AlwaysInAGoodShape
AlwaysInAGoodShape
About
- Username
- AlwaysInAGoodShape
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,498
- Last Active
Comments
-
@OrionsFury4789 said:
I really like the idea of a vault speed increase but I think that using leader might make it op a little too much , instead what if we gave a extra percentage of vault speed to lithe that would be usable even when exhausted kind of like how balanced landing reduces stagger even when exhausted , so that way it will be more in line with a similar perk that would make sense to allow itIt cannot be OP (:
We can define in the variable b what is OP. Nothing can exceed b but every higher amount of x will get closer to b. -
Let me correct myself:
I don't think you've understood the post.
What you're suggesting would both heavily disfavor every killer except Nurse and Legion in a chase
I'm not sure where in the post you believed me making a statement about what b should be for vaulting speed. Quote me on it.
-
@legionnbuff said:
There are bigger issues right now in the game,this is nothing compared to other bugsThere would only be 1 type of post if we were only allowed to cover the biggest issue (:
But this is definitely an issue that will come up more frequently the more perks are introduced.
If the luck mechanic was handles differently, we could've already seen it in the game and never run into such problems again as this solution works for every scenario and is very intuitive and fair. -
@Free_Hugs said:
This is a lot of effort for a troll postI don't think you've read it if you think it's a troll post.
-
@HavelmomDaS1 said:
I only read your tdlr tbh, do you explain if it's possible to camp the grave?He mentioned that the grave is only visible to survivors, similar to how scratch-marks are only visible to killers. You can camp the grave, but you wouldn't know you're camping it.
Did you explain what will happen once the exit gates are powered? Because camping is absolutely necessary once all gens are done, otherwise it's a free escape
He mentions that Gen times need to be slower as a result of killers no longer having access to (toxic/certain) strategies. If the killer isn't killing you with hooking near the end then indeed you'd be able to escape unless he finds you, but generally you have more time to kill people is what I get from the OP.
-
Camping is caused by 2 things:
A. Being able to know a survivor's location. (Can't camp something if you don't know where it is.)
B. Any mechanic that makes hooking phases progress that is not based on a location-based mechanic that mandates a killer to be at a certain (variable)location guaranteed to be away from the hook.Tunnelling can only be solved by eliminating the gaps between hooking phases and survivor deaths.
With that in mind:Your post gets a lot right. The main problem with hooks currently is that there is a timer. A timer progresses. It's a hook phase progression system that doesn't care about location. This is inherently what causes camping.
If there had been something like: "You have to break a vessel to make people on a hook enter the next stage", then camping as a strategy with any validity would be impossible, since they have to be at a mandated position in order to progress things negatively for survivors.
You both eliminate the timer of the hooks (B) and you eliminate the killers innate knowledge of the survivor's location.
Thus it indeed solves camping.Now here's the art:
How do you make it conceptually fitting? Is indeed the grave-stone the right way to go? How randomly does it spawn? Does the grave-stone mechanic mimic the right type of hooking pressure the killer can cause without camping to avoid survivors from being immobile too long?So what do you think? Would this fix the problem?
Your solution ABSOLUTELY fixes the issue with camping. I also find the idea behind making the grave only visible to survivors very creative and helpful.
But the main issue sits within "the art"; A lot of things have been revolving around a certain state of the game, which is why any teleportation solution (A) often feels to foreign to people.
-
@Master said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
2:10 a 96.25% movement-speed killer walks up to you and hits you. This is the only time you got hit.There might be an issue, but I'm not sure how this video exemplifies it.
(By the title I'm assuming it's about the nurse, not the DC)Good, seems like I dont need to watch the issue if OP was caught by a walking nurse
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 xD
Edit: His later comment seems to suggest the 2nd.
-
Mainly about the general ones:
how long you've been recovering while downed
getting out of chase from the killer
We seem to have about the same idea;
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/39604/bloodpoint-categories-fix/p1If we assume those 2 to be in the game, I think all we're missing is a more dynamic number increaser for the Survival Category that is within the control of the Survivor.
Which is why I really like:
how far u get ur wiggle bar
since it is in fact in control of the survivor where they die (and have it be far away from the hook).
Nice one!
-
2:10 a 96.25% movement-speed killer walks up to you and hits you. This is the only time you got hit.
There might be an issue, but I'm not sure how this video exemplifies it.
(By the title I'm assuming it's about the nurse, not the DC) -
@Dead_by_David said:
My first match with the pig, it really scared me how she just appeared out of nowhere. I miss being easier to jumps are in it.The 2nd match I played was against the pig. I thought she was a survivor with a cool skin the first time she crouched up on me!
-
@boss
So 1 charge per second becomes 1.09 charges per second.
80 divided by 1.09 = about 73 total seconds of gentime. -
Oops, you're right.Boss said:@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@JanTheMan80 * 0.09 = 7.2 seconds off of a generator. 0.8 seconds away from being 10%.
In this case, if Resilience had 100% instead of 9%, the formula would be 80 * 1, which is 80 seconds off of a generator, which is insta-repair.
The Perk instead describes the % as your own repair speed being raised rather than taking seconds off the generator.
Meaning if Resilience was at 100%, you'd repair twice as fast, taking 40 seconds off of the generator. -
@PhantomMask20763 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape is that actually your YouTube or are you just memeing around?The latter.
-
Press Quote and copy paste the link in your OP. -
Sorry names are showing not sure how to cover them up
There you go bud. Support me on my youtube:
-
In what build would you use it?
-
@The_Crusader said:
You mean when you don't hear a skill check, don't see a skill check, let go of a gen and it blows up?I've been considering taking technician just for this. Buff it from 50% to 75% and I probably would.
They shouldn't make it % based.
Something like:Technician:
Whenever you fail a skillcheck, block any negative effects and notifications. Has a 40/35/30 seconds cooldown.
Removes the sound you make when working on generators.
Maybe you'd pick this version.
Maybe the skill-checks will be fixed when dedicated servers come out.
-
It's actually great that it matches you against better/worse players, because it still prioritises players from a similar rank.
The game has to make a choice: It can't let you play because it can't find players of a similar rank/it matches you up with others.
I think it's actually better that the rank scope widens the longer you queue.
-
I have a strange suspicion that the upcoming Dev Stream will be called:
"Dead By Daylight | #117 - Creation of The Legion". -
80 * 0.09 = 7.2 seconds off of a generator. 0.8 seconds away from being 10%.
Depending on the build, it is possible that people run resilience and first heal themselves up to 99%. When they hear your heartbeat, they will be healed up.
Generator-speed bonus is a feeble subject. -
They can't familiarize all the details of each map.
Map familiarity
Correct. It's easier to chase a survivor in an unknown map then it is to optimally loop in an unknown map. This highly contributes to the unequal-learning-curve between killers and survivors.Concept Versus Gameplay
Also, new survivors believe this game to be a different game than it is; They believe they have to be careful to not get found, which is why they often don't do Gens.
They need to learn that they shouldn't be afraid of being found and that they should just do gens, wait for the killer to come to them and enter standard looping procedures . The fact this is unnatural to what they expect the game to be for survivors is what also contributes to the gap. For killers there's no big deviation between concept and gameplay:
-A killer must kill.
-A survivor must rush objectives until the killer picks them for their looping procedure.Team dependancy
A killer also doesn't have to deal with inconsistent teammates.
It takes time to learn how to manage such inconsistencies and building trust systems between strangers takes time to form and typically only form at a higher level.All and all that unequal learning curve is what causes all the imbalance:
If you want to have a standard measure for balance, then the 2 lines should not produce a gap. Only then can you truly balance the game, but that's very difficult.
Even bigger companies like Riot Games with League Of Legends do not know how to properly deal with champions that are strong in the LCS. Typically they become weak enough in SoloQ in lower levels that they are no longer usable.
-
Selfcare should never be basekit in its current state. That one alone would warrant killers to get all %-bonus perks like BS,SB,Enduring,Unrelenting etc to be made basekit too.
Whenevervi see that death-effiency-"problem" I wonder why survivors should be compensated for another person failing. Killers have to use perks for that.
-As a solosurv who doesnt care about random, why reward him with buffs?
-Swf's who failed to protect, why the reward?
Nothing btween those statements deserves some buffs for letting other survs die.
Imagine that happening in a deathmatch team shooter.This is the art of balancing: Things have to be 1:1. Each 1 represents 1 side: killer/survivor. What isn't apparent in this "1" is that there might be a lot of toxic elements that generates a lot of negative player-experience.
You can use whatever tools you have to change that inherent toxicity. What will end up happening as a result is; you might change 1 to 2, or 1 to less than 1. meaning you might end up with something like: 2:1, which of course is an imbalance!
The trick is that after you have solved something inherently toxic, you make the other side match the change in the number; in this case: 2:2.
Now understand that:
-As a solosurv who doesnt care about random, why reward him with buffs?
-Swf's who failed to protect, why the reward?
Nothing btween those statements deserves some buffs for letting other survs die.is not true. This would only have been true if we had never changed the second 1 to 2.
We aren't dealing with 2:1, which would've made your statement correct. We are dealing with 2:2. As much as we "buff" survivors for dying, they are also "nerfed" as much in their base-state.With that in mind, you'll quickly discover that there's no such thing as a buff in the increasing of their generator efficiency upon death, because we also expect them to die more often.
I wonder why survivors should be compensated for another person failing.
This is what good games do. Take Age Of Empires for example in the form of a team-game: When 3 team-games are competing with one another and 1 person in team A gets killed, what'll happen? person i team A will Gift all his resources to another member in team A.
So why does person 2 in team A deserve resources for the death of team-member 1 in team A?It's pretty easy really; Microsoft understood Death-Efficiency and was way ahead of its time. This is why we can say:
"Age of Empires is a Game that stood the Test of Time"
With tournaments even in the year 2019.
The beautiful thing is: Even in AoE, you don't want your teammates to die, even though they will gift you resources, for the fact that you have a population gap and a need time to micro manage everything. The DBD equivalent is: Even if you buff survivors so much upon the death of a survivor that they, as a lower-survivor-count would be faster at finishing all generators, then you still wouldn't want your team-members to die since it's a loss. If only 2 people were alive and you had more than a 200% generator repair speed, then you are still in a disadvantage as the amount of targets for the killer have drastically decreased and the pressure on each individual one has significantly increased.Thus what happens in both AoE and DBD is not that you celebrate the loss of a member, but that you try to do everything to prevent it from happening. Whenever it happens though, you grow in strength and the opposing team will increasingly have to deal with your power, which slowly matches theirs.
For this reason in AoE even after the death of a team-member may you possibly see 1 player coming back against the other 3 players. Not for the reason that he got stronger from the death of his team member, but for the reason that he got a boost in resources, which now highlights his skill.
That is the effect of solving Death-Efficiency:
Your incentive remains to save your teammates, if not for the reason that a whole team still has a higher total of repair speed/can more dynamically reposition themselves, then it's for the reason to have more targets on the field and ensure your own life.
In the beginning your skill is less relevant; the killer can avoid you, but with the effects of solving it, as people die, the killer has to increasingly deal with the talents of the remaining other.Imagine that happening in a death-match team shooter.
It's really easy to imagine it in any game. Death-Efficiency as related to DBD is a comeback mechanic.
I can name you lists of games that have come-back mechanics, to prevent a game from being a "settled" before its over.
League of Legends rewards you after killing someone who has killed your team-members! Why should that happen?
Very successful game companies know the answer; because that creates compelling gameplay in which the game is never "over" before it ends; which translates to our statement:"You don't want to lose before you die".
-
@Gorgonia said:
It is not actually cheating. You are not abusing a forbidden feature or an exploit.If we legalise everything, we no longer have to worry about criminals breaking the law (;
Edit: In games like Town of Salem, they actually ban for using 3rd party software, and yes, they have a friend inviting system there too! The question is; would that be the right approach for DBD?
-
When you disconnect, you shouldn't lose pips, you should lose bloodpoints.
And if you have 0 bloodpoints, there should be a negative way like -30000 bloodpoints.
Hit them where it hurts! I like that suggestion.
-
@AntiJelly said:
What perks still need some buffs? How would you buff them?You should make a headline for every perk that people mention, with the best idea you've found on the forums written below (and perhaps 2nd and 3rd choices linked below) so I can bookmark your post (:
There are actually a lot of perks that need reworking. Some examples I'd try out:
Monstrous Shrine:
Whenever you hook someone in the basement, gain X/X/X amount of X, up to X.
After Care:
Remove the part where you lose the effect. (and if considered too strong, making it so that it only works when you unhook/heal someone)
Autodidact:
For every successful Skill Check completed while healing a Survivor, you receive a Token for a maximum of 3/4/5 Tokens.
Each Token grants you a +10 % bonus progression for a successful Skill Check while healing Survivors.
Great Skill Checks cannot be performed while using Autodidact.
Boil Over
Only change: You obscure the Killer's ability to see Hook Auras within 20/25/30 metres.
(Can be a shock when you realise someone has it, but after that you may think twice before picking someone up. Great in indoor maps)Bond
Add: When someone else sees you with the perk Bond, see a "Small Perk indicator" to the left of your perks.
(By small indicator I mean the thing that also shows when Prove Thyself is active/Leader/Open Handed etc.)Botany Knowledge
Instead of the PTB Self-Care Adjustment: Healing Speed and Healing Item Efficiency is increased by 30/35/40%.
Dark Sense:
Whenever another survivor is in a chase, the Perk Icon turns on. When it's on, teammates see a small perk icon of Dark Sense.
Deja Vu:
You can see all generator's aura. Generators that have more than 0 progression are shown in yellow.
Distortion:
Whenever your aura is being read, this perk icon turns on.
Every 100/90/80 seconds, it will block your aura from being read for 10 seconds.(I'd really want this version instead of the current, despite the current not being all too bad)
Empathy:
Add: Injured players can see your aura as well as long as they are injured.
Left Behind:
When you are the last survivor, gain 100% repair speed. Generators keep automatically progressing at half the speed at 94%/92%/90% allowing you time to reposition yourself, when you're not working on that generator.
The generator being kicked will cancel the automatic progressing.
No Mither:
You are no longer affected by Haemorrhage, Mangled and Blindness. You no longer leave pools of blood and make 30/40/50% less noise when injured.
Quick and Quiet:
Hide actions' noise detection and audio range is reduced by 100 %.
This effect can only be triggered once every 30/25/20 seconds.Vaulting's noise detection and audio range is always reduced by 100 %.
Etc.
Someone else may continue at the letter Q (: -
Some people have already completed all 9 points required?
Next event should be;
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
3200
3200
3200
Together with less cautious killer points to get better queue's (:
-
@pemberly
@terrprtil is right.
The only main thing wrong with this event is that the killers get too few points.
They got 1 number wrong... but that's about it.
There is also no inherent problem with queuetimes as was in the blight event where they softly forced a 1:1 survivor killer ratio, which is absurd for a 4:1 game.
This event doesn't have that problem. Neither does it make players gamethrow. They have to actively play to win in direct competition with the killer.
I find trying to escape with the vessel extremely exciting as it puts a lot of pressure on you. Previous events didn't come with such unique experiences.
-
As @se05239 said.
Also:
Using that offering gives you the chance to make another 8,000 if you managed to max it out? Am I somehow misunderstanding how the point system works?
People believe that they have to make more blood-points with a BP offering than they pay. From a grinding perspective, this (break-even point) is wrong however.
From a grinding perspective, a BP offering is ALWAYS worth it, if it comes in place of something of the same rarity, as long as you earned more than 1 BP from it, no matter what the cost.
For example: Normally a brown Blood-web Item would cost 3000. Any BP item below that would lower your grind, meaning you don't need to make a profit. If you only earned 1000 from your 2000 Bp offering, that means that you were allowed to grind the BloodWeb as if you were able to buy 2000 BP items.
Of course, from a non-grinding perspective, they are useless, but they do have a purpose in the game. You could argue that an overabundance renders them useless, because if you accumulate them faster than you can spend them, then they still cost as much as their equal-rarity counter parts.
-
Regarding:
"For Each Bloodweb that you now complete you gain 10/15/30/45 Iredescent Shards depending on your prestige level."
I remember moderator @Peanits saying that they (paraphrasing) don't want Iredescent Shards to be related to the bloodweb, because they need to be careful with how many Shards they give out, as that'd negatively effect sales.
Because they like to be abundant with giving BP during events, tying Iredecent Shards to the bloodweb would prevent them from being able to give away BP as freely as they did before.
Just wanted to mention the previous. I do like that you are addressing the perk grind. It's indeed the fact that the amount of perks you can get per bloodweb which is the sole factor that makes the grind so long, while preventing players from using the bloodweb as intended (as they often buy whatever is the cheapest).
-
Camping the hook is the correct behaviour in this case. That is what you should do in game.
Outside of the game, you should try to get the Safe-Zone effect fixed, that makes survivors unkillable when they are in the healthy state within about a 20 meter proximity of the exit gates.Killers actually don't want to camp, but as long as the safe-zone effect exists, they really don't have much of a choice of they don't have any insta-downs into their kit.
It's a flaw in game-design. If you are the killer you shouldn't feel responsible for camping, since you did not create the safe-zone effect that prevents you from effectively chasing people once the exit gates are open.
-
@Might_Oakk said:
I'm working on coin #6 so I have played a decent bit and have found 8/10 games I am only person using an offeringYou can only get 1 per bloodweb. This already results in people only being able to burn about 0.5 per match.
With 5 people, that'd result in circa 2.5 offerings on average. (High estimation)If you incalculate the fact that some players don't really use offerings that often or don't know that they should use them, you can subtract from that 2.5.
Some people might save their offerings for later during the event, as it might be possible that that's where people will use the least offerings. That also subtracts from the 2.5 on average.
Some players may save their offerings and use them when they play as SWF, meaning that if you play solo, they will likely not use their offerings. Thus further subtracts from the 2.5 on average.
With factors like these, I think you end in a about 0.8-1.5 offerings per game on average, which is what I experience, of course with abnormalities.
-
I think both your point 1's are really accurate (:
Above that you mention that some bad players are matched up with really good players and this is completely true. We have reddit posts admitting they reached rank 1 but didnt feel like they deserved it because they could barely loop yet. Such experiences are sometimes denied here on the forums and not often do people point out that rank IS telling a littlebit about skill, but only insofar playing frequency says something about skill.
I think you did well at pointing out some of the effects stricter matchmaking results into
When marth88 conducted his No Com experiment, he forgot that it was not only picking the 4 META perks that made them so strong in those 100 games, bit also what you mentioned; their control over their matchmaking through SWF, and i found it impressive that you were able to point out that such strength is a matchmaking issue and NOT inherently an SWF issue, since a lot of people get that wrong and underestate the actual power solo's could have through tighter matchmaking.
Good post! -
@Milo said:
Lanterns aren't that hard to find on open maps.
But yeah point gains FOR BOTH SIDES are a bit too lowI think the survivors collect them at quite a fair and intended rate. They used a similar grindy methods phone games typically use. It really helps players that do not play recently to get a decent amount, while still not letting all players get all of the event.
The killer does get too few points as evident by the matchmaking queues. I'm not sure as to why, but I'd guess they overestimated how many vessels there'd be per match, considering you only get 1 envelope per bloodweb.
-
So if someone animation canceled you to stage 2 or till you die they shouldn't be reported?
If the killer tries to kill him/her and he/she just wants you to die then yes, because they are game-throwing and trying to lose.
If they are teaming with the killer, you shouldn't report them. They are just playing for pips and obeying the win-condition set in place. You should have probably sided with the killer too. By not doing so, you deliberately avoid playing to your win-condition.If the killer tries to kill you while you aren't escaping, you could report the killer for not siding with their teammates, although if they hang everybody and double pip, that'd cancel your reason to report them.
If the killer did not pip as a result of cooperating with the other survivor, then you could consider reporting the killer for not trying to win.
That is of course if you only report for game-throwing; then you shouldn't ban people when they are trying to win (which is the purpose of nearly every competitive game).
The emblem system made it more complex than it needed to be.
-
Really backwards for punishing a survivor to play towards their win-condition imo.
Only game-throwers should be reported.
-
I really like your version of Empathy and Wake up.
Both (and I think you're highly aware of it) are safe ways to help close the Solo vs SWF gap. The wake up, (I think people will overestimate this part, after all only results in a ≈ 2.4 second faster exit gate. Compared to what other perks are out there, don't let anyone talk you into that that suggestion is problematic or "op"!
When it comes to Monstrous hook/shrine, this perk is a staple in certain basement builds.
I remember someone a while back suggesting that instead of what it does now, it should give the killer a stackable buff for every time they hooked someone in the basement.
And I really like that idea. It has a strong persona and would see itself often in Monto video's. -
The Devs likely don't want you to be able to get event points after the event, as that is part of the financial model.
What type of alternative gameplay-related reward would be linked to the re-themed lamp?
-
I'm not attached to anything. It's a demonstrable fact that you don't understand it. You've said multiple times that I want to increase or slow down the hook timer, which simply isn't true. Nowhere is that on either suggestion. And yet you keep bringing it up, time and time again.
You don't like long posts, but if certain concepts need explanation:
The basic principle of balance
There are 2 types of posts really: There are posts that try to balance over-all balance, and there are posts that are not related to over-all balance and therefore assume balance to be relative;
For example: When I write a post about new hooks for killers to target "The killer is purely reactive and lacks choice" problem, that we are not covering over-all balance. When I come up with a suggestion like that, it's ridiculous that I have people commenting: "But that would be OP"! We take balance as relative.
The same goes when I'm trying to address concerns regarding survivors to be more than just skins. Again; this is not about faction-balance; balance is relative.
It would of course be ridiculous when covering such a subject that I'd have to throw in a random unrelated "other-faction-buff", because again, they are not meant to target over-all balance; we assume something else but for the opposing faction to be picked and placed alongside of an otherwise 1 sided buff. People can freely choose!
Only when the post is about the balance state between survivors and killers, is faction-balance CRUCIAL and there it needs addressing.
So:
Faction-Balance: Over-all balance is not relative.
Inherent issue solving: Targets inherent gameplay issues regarding topics related to fun. Faction balance is assumed and does not require mandated mentioning.Now this is a post about the inherent problem caused by camping. To this issue, it is irrelevant that the killer is weak or strong; A killer can camp because of the inherent design flaw; the timer.
So you understand that I assume that you don't want to create faction buffs/nerfs; you simply want to solve an inherent issue because you, related to this subject, do not believe either faction to be too weak.
Thus your 2nd suggestion creates this balance effect, if we assume balance to be relative:
A is the vanilla game.
B is your version in which progression goes faster if you are further away, meaning it goes up in strength.
As a result, you move up the relative balance of the game. This is why I say: You are artificially NERFING camping unnaturally while keeping the toxic variables.Now, despite me already having covered why nerfing the speed at which the bar regresses or buffing it when you walk away, I'll explain it again:
Buffing progression speed results in graph B. Nerfing progression when camping ALSO results in B. There is literally no difference between the 2 in a relative environment and so I don't distinct between the 2.Instead I assumed you understood the basics of balance and that you didn't want to randomly buff killers. I after all believed we were discussing camping and not faction balance.
Instead of understanding this, you still pretend that I don't know what "something going faster if you go further away means".
I'd argue that you don't understand how buffing and nerfing things in a relative environment works, in which over-all/faction-based balance should not be affected and is not related to the issue at hand.I covered it before and now I covered it again; with pictures. I think that if you misunderstand my point regarding calling your 2nd suggestion essentially a camping nerf, then the blame really is no longer on me.
If you don't want long posts, then you need to understand basic design principles regarding balance.
Regarding the rest:
Camping emerged as an issue primarily in response to unsafe unhooks. In other words, the primary cause of camping is unsafe unhooks. The two are connected. Stopping unsafe unhooks would make camping less worthwhile for the killer by default
I think you miss the point here: The reasons why they HAVE to go for the unsafe unhook is because THE TIMER (god forbid) COMPELS them to! You want the game to punish them for that? For going for the legitimate play of unsafely unhooking someone when they are about the enter the second phase?
The main point after all of this remains the same: The timer is the guilty variable and the solution is location based hooking-phase progression. Funny enough in your second suggestion the first thing you introduce as a solution is location based hooking-phase progression, showing that you, when coming up with an idea to solve or at least address camping, you agree with my premise that the timer is the guilty variable, which is why the first thing you do is take away influence the timer has and replace it partly with location based mechanics.
I don't understand why you don't acknowledge that part. Basically you saw a hole in a ship, realised that water was pouring in and thought "we should use wood to cover some of the gap", where as I say; You are partly right and heading into the right direction; We should use the wood to cover the WHOLE gap.
The gap being the timer. The wood being location based mechanics that manage hooking-phases.
Why, if you are able to realise the gap is the problem and wood is the solution, do you have the mentality of wanting to keep part of the gap inside of the ship? And when I point that half-measure out, you back-peddle from your own idea!
-
Option 1:
People who perform unsafe unhooks are put in the Dying state and become afflicted with the Broken status effect for the remainder of the trial. Unsafe unhooks are redefined to "An unhook where the person who was unhooked is hit by the Killer after less than 10 seconds".Survivors will go back to working on generators like they're supposed to, and camping will be punished by the Survivors, just like it's supposed to be.
This makes camping worse. Out of respect I ignored this one as a solution to "solve camping" and read it as an attempt to stop unsafe unhooking.
You avoided my comment again. Read it with the red text. The explanation and reasoning shows that I misspoke because saying you would have increased the timer would've made camping less prevalent.
I'm not sure why you are so attached to pretending that I don't "understand" an elementary idea of making something go faster the further you are away.
-
I don't state that things are true. I've showed in the first headlines (Under "Here is an analysis") in which I show how:
A. The survivors are not immune as a result because of the removal of a timer (through location based hook progression mechanics)
B. Why survivors still have a reason to unhook people. (They will all die similar to a 4 slug)
C. Why saving someone as early as possible is the META strategy.
D. How people that build on top of this principle: The principle of replacing the guilty variable Location-Based-Hooking-Phase mechanics. (See comments below OP) achieve a closer to perfect result through the use of this principle.You are the one with the "Your holier than thou attitude" stating it was wrong without feeling the need to prove it.
I proved it. And anyone understanding what location based hooking mechanics achieve understand that this is indeed inherent to solving the problem > has a million ways of going about this > and is for such flexibility impossible to be Unbalanced.And after all; balance is relative: You need to know both X and Y before you know something is more than the other.
-
@AntiJelly said:
They definitely learned from their mistakes during the Hallowed Blight. This event is much, much better.Not only that but there is no more farming!
They made a truly competitive system within the game, but as event, possibly to test things out.Could that be a secret hit to a rank rework? (:
-
Unless it’s sitting right in front of their face, or your face in this instance, you aren’t seeing how broken this is. If you think I’m going to waste a couple hours to counter every single one of your statements, you are sorely mistaken. Have fun, you’re going to need it.
How would you know what the "balance is", if balance is relative and that we stated that this change was intertwined with solving Death-Efficiency?
What calculations do you have? If you want to know if X is more than Y, you first need to know both X and Y, otherwise saying that X is more or less is an objectively false claim.
as others have also stated
Credibility is key. A thousand people can state something and be completely wrong about it.
-
BTW, don’t post a million links to other threads, if you want anyone to take you seriously.
That is how you actually do reporting. It's closer to scientific consensus. It should do the opposite of making people take it less serious. And if people take it less serious for that reason, the fault is on them.
I can absolutely guarantee you with 100% certainty, that if this was done, the game would be forever broken.
Outright false. May sound convincing if you believe that if someone is not a Christian, they will start "killing everybody on the streets".
-
People are very objective in their complains; We see a systematic issue over appearing everywhere, that haunts lower-ranks, provides a negative experience and is pushed forward as one of the biggest issues with the game.
Then we analyse it;
We realise that the issue is a learning curve issue and not a balance issue at higher ranks, however we do see it as very problematic as it will always reappear very frequently: Learning how to deal with camping doesn't solve BEING CAMPED, as when you are the one being camped, others are responsible for knowing and thus knowledge the 500+ complaints attributed to this subject, instead of forming ideologies and justifications on why we should ignore this, we actually tackle the issue, preventing an infinite amount of years of complaints surrounding the same topic.Stop crying so much.
HEADLINES: "Complaints and negative experiences surrounding camping drop to 0".
^ this is not a reality.
Sounds as if your approach doesn't come with much positive results, does it? -
@Orion said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
And in your suggestion, there is actually more reason to rush for hooks since you increase the timer.Let me know when you've actually read my suggestion.
Red Text. I meant to use the word Pressure, but that is obvious in that context as the word timer there would've been contrary with the point.
-
The example is still wrong because it hinges on the assumption that survivors would be hook rushing anyway.
Yours hinges on the assumption that they don't. And in your suggestion, there is actually more reason to rush for hooks since you increase the PRESSURE on unhooking.
Edit: When I screw up 1 tiny word but the reasoning remains constant with the right analysis of your suggestion, why don't you respond to that analysis instead?
High mobility killers can quickly increase the timer and abuse this mechanic.
It creates a weird situation in which you do properly incentivise the killer to leave the hook (when nobody is nearby), but simultaneously, by making hooks go faster, you also Do incentivise for faster unhooks, which promotes camping.
Your suggestion both helps Tru3Ta1ent like players and manages to help campers at the same time.
It's quite weird when you think about it.Right now there is no penalty for unsafe unhooks except for the guy who was unhooked, which is absurd.
I agree but it's somewhat (not completely) of a separate issue, but I think this would be the 3rd variable mentioned in the OP.
If a survivor would unhook a survivor just for that survivor to be transported to another place, then that would make the un-hooker victim of their own doings.I don't say we should, but it's definitely funning thinking about it.
-
@Orion said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
You try to increase the timer of the hooking phase.Nope. Read what I actually wrote.
Oops, misspoke due to the lengty talk, but the example got it right anyways;
In vanilla: after 120 seconds (slightly less) of the others crouching up in the killer, they lose their teammate and complain.
In your version: after (as a result of your mechanic) still 120 seconds of others crouching: their teammates die and people continue to have a negative experience.Can't deny that I understand this simple (and heavily flawed) suggestion.
It doesn't address camping. Camping works just as great as always, since you mentioned that relative balance would be unaffected.
We should keep in mind that the idea is not just limited to the non-progressive hooks.
Other mechanics would come in place to make up for the lack of pressure of hooks.
You're getting it!
We simply replace the timer with location-based mechanics that alter hooking stages.The most objective one is the one suggested in the OP, which ensures that survivors aren't in god-mode on hooks when not saved.
Someone else reminded that once the exit gates are open, we need an alteration as previously Gen-Pressure was the pure response to camping.
Another person suggested on how to get hook pressure going the moment the 2nd person gets caught.We get closer and closer to simulating the original pressure, but this time without the toxic time-variable.
I'm happy that you see it.
-
@Orion said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orion said:
My first suggestion can be tested fairly easily, even in KYF, and would produce much better results, since it's actually different from what has been tried.Emblem system; people just don't care.
What about the emblem system? My suggestion has nothing to do with it.
EDIT: Right, I forgot you haven't actually read either one of my suggestions. Let me know when you do.There was a feature introduced in which they tried to make you get lower emblem points when being in proximity of the hook.
Of course, great try, but the structure that enables toxic camping is still in place, thus camping complaints remain as usually.You try to increase the timer of the hooking phase. Well, what will that achieve?
After all, didn't we cover the issue? The issue wasn't that the timer was too short in the first place.The problem is that the timer actually progresses hooking phases AT ALL.
So someone at a lower rank gets camped:
In vanilla: after 120 seconds (slightly less) of the others crouching up in the killer, they lose their teammate and complain.
In your version: after (as a result of your mechanic) still 120 seconds of others crouching: their teammates die and people continue to have a negative experience.Your solution doesn't solve anything. It just prays on the hope that killers will be so kind to abdicate on such an opportunity.
The reason for this remains simple: You kept the timer.
-
If it worked it would be in the game...
I don't believe that.
We know what a functional ranking system would look like examplified by very succesful games, yet we have a pseudo-competitive grinding system.Lack of time, perspective, resources. There are a lot of variables that may prevent something from being more optimal then it could.
Nobody should be afraid of evidence. If you believe there to be a loophole the responsibility would be on you to point it out.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
It hasn't been done. It functions and I can prove it.I can prove why the timer is inherently a bad mechanic.
How the solution is a location based hooking mechanic and how everyone silently agrees.Dude I've told you elsewhere, an idea can sound great on paper but can still fail in practice. The game is not all about math. It has been done before, it didn't work. Literally nothing you say will prove otherwise.
Well, if I can't convince you through arguments, then all I can do is show it through some sort of test build, or possibly through an organised game in which people try to simulate the effects somehow. Sadly I don't have an swf avaiable,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2dAKXsZawg