! I don't play that often, making me stay in rank 16-ish. These are just possible solutions off the top of my head.
1) There isn't enough gens to begin with.
2) Gens do not take long enough.
3) There should be more than one survivor objective. (Like finding tools for the gens, etc.)
4) There should be more perks to apply pressure.
I think the 3rd solution is the way: right now for survivors there is the a mid and a late game phase, but there is the total lack of a early game phase. This early game phase could consists to find, for example, a fuel tank to "power up" a gen, scattered on the map, to start repairing it. In fact, is the early game that destroys the killers if done right: 4 people are too much to handle when you don't know where they are.
This is why Ruin is almost mandatory (with few exception): with an average of 8 skill checks per gen, Ruin deny the 16% of great skill checks bonus, and that is almost 13 precious seconds per gen. But I don't like Ruin the way it is because is too inconsistent: versus noobs, who try to find it or try to gen tap, is too strong; versus lucky survivors where they destroy it in the first 30 seconds of the match, is a waste of a perk.
After that, I'll tone down a bit some high mobility killers to compensate that. Obviously, there are tons of other things to fix, like maps, loops, oneshots, moris, keys, ranking system with ELO, etc. etc. ... at BHVR there are 230 people working on the game ... I think they should be able to handle, or better, they have to handle all this ... instead of new content, new content, and new content ... it would be wonderful if in 2020 they would cut by half the new content dlcs, like 2 per year, and meanwhile fixing all the broken things in the game, to make it more fun\consistent and less toxic/frustrating/rng.
-
@xEcoLog1cDuk3Xx said:
80 seconds or 1:20 minutes per gen is not long enough and multiplied by 5 totals to 400 seconds or 6:40 minutes without the any additive or multiplicative influence on the progression speeds. An average red rank game usually is 10-12 minutes which isn't bad but not healthy for the game.
400 seconds if only 1 survivor does gens sequentially ... but there are 4 survivors who can do gen simultaneously, and because 1 is distracted by the killer, there are 133 seconds of absolute gen time. If all survivors know a bit of looping, and if they DO gens if not in chase (and not trolling around doing totems, chests, dealing with the killer, etc. etc.), a match can be finished in 3-4 minutes ... but it's boring, this is why we have games of 10-15 mins, and this is why many survivors dies (directly or indirectly). This pseudo-balance is frustrating both sides :(
-
@hauntedmadness said:
It takes a perfect 4 man team to get gen rushed and have it be a situation where you couldn't do anything as killer. In 1700 hrs I've played, I've had my share of those perfect teams but in reality they're far more rare than people think.
As a killer main, I play with no ruin on Pig, Billy, Spirit, Freddy and other killers. I use ruin a lot less than I do and my win percentage as killer is easily 80-90%. Typically in red ranks, there are so many worse survivors in this game than killer, unpopular opinion but maybe blame yourself when you're losing and quit pinning everything on 'OP Survivors' then maybe you'll learn and become more skilled
The team doesn't need to be perfect: survs just need to do gens separately, with a bit of loop knowledge. Many teams, even at red ranks, don't do this, becasue ranks don't represent skill but the time played in a month (so there could be noobs at red ranks), and because doing gens is boring.
With that said, it's true that many times you find teams that play suboptimally, but it's also true that you have to balance your game around the way the game should be played. As today, against a good killer, survivors, if only they want, they always have the choice to stop trolling and waste their time by simply doing the main objective of the game, if they want to escape ... this is the problem.
-
@Nobsyde said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/104693/give-players-a-way-to-opt-out-from-archives
It’s rank reset. Don’t tell me you don’t usually see bad/frustrating/toxic gameplay during rank reset, I wouldn’t believe you :)
I play dbd since the launch, I know how rank reset is ... what I see is people only doing their quests no matter what, clearly throwing the game.
@Milo said:
I don't think creating a seperate lobby would fix anything (other than increase the lobby time a big)
I agree with you on lobby time ... but I want to play the dbd of 1 month ago, where sometimes, at worst, you found here and there people doing their daily ritual ... nothing more.
-
@Hex_Flex said:
Bump for consumer awareness. If these are not adjusted, refrain from giving BHVR your money.
This is for sure. At first I was thinking in spending some $$ in archives (usually I'm not in this kind of systems in games) ... but after I saw the slow progression without the tome, and the quests in the 4th tome, I said bye bye, at least if they don't make the 4th tome interesting and not frustrating as the 1st one is.
-
@se05239 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/801682#Comment_801682
Sadly, in the modern gaming industry, frustrating players into spending (in this case buying Rift tiers because grinding for Rift Fragments ain't realistic) is a monetization strategy.
Tempting players, not frustrating them.
-
Some of these challenges are ridiculous: they remember me when I did my first exam of game design at the college. The game we made had some very hard and frustrating side objectives to achieve. Then I proposed to my team to change them to be still difficult but less stressful, because 1 of the metric was to keep the players happily and healthy interested in reaching their goals (even if challenging). Even with that change we failed that metric because they were still negative for the players behavior.
Now ... this was the "first" exam, the abc of game design ... who the hell even thought at BHVR these archives challenges, should be put elsewhere to work, maybe in doing some game design courses. Even in bathroom you shouldn't think something like this, and if you do, you should be ashamed after! Really, just can't understand how it is possible these challenges went troughs all the BHVR devs and QA, and came in live production to be seen by the rest of the world.
Challenging yes, but frustrating, toxic, rng, and time consuming side objectives it's a big nono. To BHVR: with all the respect of your staff, despite I'm no one to tell you this, I still like a lot this game, so plz check better the work of your employees, these things shouldn't even reach the internal testing environment ... #########!
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/656512#Comment_656512
It's definitely way more than a mistake. Any time you blink and miss, you made a mistake. A small mistake, but it's a mistake. You can't disregard them. If you do, that's saying, "There is nothing I could have done better here." and that's not true. When you then lose that survivor at the start of the match, that's a bigger mistake. Everything at the start of the match is magnified. You need to get that pressure up ASAP.
That's not to say anything about the killer. We all make mistakes, we all have bad matches. I have my fair share as well, there's no shame in admitting it. In the same way the survivors can make a mistake and turn a good situation into a bad one in a matter of seconds, the same can happen to the killer.
You cannot expect the survivors to not do generators just because you messed up. Having the game tell you, "No, you can't do the objective yet." would be unreasonable.
So we can't do nothing to relieve this "magnified" effect early on? It's not fun both parties. I'm not saying to not getting punished for early mistakes, but to not getting punished "so hard" for early mistakes. Nobody likes a match when its outcome is almost decided early on for an early mistake (or bad map design, or lucky/unlucky events, relying on survivors errors that never come, etc). Adding a little second objective at the beginning could help in avoiding a part of this snowball effect.
-
@Crazewtboy said:
As many others have said, increasing the amount of generators required to escape or increasing the time to complete generators is not the way to go. Gens are already super tedious and boring to complete and we don't need to make that worse. We need a good second objective (besides totems). I have seen plenty of suggestions on the forums.
And that's what I'm saying
-
Right now we have a late game task (the gates) and a mid game task (generators). We need an early game task to slow down a bit the gen pace in the first mins: nobody likes loosing 3 gens in the first 1:40 of a game. Early on, killer poor performance (maybe due to some errors or unlucky events), or the lack of survivors errors, punish too hard the killer side, and not so many killers are able to recover efficiently from that: most of them rely on big survivors mistakes (with the exception of Nurse, Spirit, etc.) to be a threat again. This snowball effect is simply not fun. The most interesting games are the games both parties have to fight, the games that usually tend to last long (around 15 mins), not games where the match ends in 5 mins.
Defining that a killer is having a bad game in the first 1:40 mins of the match doesn't mean he has to lose that match unless something special happens. Adding an early game task to relieve this snowball effect should be a priority, because is this what makes the game boring and less varied at high ranks.
p.s.
Anyway it's not enough to only down a survivor in the first 1:40 of a game, the killer has to already find and bother with the second survivor by that time.
-
@Peanits said:
That does tend to happen when you don't down someone for the first 1:40 of a game. There's nothing to fix there. The survivors have nothing to do but generators. They're healthy, nobody needs a rescue. The fix to that would literally be preventing survivors from doing their objective if the killer is having a bad game, and I would very strongly disagree with that.
Right now we have a late game task (the gates) and a mid game task (generators). We need an early game task to slow down a bit the gen pace in the first mins: nobody likes loosing 3 gens in the first 1:40 of a game. Early on, killer poor performance (maybe due to some errors or unlucky events), or the lack of survivors errors, punish too hard the killer side, and not so many killers are able to recover efficiently from that: most of them rely on big survivors mistakes (with the exception of Nurse, Spirit, etc.) to be a threat again. This snowball effect is simply not fun. The most interesting games are the games both parties have to fight, the games that usually tend to last long (around 15 mins), not games where the match ends in 5 mins.
Defining that a killer is having a bad game in the first 1:40 mins of the match doesn't mean he has to lose that match unless something special happens. Adding an early game task to relieve this snowball effect should be a priority, because is this what makes the game boring and less varied at high ranks.
p.s.
Anyway it's not enough to only down a survivor in the first 1:40 of a game, the killer has to already find and bother with the second survivor by that time.
-
@prayer_survivor said:
And what about kill rush? I see a lot of games of this type too. Something like: If a killer kills all survivors in first 4-6 minutes he gets very few points. Or only killers want survivor not no do gen so fast?
When that happens is usually a big, big, gigantic, survivors fault. Here we are talking about killers getting punished even if they play optimally, doing almost zero mistakes in the match, and still loosing hard.
Edit:
Killers already get few points and depip when that happens.
-
@Mikeadatrix said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/638367#Comment_638367
They're using the actors likeness and their voices too. But if you insist on them being skins, sure, Jan.
Yes, for me all survivors are just skins with perks. Ye, they have also different sounds, but even some skins now have different sounds ... so what's the point
-
@KillermainBTWm8 said:
Two survivors?
Yes, 2 skins with a different name and 2 sets of different perks 😋
-
@immortalls96 said:
I actually had this same idea recently..the only issue I see with it is if complimented the killers would suffer for months before the devs could bring killers up to the level needed to balance it all out..but killers as I see it are still suffering..the devs just dont seem to know how to get their balancing plan going...
Simply for devs this isn't a big issue: yes, it's a thing to fix, but because this game is balanced around mid level, it's not so much of a problem. They have other priorities.
I agree with you that this should be top level priority, and addressed asap, but they are not working on it right now. An example? Look at the perk "Buckle Up": it's a new perk, so when devs made it they should had in mind what's the main problem of the game ... but no, they included in that perk this "The recovery progress of dying Survivors can be determined by the intensity of their Auras at a distance of up to 48 meters". Now, who was the genius that thought that? This is one of the things that should have been fixed and included in the base core game mechanic. I can understand old perks, some of them have to be reworked, but why introduce a new one with an element that all SWF teams have for free? Why introduce brand new elements to rework, if you know you have to follow another route to solve that problem? Maybe because for them is not a top priority, or maybe because they know it will be solved in 2 years from now, or they aren't working at all on this.
I'm so sad when I think at this, knowing there are big problems and nobody is working on, or working on it so slowly like on Freddy: more than 1 year and half to solve a thing that could be addressed in few weeks, without wasting resources to rework the entire killer gameplay. And even a complete rework, I can understand a couple of months, but not years ... come on. This means that or they are not so well organized, or that it wasn't a top priority, or that the game is so bad implemented that everything they touch they break it.
-
@Aikanaro said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/636532#Comment_636532
What for?
Sometimes the way it is now, the game takes an eternity to end.
As soon you make the game longer, you are ruining a trillion chances of escaping, you are only adding more time so killers can hook for no reason at all.
Also they dont even fixed the exit gates, 90% of the times the gates are very close from each other, whats the fun? play a game that you are going to lose?
Some games yes, last long ... and as a survivor or killer these are the games I like the most. I really wish every game was like that. But they don't happen very often, most of games are too short: you spend more time staying in lobby rather than actually playing the game.
And no, the chances to escape are almost the same, regardless of the duration of the match: sometimes I die (or escape) in a very short game (1 sacrificed, all other escapes, usually lasts 4-5 mins), sometimes all escape (or die, or a mixture) in a longer the game (usually around 15 mins). The first sadly happens too often, and I really hate when it happens 😞 ... no challenge for both factions, they are just boring.
-
@Aikanaro said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/636204#Comment_636204
If you want to give more power to killers (with all the nerfs survs had), the casuals wont have any chance at all, its total unnecessary since this is not a competitive game.
Nobody will play the game, ever.
I was talking about balance around high levels, like every other online game on the market. This means a balance rework from new to experienced players in various game aspects, not simply giving more power to killers with the current game state ... but don't worry, they will never do so because there is a lot of work: if they took years to rework Freddy, and months to adjust Legion (with horrible results), I couldn't imagine the time necessary to rework the whole game balance.
-
@joker7997 said:
Only a survivor that never ever plays killer would say that gen rushing isn't an issue. When 60% of the game is over by the time you get your first hook, that's a major issue. Happens way too often, even with unbroken hex ruin in play, killers vs decent survivors are at a ridiculous disadvantage. Additional objectives need to be added.
I think they will never balance this game against high levels. Devs said so clearly in a dev stream: the game is balanced around mainstream players. I agree that balancing the game around high levels should be obvious, but their direction is another one, sadly :(
-
@KillermainBTWm8 said:
It's because he is a killer based off getting the element of surprise some don't understand this so they think he's trash.
It's a bit trash because at high ranks you don't have time to set up surprises. It's a funny mechanic, but should be adjusted so it can works even at red ranks.
It's the same old problem: devs balance this game around rank 12-10.
-
Hex totems aren't risk vs reward: if they were that way, they would be fine. The problem right now is that Hex totems are luckiness vs reward. Furthermore, against good survivors, often their effects are just "meh" (Ruin for example), so there isn't the reward part, only the luckiness for a trash effect. That's the problem. The only real luckiness vs real reward perks are Hex like Devour Hope or Noed.
-
@Peanits said:
The second half is already the case (not as extreme, though). There's a 10% penalty for each survivor on a generator.
Adding a penalty for working on separate generators as well is a bit too much, though. At that point, you're punishing the survivors for doing the only thing left to do while rewarding the killer for failing. The way this is proposed actually rewards the killer for doing worse.
To explain: Your job as the killer is to keep as much pressure on the survivors as possible (i.e. to force them off of generators). If four people are on a generator, you're doing poorly. That means you aren't chasing a single person. If you have one on the hook and you're chasing a second, that means one survivor needs to go for the save, leaving only one guy to do generators.
This would suggest that if I'm doing terribly- I have nobody on the hook, I'm not chasing anyone- then all survivors repair generators 40% slower.
It's not exactly ideal. I don't think the killer should be rewarded for failing.
I agree with you, except that this tactic (3 survs on 3 separate gens, and one in chase) is so effective that if everybody does this, and everybody knows just a bit of looping, the game is over for the killer, no matter what (even with mori and addons). Maybe only nurse\spirit have some chance to handle that situation.
Usually this setup ends with the first hook and 3 gens done. After this, 1 surv goes for the save or to entertain the killer, and the other 2 finish the remaining gens (and eventually go for the save\teabag the killer).
I understand that this is survs primary objective, and if they are doing so they are doing the right thing (so putting a penalty could be counterintuitive), but the downside is that this is the counter to almost every killer (in particular M1 killers), and that this is very boring both sides.
Obviously, if there are 4 survivors doing 4 separate gens, then there is something wrong with the killer 😋
-
I usually play him with BBQ (mainly for points, and a very little bit for tracking), Ruin (to give me a bit more time at the begin of the match to find someone and start stalking), Surveillance (to hear better if someone is repairing a gen and to monitor left gens, so I can come back to stalk again) and Discordance (another tracking perk to stop gen rushing and to stalk 2 survs instead of one at the same time).
I don't use any chase aid perk, because when I play a killer, I want to use his power as much as possible, otherwise, if I only want to chase, I choose another killer and not Ghostface. I can use stalking even in chases, but is a lot less effective, except if you already have the stalking bar almost full on that survivor you are chasing. Instead, when I use stalking to do an ambush, it works like a charm, but you have to carefully approach the target.
Anyway, I see Ghostface similar to the Trapper: you have to be a little lucky. Some games, and in some maps, it simply happens that you are always in the wrong position (and the time you reposition yourself a gen is gone), or survivors (mainly those with Object of Obsession) abusing your weakness always watching you at distance, in particular if they are in SWF. Obviously I'm talking playing him without addon.
At the end is a fun killer, if you can accept the fact that sometimes you can't do really nothing in some games except getting humiliated. For example, if you play in Haddonfield, and there is a SWF with someone with Object of Ossession and Balance Landing, it's almost a gg: it's better that you start trolling because you have more chances to win that way 😅
-
@Talmeer said:
It's always good if someone find fun on something again.
Still, sometimes I questioning me, what you guys are doing to get ->always<- toxic endgame chats.
A few people are always toxic, no matter what happened in a match, but after my experience are the most people either silent, or friendly.
I was in the past a pre patch Legion main. If we go after some people in this forum, my endgame chats should usually be full of toxicity, but no... Had friendly guys mainly, or silent ones...
So... did you guys always facecamp, or what? :)
Can remember the 2 times where I have facecamp someone. The endgame chat after this 2 times was really... "special". Still it was hilarious for me at this situation^^.
Mmm, no, nothing special. Sometimes, like you said, the chat is quiet or friendly, other times is toxic. Depends by a lot of factors that happen in the game and in the games before. Also depends by who is playing.
@Usui said:
I'm sure the 5 seconds of chat that you CHOOSE to partake in at the end of a match is detrimental to how you play this game. *rolls eyes*
Sometimes you stay more than 5 seconds, other times a lot more, but even 5 seconds are enough to alter your mood. There are more and less sensible people out there. Thinking at myself, I don't give much importance to words, but sometime there are some edge cases that just ruin my evening ... anyway there are people I know that even if you write "izi game" one time, just for joke, they can get very angry (I think because they take things too seriously when they play).