AlwaysInAGoodShape
AlwaysInAGoodShape
About
- Username
- AlwaysInAGoodShape
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,498
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Boss said:
I specifically avoided this event for 3 reasons.
Kingdom Hearts III came out recently.
I don't want to have envelopes stuck in my Offerings inventory for months.
The cosmetics are none that i want.The first reason is very tempting.
-
Well, I didn't start changing your mind.
You said:I think it was a mistake to make it versus each other player as events for myself always brought the community together
To which I responded:
Ah, you prefer the gamethrowing from the Blight Event. Hhhhh
Gamethrowing means not playing the game towards your win-condition. (Since theoretically in DBD you aren't even enemies, this can be argued about, but since the Devs declare siding with killers a bannable offence we view it as gamethrowing, which is how most people precieve it.)
So your comment of bringing people together and not vs'ing each other means game-throwing, witht he blight event being the pinnacle of that philosophy.
You could've simply said: yes, I prefer game-throwing. The killers walking past someone milking the flower brings people together as they don't play their original win-goal, but instead join forces in optimising event points.
See, I didn't argue with you. I confirmed your point, but the first thing you did was distancing yourself from the Blight Event, hinting that to be a suspicious example on my part.
That's where you started to argue against yourself.See, to the degree that people were united by the event, you disliked it:
The fact is yes the last events had farmers but not all games only if they chose too, it why I didn't like the blight as much an preferred the previous ones
Your argument was that the Blight Event was worse because people were more likely to play united, and you celebrated the other events to the degree that they didn't.
I tried to point out that the competitive nature of this event is why it's so good, and since you distanced yourself from the Blight Event (pinnacle of people uniting) where that was completely lacking, that made me interested.
Many of the things I say aren't even arguments really, but just things to consider;Me:
"You got to admit that: (first video 10:12-11:02) is significantly more meaningful that a usual escape."
To admit that something more scarce and harder to attain is more meaningful is very general. Not really that opinionated.
Me: Because that's the problem with all those events, with the Blight event being the pinnacle of that.
The competitive rewarding about this event is why such a thing didn't happen.You: That's not a problem in my eyes
But yet you distance yourself from the pinnacle of that; the least competitive rewarding system, bringing people so close together that a killer all too often didn't even attack them if they milked a flower.
I'm trying to make you see why you distanced yourself from the Blight Event. Because that statement wasn't an argument, but rather a confirmation about that it is exactly that you'd like about an event.
-
there is no point asking for opinions and then when they state it try and push your opinion on them.
I showed what the problematic aspects of a non-competitive system are. I wouldn't call that pushing. I'd call that convincing. Pushing would be denying your experience.
-
SWF's became balanced. We just fixed that in this post.
Now what will happen to solo's? Will they become stronger, weaker? What median win-rate for solo's across ranks do you expect to see? -
That's not a problem in my eyes, it's where we differ, you didn't have to help the other side with a reward unless you wanted too it was a choice.
In games where there's farming, players who want to play the game-mode seriously suffer from the fact that others no longer play the actual game.
Somewhat similar to fortnite, where during events people will actually become mad at you when you try to play towards your win-condition.In the events like the blight event, I wasn't generally able to find interesting or highlightable games as most times it lead to game-throwing. In the BBQ event we too saw survivors helping killers with Blue hooks.
In other words, previous events delegitimised playing the actual game.
What is so beautiful about this event is that it highlighted something that was lost due to the blood-point and emblem system: and that is the value of ones own life. 2/1 general emblem points leading to pips, possibly irrelevant to your score or a general 5000 BP is significantly less impressive than missing out over 50% of the possible points you could score during a rare event (skins can still be bought) ofc.
This is why this is the only event that had such interesting gameplay resulting from it.
You got to admit that: (first video 10:12-11:02) is significantly more meaningful that a usual escape.
The third game in the OP would've most likely never happened as nobody really valued their life in DBD due to this BP and Emblem perversion of it's value. -
SWF will become balanced.
Solo players will require ingame voice commsNow replace the 2nd sentence with what will actually happen to solo's?
-
So were all the other events, why mention just the blight? Each other event the players could team up and help each other.
Because that's the problem with all those events, with the Blight event being the pinnacle of that.
The competitive rewarding about this event is why such a thing didn't happen. -
@Dreamnomad said:
I liked everything about the event except for the bonus bloodpoints. Those were far too low.Sadly so. Some of the Devs might have a shyness for simply changing numbers.
Things were conservative on the rewarding side.
Still curious if the claim made during the Dev stream saying "we expect only few people to reach all the points" is actually true. -
@Nikkiwhat said:
I've enjoyed it, only thing is a couple times Ive escaped a game with a Lantern, did multiple Gens and the game give me 0 points for the Event, including one where I used an offering. Lost a bit over 140 points,,my GF has also had zero progress on games escaped.Kinda wish the Devs would consider extending the event a bit
Yeah, some bugs, wrong point reward numbers, but gameplay wise it was pretty great.
-
I think it was a mistake to make it versus each other player as events for myself always brought the community together
The blight is the opposite of players versus each other. Killers, survivors, they were all a team in gaining points for the event. That goes for everything where the killer and survivor can earn points together.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
I don't agree, I completed every other event in the first week easily while with this one I m struggling to keep playing, I only want the feng costume and I almost have it so that's almost three coins only.I think it was a mistake to make it versus each other player as events for myself always brought the community together and stopped alot of the usual toxicity while this one promotes it.
Ah, you prefer the gamethrowing from the Blight Event. Hhhhh
-
I'd simply want more complex strategies to be available to killers.
- Following survivors
- Trying to cut them off
- "Backing"
- "Double backing"
- Red glow manipulation
- Gen-pressure
- Slugging
- Pallet faking
After a while you've seen it all.
You don't feel respected as a killer, you don't feel feared. You feel like a nanny.
On top of that there's frame-rate issue and locked low-max sensitivity on console.
For me it's mainly those 3 things.
-
Just a question; What do you think will happen to survivors in nearly all ranks (20-2 and even 1) when you simply slow the game down?
-
-
- The Hatch Mechanic itself is a band-aid.
- The hatch introduces the Check-Mate effect. (stand-off)
- The hatch gives a "free" /cheap escape.
If it were to be solved through band-aiding alone then I believe the check-mate effect should rule in the Survivor's favour meaning that if they reach the hatch, they cannot be grabbed and they can jump in even if the killer is "blocking" it.
I would just keep the hatch and let the killer "half-close" it, meaning the survivor can still jump in without items, but it will no longer hear the hatch sound, making it harder to find in the first place.
-
You can count your hits and see how much % that is. Divide your hits (or rather points) by the amount of % you got and multiply it by 100. That is how much 100% is.
-
Sadly this is the curse of playing Solo.
It's not the curse of playing solo; it's the curse of a pseudo ranking system.
They made it way too easy to rank
They don't rank up; they level up.
The problem with bad teammates is that most of them get carried to red ranks by SWF. I truly believe if everyone was forced to play solo only the good players would make it to red ranks
It's possible to make SWF's competitive and no more easy (or even more difficult!) than solo's using the same queue when using the same/similar system that Arpad Emrick Elo created, without having to adjust anything in the gameplay.
-
I really like a lot of the aspects of what you propose:
From the to-1-side visible graves, to teleporting the survivor away from the hook through the mechanic to prevent camping...But there is an "Issue" and this might be a very non-obvious one. Before I explain it: The issue would suggest that after a survivor has been hooked, the person who rescues that survivor should do so at that hook and not at the grave. Here's why:
There is an issue of Stealth in this game. Stealth is a lot of fun for survivors, but with impulses or compelling stealth gameplay on the killers side stealth becomes an issue.
Killers barely are confronted with this state of stealth. It only occurs at the start of the game and when 1(maybe2) survivors are alive. They can create frustrating moments.
The beauty of tunnelling and hooking is that once this initial state has been broken at the start of the match (bc you found 1 survivor) you almost always have a target after that, because if you can't find anyone, you return to the hook and someone will be rescuing.It's this system of tunnelling (whether the unhooked or the saviour) is what helps to keep the game going in an interesting way for the killer had they failed to find anyone else.
If you made it so that therefore the saviour would have to be at a known location for the killer for the rescue (the hook) then It'd be very easy for me to support your suggestion.
-
What happens if you have an item equipped while having this perk?
-
The destruction of this Hex call upon the Entity to block all remaining totems for 60/90/120 seconds
I had a random thought about this part:
What if it didn't block Hex totems, but for X/X/X amount of seconds after ToTH being destroyed, it will make all other active Hex totems persist, even while being destroyed during this duration?
-
I really like the direction you're taking the perk into!
I recently had a game against the hag inside of Lery's and I can tell you: Small Game DID NOT help me find the totems! Instead I kept peeking every corner after it went off just to walk into a trap, and let alone the frequent sounds that come off of the current Small Game!
I'd say keep the max range 12 meters + remove the ToTh anti-debuff (I'm just really happy if the spam sound is gone!) and there's something to think about:
Aura reading gets affected by Open Handed. Since the number (8/12) here is very sensitive, Open Handed builds may cause an unintended strong effect.If you consider this to be balanced then there's no issue here. However if you consider it unbalanced, then a simple trick of turning the "aura reading" into a sort of floating silent visual notification located at the totem spot when within range could prevent such an interaction. (:
-
Thank you (:
Might I add: For everyone who wants to see this method work out live in their own eyes, try:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator
and Insert the formula -100/(x+(20-b))+b and make sure you input/write b as a positive number +10!
As for the second formula, simply: xYou can now use your cursor on the asymptote AFTER x has intersected our formula (which is where the if statement starts to use our formula) to see the diminishing returns take effect, with x being the original value and y being the diminished x!
(You'll see that at the intersection both X and Y are equal at (b-10))
-
Perhaps you need to understand people exist outside of you?
So that's the reason why I should be responsible for people simply not reading:
We use an asymptote. Asymptotes are well known for their ability to never reach a certain variable. It doesn't matter how much you insert in X, you can never reach a certain Y, despite Y increasing as long as X increases.
b is the variable where we got to define which value should never be super-ceded. If we pick 100 as b, then no player, even with 10 quintillion% vaulting-speed would be able to vault faster than 100% of the vaulting-speed. They would have more vaulting speed than someone with only 1 million% vaulting-speed, but they still cannot surpass b.
I'm sorry, but if you claim that:
What you're suggesting would both heavily disfavor every killer except Nurse and Legion in a chase, when M1 killers like trapper are all ready considered unplayable garbage at tier 1
Pressure on killers to play the two most unfun killers in the game to be competitive, harming both survivor and killer variety and enjoyment.
which are all statements about what assuming that we are going to pick a too high b value, is simply wrong.
Instead of admitting that you're wrong, you try to quickly switch to "But people will be mad if the perk does not do exactly what it tells them", which is thereafter debunked. After that you lie about the fact that you said:What you're suggesting would both heavily disfavor every killer except Nurse and Legion in a chase, when M1 killers like trapper are all ready considered unplayable garbage at tier 1
Pressure on killers to play the two most unfun killers in the game to be competitive, harming both survivor and killer variety and enjoyment.
And lied ; "All I say was people don't care". You continue making personal insults, creating drama; saying that you don't want to be part of the discussion just to join right back in at a later point.
Then you blame me for you not reading:
We use an asymptote. Asymptotes are well known for their ability to never reach a certain variable. It doesn't matter how much you insert in X, you can never reach a certain Y, despite Y increasing as long as X increases.
b is the variable where we got to define which value should never be super-ceded. If we pick 100 as b, then no player, even with 10 quintillion% vaulting-speed would be able to vault faster than 100% of the vaulting-speed. >They would have more vaulting speed than someone with only 1 million% vaulting-speed, but they still cannot surpass b.
which is what your whole tirade was based on.
Admit that you're wrong and stop spamming this post.
-
I think the only main reason for that is that having a survivor randomly standing someone feels clunky and slightly subtracts from the mood by reminding people that they're playing a game after seeing a detached player-controller remaining somewhere.
This way BBQ stacks or vessels cant be denied that easily.
Solving this would be nice, but I think that the likely-hood of this being solved through a remaining detached player-controller is very unlikely. If they found it a priority in addressing I think they'd most likely just create code to handle such DC exceptions.
-
You don't have to move the joystick very fast. The bar progresses at a constant rate. Why would your joystick snap off? Just rotate your bar in circles at a slow-medium rate and your wiggle bar will keep filling without accidental stops.
-
AFAIK the Lightbringer emblem already kind of works this way. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if you do work on a gen that is later regressed you lose those points. So in a way RAGE could be tied to the emblem in some way, at least for tracking the generator progress.
I originally discovered the contribution problem with generators and regression when thinking of solutions to creating competitive emblem systems.
In farming games, in my experience, everyone was able to max out on Lightbringer if the killer also regressed generators as to make it as if there were more (Normally you'd have to do about 2.7 gens individually which should make maxing out impossible for all 4 players), which is why I think they don't have that system in place yet.
But creating such a system for the Rage mechanic might not have to be too over-exuberant, as it has multiple uses, including helping solving certain emblem issues.
-
Hes just saying you want to basically be untouchable when it comes to this leader+vault combo.
It would probably cause more headache for killers if this even stacked.To be real OP are you new to DBD?
Because a lot of your posts are questionable or make most people thinking your trollingWhat does this post have to do with becoming untouchable?
This post literally prevents you from becoming untouchable when vaulting even if you ran a perk that gave you 10 quintillion% vaulting speed. -
Once RAGE is activated, the killer can mori any survivor that repaired more than a total of 40% of all completed generators.
Here is a problem in measuring contribution of completed generators: What if a completed generator has previously regressed?
It would need a separate tracking mechanic at measuring generator contribution to completed generators, which is different from plain generator progression (whether actually anything has progressed or not in the end).For example:
2 people do 25% of a generator. This generator regressed by 50%. player 3 now does 50% of the generator up to 75%, which regresses back to 50%. Player 4 completes the last 100%.It is possible to track people's progression towards a generator by making people's progression decrease equally, but that also has to be a separate mechanic built in to measure such a thing.
When tracking someone's contribution to completed generators, that'd mean that after 2.5 Generators the Rage mechanic would kick in.
If you wouldn't track contribution than it could kick in at 0 completed generators, meaning that the mechanic would do more than it was supposed to do.Generally as a result of this mechanic, you'd be able to mori 1 player per game. (Assuming without hooking).
(Correct me if I'm wrong)I think that will lead to negative experiences on the survivor's side, who feel like they've been unfairly treated.
I wouldn't want to see this mechanic in it's current state, though I find one of points you made in your second comments genius:
If they want to tunnel, well they likely can't use RAGE on the first guy they catch since that guy hasn't done gens.
The idea, which I like about the Rage mechanic, is that a survivor's value (and thus priority) increases the more they have done in the match, meaning a survivor that has only been chased wouldn't have that value.
If you could build more on that aspect of the Rage mechanic, then it might turn into something really helpful, especially on the subject of tunnelling.
-
I watched the video:
I'm really not even sure if OP means the issue to be Nurse being OP, whether the issue is the frame-rate and low max-sensitivity on console or whether it's DC'ing
His later comment seems to suggest the 2nd.
-
I think it's a general perk tier issue overall.
Even when the distribution is equal, as it is in Premonition: 12/24/36, it's still a 100% increase, where as Urban Evasion: 90/95/100 only increases by 11.11%.
If some perks only increase 11% and others increase by a 100% and perks are supposedly balanced, then how can you consider certain lower tier perks to even be considered playable, let alone the distribution between 1-2 and 2-3!
It's confusing for everyone of us. What I wonder more than you just mentioned and what I just mentioned is: Why do we need perk tiers at all? The only thing it does is introduce issues!
-
@Free_Hugs said:
This is discussion is physically painful to be a part of.I Believe I will mirror ToxicFengM1n's sentiments on your ideas.
No.
Joining the club of people still thinking it's about creating a perk with 10 quintillion% vaulting speed. I was already aware.
-
tt_ivi_99 seems to not only understand it, but is able to bring up very interesting and relevant points as well.
It really depends how on thoroughly they read it. If someone skims through something, it's easy to make mistakes.
-
The title shows a ridiculous suggestion.
This ridiculous suggestion is brought up in the linked video where McClean says it's too much.
Followed by me saying: But what IF we want leader to affect vaulting speed? (Would this inherently be impossible?)
We follow up giving a diminishing return method that would make all such things work.I don't think it's that hard.
-
@tt_ivi_99 said:
I think a fast vault lasts for 0.5 secs, that number is super strong. Slow vault is 0.9 for sure.Even if we had a value considered as OP, which I assume It would be bigger than 9% and smaller than 40-something%, that value would break the game because this last percentage would make slow vaults last for as long as fast vaults without perks.
I could see this formula working with luck and some offerings but not for vault speed.
I seriously think that vault speed should not be touched at all, even if it's that 9% from resilience. I've been running some killers for the entire match, if anything they should be nerfed in the way of removing some infinite loops as those dont take skill at all.
Interesting remark: I think a fast vault lasts for 0.5 secs, that number is super strong. Slow vault is 0.9 for sure.
In such cases, they could simply use this method individually for each vaulting type, thus they get to declare what is problematic 3 times. (:
-
@Free_Hugs said:
If literally no one telling your your idea is good and everyone in this thread telling you it is flawed, for two pages, is not enough to dissuade you I do not believe you are worth the breath.Depends if they understood the post or not. In this case it's often the latter.
-
@The_Crusader said:
Why do we need perks to affect vaulting speed is what I'm asking. Vaulting speed is fine. It doesn't need to be affected by anything.We don't. That is not the soul of this post. This post is about creating a system in which we have the freedom to even make perks like Leader (with ridiculous numbers for vaulting-speed as shown in the linked video) work.
We explain a method through which problematic variables can be handled for every type of value with minimal effort. (minimal effort being defining what we consider to be problematic)
-
We are not making a statement about vaulting speed. We are making a statement about dealing with otherwise problematic values stacking and how to deal with that.
-
@The_Crusader said:
Vaults are fine and a good vaulting loop can already hurt most standard killers.How is this related to the post?
-
@ToxicFengM1n said:
NoElaborate?
-
Yo provided a rebuttable, sure, but that rebuttable was not actually a meaningful argument or refutation.
You propose it to be a problem. I point out that such a system that artificially alters the end value has not been considered a problem more than it has been considered a good solution.
Luck is not an issue; generator efficiency being slowed with multiple players isn't an issue. In other games it isn't an issue; It is not an issue.
You keep trying to say that the speedlimit was never set.
I keep telling you no one cares
That's a lie:
What you're suggesting would both heavily disfavor every killer except Nurse and Legion in a chase, when M1 killers like trapper are all ready considered unplayable garbage at tier 1
You didn't say nobody cares (which isn't an argument): You said that it was set when it wasn't. Believing it to disfavor killers and this being related to my post. You cannot disfavor killers if b is lower than 9. It's all about b.
they can't see the sign and they will be upset when the diminishing returns police pull them over
Just as much as they are about luck, team-generator efficiency, movement-speed/life-steal in League of Legends, Attack value interactions in AoE2, etc. which is not an issue anywhere.
Killers will see the speed limit go up and think to themselves "I need a faster car"
Assuming b again.
Summary:
1 Hidden values are non-problematic anywhere in every game including the ones this game has.
2 Things cannot be UP/OP or problematic inherently as all that is defined is b. -
The assertions have always been that killers will feel pressured to play unfun killers and survivors will be upset their perks don't do what they say.
This was already addressed:
Yes, thus we do some basic fact checking:
Let's look at all the outrage of all the people complaining about diminishing return systems in other games and we find almost nothing.
Still waiting for the anti-LeagueOfLegends-diminishing-movementspeed organisation to protest.People rather have a perk that gives them a balanced diminishing return than a perk not having any ability/interaction with something or being broken.
I mean, you can even look at the Luck mechanic. I barely see any complains about what you mentioned there either.
Someone learns about it: they see it's healthy for the game: everyone is happy. and in this case, everyone is even happier, since increasing a stat will always still increase it, even if it is by a little.After I rebutted that, you called me wilfully ignorant... and the first thing you did was assume b again:
Increasing vault speeds to any notable degree will pressure killers to play Nurse / Legion, which is negative for both survivors and killers.
Which is again an impossible claim to make when not knowing b.
You said that cars were too fast inherently without knowing their speed.See; this statement is true:
Increasing vault speeds to any notable degree is problematic
which in no way is an argument against this post. It's literally the statement in this post: variables can problematic thus should be monitored under the solution we created in this OP.
-
You sound upset.
I thought you were upset, lol.
I really just want you to understand that the method proposed in the OP cannot BE problematic inherently, as can a car not be too fast inherently.Which is why I point out that you first need to know about the Car's Speed (in this post; that is b, which the Devs get to define).
-
Stop @ ing at me, please. I have no desire to extend a discussion with you.
A discussion with someone believing a car to be too fast without knowing its speed isn't useful anyways and isn't even related to the discussion.
It's more of a parenting session.
-
@DemonDaddy said:
Its better not to have all encompassing perks. By keeping perks limited to a few specifics it prevents creating stronger metas and requires loadouts to be changed for different challenges. If you want more vaulting speed then request some new ones, don't buff perks that already cover multiple things. Perk diversity is far better than creating perks nobody will want to drop.I'm not sure why the vaulting-speed diversity is brought up here so much as it inherently has nothing to do with this post, because the old leader has it, and it wasn't removed for the reason you mention.
It was changed because the Devs believed the numbers to become problematic.
-
My statements stand and have not been addressed.
It is being argued modifying vault speed or intruding muddy game mechanics will do more harm than good.Your statement was addressed and it was debunked. In order for the vaulting speed to be problematic you have to assume b, which is what you did.
Either you argue that vaulting speed should never be modified, meaning you argue against the existence of Resilience and Spine Chill too, which would be unrelated to this post, or you argue about b being problematic.
Since we didn't define b for any of the variables here, your claim is automatically wrong. If b would be 9, the our solution would even be less problematic than the current state.
TL;DR:
You're saying that a car goes too fast before we ever defined its speed, which is an impossible claim. -
@Detective_Jonathan said:
Don't Spine Chill and Resilience affect Vault Speed? why would we need another perk that does the same thing.The answer was already yes when Spine Chill, Resilience and the Old version of Leader were inside of the game.
The change to leader wasn't made because the Devs stopped believing they wanted as much vaulting speed affecting perks; they changed it because they believed the numbers to become problematic. (see linked video)
-
No one is arguing a diminishing return system is bad. It is being argued modifying vault speed or intruding muddy game mechanics will do more harm than good.
Ah, so you still believe I make an actual statement about what b should be. Quote me on it.
-
@Free_Hugs said:
I do like how you're ignoring point #2 and how implemention of your idea would be horrible for essentially all involved.I mean, you can even look at the Luck mechanic. I barely see any complains about what you mentioned there either.
Someone learns about it: they see it's healthy for the game: everyone is happy. and in this case, everyone is even happier, since increasing a stat will always still increase it, even if it is by a little. -
I do like how you're ignoring point #2 and how implemention of your idea would be horrible for essentially all involved.
2: Creating a clarity issue where survivors trying to stack perks are dissatisfied when they do not function as they say they do.
Yes, thus we do some basic fact checking:
Let's look at all the outrage of all the people complaining about diminishing return systems in other games and we find almost nothing.
Still waiting for the anti-LeagueOfLegends-diminishing-movementspeed organisation to protest.People rather have a perk that gives them a balanced diminishing return than a perk not having any ability/interaction with something or being broken.
-
@Free_Hugs said:
On it s face you suggested leader effecting vaulting speeds for an implied 25% increase.If you're going to attempt to argue that you didn't even suggest Leader raise vault speed by 25% and instead it would use your system for that base value from one perk I defer back to my assertion that this is a troll post.
The title is completely correct too;
The perk will still state the same as it does now. It might even still give an exact Net 25%. It all comes down to what the Devs define b to be.
The same would be true for:
-Luck (Artificial Cut)
-Movement-speed increasers (Currently Hope and without such a limited also limited to)
-Healing-Speed (Artificial cut with We'll Make It or future perks similar to that)
-etc.
-vaulting speed. (They need to keep track of how many vaulting-speed increasing perks there are to avoid problems when not having any type of cap)As you can see in the 4 examples, currently beHaviour uses all types of custom (awkward) ways to deal with problematic values. Every-time they encounter a problematic value they customarily try to solve it and they are still prevented to make perks that use the same concept:
Multiple perks like hope would be problematic if they stacked, thus cannot be made or need another separate solution.The system that we propose here would eliminate all such future artificial solutions and would allow for FREE DESIGN when it comes to perks, only requiring them to define 1 number (b) in which they declare what is considered problematic once the code structure is in place.
That's the main thing to take away (: