AlwaysInAGoodShape
AlwaysInAGoodShape
About
- Username
- AlwaysInAGoodShape
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,498
- Last Active
Comments
-
All your concerns are already covered in the OP (:
By removing the time limit, you take away all the time pressure from survivors, which is part of the "truetalent" way too btw. They dont need to care, knowing that their friend is perfectly fine on hook. At the moment by hooking you take 1 survivor out of the game and force another one (or even multiple in case of non swf) to go for an unhook. By elimitating the time limit, you eliminate the second part.
This was my thought at first when playing around with the idea; What reason do people have to save me? Without the time limit, we surely must have broken that incentive?
The answer, however still appears to be No, and it still appears to be; Save someone as fast as you CAN, because if you don't save 1 teammate, the 2nd will be downed. Now 2 people are hanging. What now? The killer is already working on the 3rd. 1 more step results into all 4 of you dying and nobody is booking any more progress. That is the impressive part about it!
Then there are also other problems, what about randoms that simpyl dont save you. Or what if the killer camps anyway? You can create a hostage situation really fast this way and survivors heavily disliked the slugging meta because they were forced to watch the game while bleeding out on the floor. The same will happen on hooks with such an idea, survivors being on hook for 5 minutes straight because noone comes.
As covered in the 2nd part under "slugging", we eliminate slugging in it's current state as to make it no longer a viable way of killing.
I invite you to think through this one again. It really struck me as deficient the first few times thinking through it, but it managed to keep surprising me.
In the end you have to realize that BHVR is even scared of changing little parts of the game such as DS or hatch. Such a change would drastically change the whole game...... (maybe for the better, maybe not)
They could try a version in which they simply set the hook time to 10000 seconds and tell each other not to slug as to experiment with whether this would give a satisfying effect. When all 4 are hooked at the same time, they pretend to be dead. It's a really easy low-labour experiment for them, to see if it give a desired result.
-
TL;DR
1 Variable is guilty for all frustrating camping, unsafe unhooking and game-throwing of that nature; it's the fact there's a bar that makes you progress to the next phase. On first sight it's not obviously how damaging something of such nature is, but we can solve it by completely removing that timer, effectively killing camping as a valid concept, making it so that you can only progress to next phases by either being saved and hooked again, or by having all living survivors being hooked resulting into their sacrifice.
The change of eliminating such a crucial variable also forces to also address separate issues that are unresolved. One of which are; Slugging, The new killer-versus-survivor balance, adjustments to perks/luck/hook-related-emblems, Open Gate camping and indirectly safe-zones.
All is covered in more detail in the OP.
-
@AokiiSenpaii said:
I have also talked about it in a discussion I opened yesterday. I was also proposing Survivor Based animations. Go check it out if you wanna know more. I dont want to post it all in here again :PEdit it your link. I'll make a section at the bottom of my post, showing all related topics as evidence how prominent the topic of unique survivors really is.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
Too Cheap to Spend $4 After A Year Watch Update
Still hasn't bought it. That is all.OP has already bought LF.
(But seriously, what is this topic accomplishing other than wasting space?)
To show that if the Shrine of Secrets were to serve as a fair way for people to acquire perks otherwise locked behind a paywall, then the system would need a pseudo-randomness/rotation like structure, otherwise it can create awkward abnormalities like these.
-
This thread is not satire.
This is satire;It should be relatively easy to distinguish between the 2.
In any case characters should just be for the cosmetics.
Players should be able to choose any character they identify with in combination with the perks they like.
You can already choose whatever character you want to play with. The buffs are so minor that they generally won't make a difference. If you dare to play with anything but Decisive Strike, Self-Care, Borrowed Time and Unbreakable, then you shouldn't be worried about this post, since picking 1 single slightly less meta perk is already a bigger disadvantage than missing out on getting the optimal buff.
If you play as competitively where you'd believe they'd start to make a difference, your choice is already stripped away from you anyways; you'll be playing claudette.You prove not being able to measure significance.
New players should be able to choose the character they think looks cool and not be forced to endure 40 level of Claudette, Meg, Nea, David to unlock those perks that are considered meta.
The level 40 problem is more of a problem with perk tier and teachable distribution than any inherent problems with the blood-web. Killers also have to endure this, and solving that is a thread of its own. (multiple people have already covered bits of it).
and not be forced to endure 40 level of Claudette, Meg, Nea, David to unlock those perks that are considered meta.
Upon reading it twice, I'm not even completely sure if it has anything to do with this post.
-
@scorpio said:
This just sounds like free perks.Must have been an auditory hallucination.
-
Fair point.
Though do consider this; currently if you meet a truly purely competitive(/high tier tournament) group, they will always play Claudette. You are already compelled to pick 1 character (Claudette) and this time, who you pick cannot variate based on play-style.
I'd argue that even on this level, it might actually create more diversity than it'd create sameness.
-
Increasing pips isnt going the change the fact that the killer and survivor are in the same team.
-
Thats only a valid argument for someone that can't measure significance.TigerKirby215 said:Every time this is proposed the exact same awnser is provided: if you added this everyone would play Claudette, Meg, Nea, or Kate. (And maybe Jeff) There's no reason to make someone's favorite Survivor pointless after people grinding countless Bloodpoints to level them up and also possibly spent Shards/real money to buy cosmetics for them.
No survivor becomes pointless. -
@White_Owl said:
I must say this is the first time I see this suggestion made right. I like how you thought well about the survivors personalities and abilities.
The only thing I would change is Nea's reduction of fall stuns... this often can open new loop possibilities and that's what makes Balanced Landing so good, giving it to her would give her a huge advantage in chases compared to other survivors. Personally I would change it to reduce the falling sound, which fits with her being sneaky and is more stealth-oriented.
Also Kate's passive is basically Boil Over tier 2, I think it should be toned down a bit.Changed the Nea fall-stun-time to partly reducing the noise.
Regarding Kate: I have a measurement to decide how strong a base-buff should be allowed to be. To take Claudette as an example; her 5% is about 15% of botany knowledge, meaning you'd need 6 full Claudette to get 1 single botany in base-buffs.
Of course, perks like Boil Over are significantly weaker. To not make the same balancing mistakes, we cannot apply the 15% rule to Boil Over. Instead we need the 15% rule for Kate to be 15% of the power of Botany knowledge. That is why this base-buff in particular is bigger in % of Boil Over, but that's a problem in the perk itself; not in our balance among base-buffs.
-
@Swiftblade131 said:
Good idea. As everyone is always saying"rAnK dOeSn'T mAtTeR"
This would easily solve the problem! Because why have rank, if it doesn't matter? It clearly doesn't separate completely new players, and Legacy 3 players from each other TO AN EXTENT! Not saying it's perfect, but it's better than NOTHING!
What they mainly mean by "rank doesn't matter" is that Rank 1 is not an indicator that you have reached a top x percentile of a playerbase (and thus that such credentials are invalid when trying to point out how well you understand the game).
It's really an indicator of playing frequency, which only to a certain degree translates into skill. That's what people mainly try to point out.
-
@fusky17 said:
I'm kinda new to the game on both sides killer and surviver. I dont get how people cant just play and figure it out. Like tunneling if some one is chaseng you and you go in circles why keep going around and some where else? I'm just asking it's like playing tag you go around and around of course the killer going to chase youPeople use made-up-rules or gaming-religions to "manually balance" the game to a (in their belief) desirable state. The types of doctrines surrounding camping and tunneling are thrown around to make you participate,
-
@GhostEuant said:
I doubt they’d add survivor passives but IF they do, I’d only be down for it if they enable a way to allow you to swap passives between survivors.The whole reason they don’t do passives on survivors is they want you to be able to play whatever survivor you want with whatever build. With the suggested racials, I would feel compelled to take Claudette if I want to use a healing build or Meg if I want to be the one chased a lot. People already play Claudette/Meg/Nea/Feng a lot only because they’re harder to see and this could just compound that. Maybe make it so once you prestige that character you unlock their passive bonus to be used by any other survivor?
I’m fine with their story being the reason they have their 3 perks and nothing more.
That would undermine the idea behind making characters unique. There's a very specific reason why these micro buffs are the way they are;
They are big enough to give someone a unique character.
They are small enough to be ignorable.Is the claudette really needed when running a healing build? After all, all it will save you ≈ 4.5 seconds after 3 full heals.
Or are the perks just that more crucial? Say decisive strike, one that can easily buy your team 30+ seconds of time for each survivor alive?
You can still really play whatever character you want with any build. -
Removing any form of matchmaking, even if the current matchmaking mainly matches on playing frequency, will result in good killers always dominating the match.
If a killer is 100% and 4 survivors need toform a total of 100% to be able to match that killer then even if you're a good survivor, the chances that you'll be able to win is very small: Your team might be you (30%), + 10% + 5% + 20% for a total of 65%.
This would mean that even if you are a good survivor, your chances of being matched with a good team is significantly decreased.
This creates an even bigger difference between Solo's and SWF's; not related to voice-coms, but to the degree that SWF's have control over their matchmaking, allowing them to consistently match up with good players. (30% + 30% + 30% + 30% = 120%)With no Grinding Matchmaking system (what we currently have) we'd have an even worse measurement for overall survivor balance, which would be somewhere near the 65%.
-
@BigBadPiggy said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@BigBadPiggy said:
I've made a post VERY similar to this one.
Link?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/36249/make-survivors-have-roles-to-play#latest
By the amount of attention this got, i think we're not the only ones with the idea.
Some believing this change is meant as a net-buff to survivors because'd we'd believe they are to weak.
Some others overstating the effects of having 0.15% of a perk for free on your character choice.
But the majority I think, like us, all asked the question: "What is the inherent difference between survivors", and got an unsatisfying answer. -
I know you're out there
-
@Akuma said:
it feels really annoying and sillyAlways those free wins
i mean often i just accept it, break some pallets, gens or what ever
but sometimes it's so stupidDEVS
I hope you rework the endgame to an epic fight between the goods and the bads (sometimes survivors are the bads and sometimes the killer is) i mean you can do something really crazy and complex if you want. I can wait. Just tell us if you already had an perfect idea. You dont have to tell me what it is just you're on programming this awesome #########Solving the End Game/Replacing the end game? We already know what solving the end-game looks like;
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/34870/solution-to-the-death-efficiency-problem-solving-the-games-biggest-issue/p1do you remember the stats from the devs stream? ~40% escape rate? and you know that in 9/10 potentional 4ks ONE survivor escapes through the hatch
1 from 4 = 25%
the hatch
is a big deal.This is a matchmaking fallacy. Survivors who do the same can also give the killer a pip-rate of 5%. (Marth88's experiment)
-
@BigBadPiggy said:
I've made a post VERY similar to this one.Link?
-
I have some suggestions regarding over-all balance and certain tools that allow us to easily shift the bar of balance;
Possible plan laid out in both;https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/34870/solution-to-the-death-efficiency-problem-solving-the-games-biggest-issue/p1
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/43554/the-future-of-dbd/p1As for this post, it's only relevant that the buffs are balanced among each other (and the rest mentioned in the End-Note). We assume something like this not to be put into the game without any opposite-faction response, even if in this case the changes are minimal.
-
The reason why I don't see Quentin's chest aura reading is because chests are inferior to blood-web items. I didn't mention it here but the way I see things structured is as if the code gives you +20m aura-reading on chests and turns things off when it's 0. Meaning if you'd run plunderers on top, you'd have them as addition, not 1 overriding the other. Maybe I can slide that in somewhere.
Regarding Jake: So you have a base 20% sabotage speed of what is declared as the "standard sabotaging speed". Anything higher than that overrides the 20%. The sabotage boost mentioned right after multiplies with your current sabotage speed, not the standard sabotaging speed;
(With saboteur; Overrides the 20% and; base-Sabotage-Speed * 0.5 * 1.15 = 57.5% sabotaging speed of the base-speed.I hope that explains it (:
-
Those 3 comments ^. That's basically the whole picture.
-
I think there's not a single person that hasn't had this thought randomly xD
Good idea.
-
@weirdkid5 said:
These are all pretty good, aside from Feng. Her's should be something like vault 5% faster when uninjured or something like that.That request has come up 2 times I think now. Added it to her passive.
-
In the end, we can only make assumptions about what would happen if your suggestion would be implemented. There would only be evidence after an actual implementation.
We have some reference to what it might be like; Imagine the differences between killer... and now imagine their differences being 10x as small as they in fact are (to compensate for the fact that these buffs are pretty insignificant compared to perks/unique killer abilities).
With seeing all killers a decent amount and imagining the buffs as 0.15% of a decent perk (botany = 33%, claudette has 5%), I think we really won't see that much of the same characters.
Not only can you win the match without a perk; you can easily do without 0.15% of 1 perk (:
-
39:56
If this is the change that you see, then it's indeed simply an updated texture.
-
Do you mean that the aura of the hooks grows the closer it gets to 99% or that it's only revealed when it's broken?
If it's the first, then good idea!
-
What about slowing down the needle slightly for Skill Checks? "Your Skill Checks are X% slower." or something.
I think it would be too close to the Feng Min example, as they'd achieve the same.
I'll have to look at Adams wiki to see if there's any inspiration in his background story. -
Gen rushing was originally a term used to describe the broken Brand New Part, playstyle.
After that was fixed, it became the general term to describe the unbalanced speed at which a coordinated team of survivors can complete generators.There are a lot of bad players that quickly throw around the term, so you can be sure that you're more often called a gen-rusher than you are actually rushing gens. Neither is rushing gens anything inherently bad; it's what you should be doing.
They indirectly ask you to play as if a certain balance patch was in place. Just don't give in to that. -
@NoShinyPony said:
I'm not a big fan of giving survivors their own specific abilities. In the end, one ability is stronger than the other and therefore one survivor would be played more often than the others.One ability is not always stronger. They offer different routes to milking their possible value. How survivors utilise this value and how killers can lower it is a point of opportunity for both sides.
Sure, we already have a lot of Claudettes at the moment but still a lot of the other survs are getting played. I'm afraid that would change and lobbys would look more monotonous.
There could actually be less of Claudettes indeed, dependent on the buffs, but there is little evidence that minuscule buffs would alter their choice in any circumstance.
Because there is purpose to their buffs. (Dwight when teaming, Jake for sabo builds where saboteur isn't ran, Megs for Exhaustion builds, Feng when they keep failing Ruin and David Tapp when you become irritated with NOED.)
Because your choice is optimal in different play-styles, who you pick also changes (if you pick survivors for this reason, instead of their skin/visibility)
Characters like Quentin and Tapp in the examples are also more effective when there's a 1 of in your team, further promoting character pick diversity. (Dwights are an exception because they synergise. That might actually become a new meme.)
-
We are not discussing Survivor-killer balance here. This is not an isolated thread. The over-all balance of the game is irrelevant to this discussion. It wouldn't even have mattered if killers had 1000% movement-speed. We are exclusively discussing the ideas mentioned in the end note.
Faction balance is relative.
-
This is a good suggestion. @weirdkid5 points out that it wouldn't solve your ability to always identify the right person, but such a fact doesn't take away from your improving suggestion of course.
-
@TAG said:
Idk how I feel about that. Could be bad if you are not using Autodidact and/or if there are Killer perks in play that can muck around with Skill Checks.Do you have an alternative? I personally find his 3 perks hard to use when trying to come up with a suitable buff.
-
- Feng's boost should be given to a base game survivor. Easier skill checks would naturally appeal to someone who's new to the game, not someone who has already gone out and bought DLCs. The Spark of Madness chapter is a paid DLC on PC.
I see where you're coming from. Feng indeed (looking at perks like Technician) do appear to be targeted towards noobs and it's not optimal to have her being paid on PC.
Although, as subtle as things can be, as a possible micro increase of Feng Min sales, I think it's something we can safely get away with.- Kate's bonus should probably be replaced. 5% faster wiggle time may not seem like much, but with the hook distribution it can make the difference between a hook and a wiggle quite a few times. I'm sure anyone who's played a good amount of survivor has had a bunch of instances where they 99% wiggled and then get hooked. Generally speaking, it's very hard to touch wiggle speed without creating loads of deadzones, especially if you start mixing in sabotaging and bodyblocking.
Yep, this always is a scary one. That wild and resisting persona fits her very well. Removed her 5% for an alternative.
Something else to keep in mind for Jeff is that this would double as a built in bond, albeit a weaker one.
A mind for details. I hope their code is structured well enough that they have a reference to what counts as "normal speed", which should be changed conditionally for Jeff alone. If their code is organised, this should be simple.
Since you picked up on that, you might have a mind too for what the effects are for having Bill now have a unique ability not attainable on console, where previously his perks were. I don't yet have a proper answer to that.
-
I appreciate buffing the numbers for Feng but its still really, really bad. I mean, there is barely any difference with This is Not Happening as it is. Having a built-in This is Not Happening just...sucks. Compared to the other survivor's passives I think her's is the worst. I think it would be fair to make her vault things faster instead.
Aces and Quentins are a LOT better now though, I think they're really nice. I like the idea of passives for survivors but like @Theluckyboi said, everyones would have to be completely equal in how good they are because tier lists for survivors would suck.Do realise:
Hitting a great skillchecks gives you +2% instantly. If you hit a great skill-check on even 1 generator that you otherwise wouldn't have hit, then it would already be the same as having a 2% increased generator time like the rest of the characters. For every great skillcheck you git extra, you increase that bonus by a 100%.For every Hex: Ruin skill-check you hit as a result, you save yourself 7 seconds. It's easy to underrate this one (:
-
@Cake1100 said:
If you're going to add passives, making them more efficient and better them perks is not the right way to do it.Which passive do you consider stronger than a normal perk?
-
@makayla said:
Feng Mins is awful to be honest. This is Not Happening increases skill check sizes by 30% and even that is barely noticeable. I think she should vault windows faster by 10% or so. That wouldn't be horrible. Maybe on top of that, when failing a generator skillcheck, there is a 25% chance there'd be no loud noise notification?Increased it from 10 to 30%. Even though This is not happening isn't ran very often, because of its awkward condition, I think having it as a base ability might just be enough to make it work.
Quentins is also kinda bad, but I wouldn't mind it if he got a garunteed yellow medkit when searching for the first time or something like that.
I deliberately keep the aura reading low to match the Pharmacy concept and emergency. I will add something on top of it.
As for Ace, 2% luck is really bad, but I don't really have any ideas for him since his whole thing is luck.
Changed it. I tried a risky one this time around.
-
@Ihatelife said:
Nea should get +10% faster movement speed while crouching. so with the urban it would be 110%I was afraid that it could cause complains regarding the effectiveness people can safely circle around objects. Which is why I use the increase in walking-speed, allowing killers more often the ability to see someone sneaking away. I'll keep an eye on people's response to your comment.
-
@Milo said:
I guess their low numbers aren't broken and aren't meta changing.
But i don't quite understand why Jeff gets his bonus when he's alone (is it lore or something?)Yes, he's the quite type of guy (:
https://deadbydaylight.gamepedia.com/Jeffrey_"Jeff"_Johansen
-
@Zagrid said:
Unbalanced AF and a lot of the suggestions are just perks or better versions of perks we already have.If you refer to balance between survivors and killers;
We do not discuss appropriate killer buffs here. We only care about the buffs competing with each other. -
@FalseFroggs said:
Really like these ideas, though David needs something else, not sure what... Maybe give Jake the sabotage thing, remove the "breathing and injured noise is reduced by 10%" and give it to David? Or give David an x% faster speed while pulling teammates off the hook or something?
When I first started playing this game, I was super confused as to why the Survivors and Killers didn't already have a "basic" skill that didn't take up a perk slot - what was the point of playing a certain character if you can just get the skill you want from them and stick it onto another survivor?Upon frequent feedback surrounding his ms buff, I changed his identity to farming. Escaping grants him a total increase in BP.
What do you guys think?
-
@Thatbrownmonster said:
it was said before and ill say againwon't happen
even if it's a 1% change, people will start focusing only playing as 1 survivor instead of others
I'm assuming you're talking about David King?
In order for the 0.75% to be value, it has exactly to be that window where'd you'd otherwise be hit for it to be valuable. More often that not will it translate into little to no value and where it does, you deserve it.
If you run through the map, for say,100 meters, then all it's going to differ is 0.75 meter.
I think the 0.75% is more quickly overrated than underrated.
-
Yeah I like this idea but I also think David need something else. Maybe when injured he can move a little faster.
I like that version more. I'll add it as his replacement (:
You should have this added to the balance section or wishlist.
I don't perse want this exact version to be implemented. It's more about opening up the conversation and giving precise examples. It's just about starting a... general discussion (pun intended).
-
Yes, together with autodidact synergy goes well with his concept of mastery.TAG said:Why increased Skill Checks as Adam? Is it so you have more chances of hitting Great Skill checks or something?
-
I actually found the original design of Left Behind very inspiring. It's a perk that is supposed to give you hope when you need it most.
There was a problem with it though; the more gens are not completed the faster it is, which would have you desire that barely any gens are completed so that you can 99% all of them.
But since regression is a thing and the game typically replaces itself with the hatch there's rarely a point.So could it be more useful when it would partly activate when there are 2 players alive? Or even 3? After all it's a perk based on survivor-death. Since the same suggests a no, we shouldn't. But that would actually be what made it actually have a purpose.
Typically when only 2 survivors are alive, your team's efficiency drops to 0, sometimes even at 3 alive.
That is how this perk originally brought me on the idea to use this train of thoughts to solve Death-Efficiency, and have the original thought behind Left Behind built into the survivor's base kit, while increasing base generator times.
If the Devs would agree on such a solution and want to fix the mid- to late-game then it's too soon to rework Left Behind, as most of it's concept would become non-unique.
That's why I think it's to soon to rework this perk, or for the time being, they could at least make it so that you always get a 125% generator repair speed so that perhaps you could actually attempts to complete the game without the hatch.
-
I like the injured idea better, and having it persist for dead survivors already makes the terrible late-game for survivors worse.
If you want thanatopobhia buffed while having death still be a factor yet keeping it healthy then try:
Thanatophobia:
For each Injured, Dying or hooked Survivor, survivors gain: 3/4/5 % reduced action speed.
For each dead survivor add + 4% reduced action speed when at least 1 survivor is injured.
That would mean that if everybody is healthy, the dead survivor wouldn't negatively effect the game, but if someone is injured they would.
-
The meme is funny, but it's untrue.
What people really want is a very deep and sophisticated mastery cap, meaning that if they get owned, they know that there is a route to learning and to overcome that frustration.
When they know they can no longer overcome certain frustrations and challenges, that is typically where the valid complaining starts.
(excluding complaining from youngsters, because it's second nature to them.) -
Ok, so with the current state of Ruin, I basically just think of it a "noobstomper" type ability. IE basically something that works **insanely **well against newer/lower level players, but does next to nothing against higher level players
I really wish they would make a Hex: Ruin totem default so killers don't have to waste a perk on something that is gone right away 4/5 times.
This combination. Both of you nail it perfectly. All we need for something like that to be justifiable, we need to simply increase generator time without any perks and allow survivors to have an increased repair efficiency PER survivor death so that they don't become as hopeless after 1 person dies.
Both sides would have a better experience.
-
A quick temporary fix, but a welcome one. Helps with dribbling non-obsession survivors. Why not.
-
@Okapi said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Master said:
If the ranking system worked properly, then it should be basically impossible to become rank 1 as freddyThe problem with the idea of making the ranking system actually a skill based rank system is that then the whole game would fall apart due to balance problems. Now they are kinda hidden besides all the potato players at rank 1
Do you mean balance problems among killers specifically, among killer-vs-survivors or else?
If the ranking system was solely based on skill no one would reach rank 1 but Nurses and genrush SWF teams. As of right now you can rank up playing a killer like Legion without even killing anyone! The devs refuse to deal with the major balance issues. Their ranking system is more a measure of how much hours you've spent into DbD than anything. It only really means anything once you get to ranks 5-10 and then the meta and killer tier list will decided if you rank up or not.
I mean I agree that DBD has more of a grinding system than a ranking system. I just asked, because
then it should be basically impossible to become rank 1 as freddy
no one would reach rank 1 but Nurses and genrush SWF teamsare false statements depending on how you do your ranking systems and depending on how my question is answered.
-
This statement here tells me otherwise. It's never that simple.
It's close to being that simple. Of course such a statement is going to have something within the blocks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv340yni8Xg&t=