AlwaysInAGoodShape
AlwaysInAGoodShape
About
- Username
- AlwaysInAGoodShape
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,498
- Last Active
Comments
-
@powerbats said:
Ok what are your suggestions to replace it then, you want to remove something but don't have anything to replace it.I've already worked that one out, for those wanting to go into the "Real Ranking system suitable for an asymmetrical game" direction;
Rank absolutely doesn't measure skill. Dead By Daylight doesn't even have a ranking system. Nobody has a rank. Nobody is placed in a rank domain. Everyone can be rank 1 at the same time and both the killer and survivor can win in the exact same match. (They aren't even opponents)
Dead by daylights "ranking system" is a seasonal grinding system with a non-competitive axis.
If you make the rank reset a yearly reset then the vast majority will be rank 1.@ModernFable is completely right and every symptom proves it.
-
@Star99er
I get that. What you suggested is that a hex totem shouldn't light up/be attached, before it starts taking effect, similar to noed.
This would mean that lullaby becomes a hex upon your first hook + first appearing skillcheck.
Devour hope would only become a hex once survivors made a sort of safe unhook.
Hex ruin wouldnt be visible up until the 1st generator skillcheck appears, etc.
With the underlying consistency that a hex perk should only become a hex ONCE it has started to take effect, which is a great idea.
It doesn't matter if you only meant it for token hex perks. It works for all hex perks as it did for NOED.
Imagine that one burning from the start. -
I Kate Neaver stop myself from Fengtisizing about you, cus I'm so Meg-a in love that I clauden'tte Quentify my love even if I Tapped into that memory that Viscontinuously on my mind with the ideal picture of my Billoved you.
-
@HellDescent said:
Doesn't really matter they are going to be changed soon?
-
@Vietfox said:
Because they got a good map pressure with the current gen speed. If we increase the time it takes to repair gens that means we are buffing them indirectly.That is why instant generator damage should be linked to a bar that slowly refills. The fuller the bar is, the higher the instant damage.
This means that if you have a near infinite amount of movement speed, you wouldn't even be able to abuse the instant generator damage mechanic.
This also means that if you're a stronger killer, you also wouldn't get more out of it. (Unlike Pop Goes The Weasel)
From:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/34870/solution-to-the-death-efficiency-problem-solving-the-games-biggest-issue/p1
The Terror Bar mechanic.With that in place, what OP proposes becomes very workable with and is a more skill-full solution for killers rather then going with something as simple as increasing generator time.
-
@XavierBoah17 said:
Idk how many spawns there are but there are always 5 totems per match. Hex and dull (if your using a hex totem)Yes, for this question I mean total (possible) spawn points specifically, as this tells us how much spots there are left to spawn other tiny assets on that we can yet invent.
-
Yeah, either that or Lullaby and Devour Hope shouldn’t become hex totems until you get your first token for it.
That's a funny suggestion actually. If normal hex perks would work like NOED and only turn on (or not at all if all dull totems are gone) when the power has started to take effect.
Your suggestion would mean that in the beginning of the match, the Hex: Ruin totem wouldn't even have to burn, meaning you can't spawn right next to it.
It would only turn on at the exact moment someone would receive their first skill-check.Your suggestion would completely obliterate the current system that the devs are working on, in which they try to draw lines between survivors and all dull totems to see which ones are in Line Of Sight to prevent them spawning in the vision of a survivor.
That's hilarious. Good job. You outdid the Devs on that one.
-
Might have switched to blendette by accident.
-
I appreciate your effort at supporting a positive mentality, but I do believe you got this wrong:
Killers want to kill every survivor and don’t like DS nor Flashlight Claudettes.
Survivors want to escape and don’t like mori nor camping/tunneling.They actually don't want this. They want the opposite:
Killers do not want to have everybody escape when they aren't 4king.
Survivors do not ALL want to die when they are not massively progressing.This is caused by the Death-Efficiency problem; Either the killer fails to make a first kill quickly enough and all the survivors will power the gens at an incredible speed/The killer does get a quickly kill and that kill spirals into the death of all;
Round 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MaXa8LRyg&t=37sGame 1: Death-Efficiency ruling in the Survivor's favour.
Game 2: Death-Efficiency ruling in the Killer's favour.Round 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnLB_lCoNgE&t=46sGame1: Death-Efficiency ruling in the Survivor's favour.
Game 2: Death-Efficiency ruling in the Killer's favour.Round 5:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1LP4XlpBTE&t=45sGame1: Death-Efficiency ruling in the Survivor's favour.
Game 2: Death-Efficiency ruling in the Killer's favour.Because this game always leads to the extremes on either side, you either have a normally neglected easy win, or a terrible loss, and since you'll remember negative experience better, you continuously are effected by this extreme negative experience.
If you understand this basic psychological premise, then you see that the way to solve this is by allowing there to be less extremes as a result, which can be achieved through creating less player-dependancy among survivors, and nerfing survivors in their base state.
(for more information on the topic;)
Promoting "just chill and don't stress! Play for fun" mentalities are of course kind and innocent, but they will ultimately not lead to an actual change in results.
Kind words or prayers cannot outdo medicine, but in order for there to be medicine, you first need to understand the disease.
-
@JohnTed said:
They don't have useful perks at beginning., only one maybe. But they need to face many full perks', and rank hacked killers. How can they enjoy the game?You are right.
- Not having access to 4 perk slots in the beginning.
- Having to nearly FULLY level 4 characters to even get your first build going.
- Having to get through 3 tiers of a perk before you get the final perk
is ridiculous and doesn't benefit anyone.
Because all 3 teach-ables are thought at the higher levels, you basically don't have any real build you want, up until you finally levels up 4 characters, and then suddenly you have a lot of builds and gain them more quickly for newer ones. This is anti-beginner.
You wanting to unlock your characters as quick as possible also prevents you from actually picking the add-ons and such that you want, since you only pick the cheapest, making it so that you don't really use the blood-web the way it's intended to FOR THE BIGGEST TIME of you playing this game.
And there is no purpose to Perk tiers. It just causes more writing on the gamepedia explaining the numbers. Not only that but some are so much weaker than their earlier version that the perk just isn't very usable at lower tiers. Whereas Urban only increases about +6% per tier, Premonition increases about a 100% per tier.
Why these ridiculous disparities?There are a bunch of those highly questionable decisions like that in this game.
Similar decision making in games like League of Legends like you having to unlock masteries based on reaching level 30 and having to unlock ruines have both been eliminated and replaced from a system that unlocks everything from the beginning as it should.
And so should we.
-
You know, I think I would be fine with a 50 rank system similar to the current, but they would have to be careful with matchmaking so as not to destroy matchmaking. Increasing the rank ladder would help some in discerning the quality or frequency of play in players.
50 Ranks wouldn't help either. It would just make the grind longer.
What they need to do is make the game killer-vs-survivor (not killer and survivor being able to win during the same match) and then matching survivors on a ranked ladder against one another and the same for killers.
A range of such ladder would be what we call a rank domain; ""Rank 1, Rank 2, etc).That way overall balance wouldn't matter and through ELO, long matchmaking queue's could be negated quite well.
-
@HURRI_KAIN said:
Isn't the fact that a strong player like Tru3, who often 4ks can still lose a game an indication that the game is* balanced? Not to mention the obvious, no addons, no perks, and he played poorly tunneling laurie, and ignored the pallet save possibility completely.It's an indicater that the rank system is a seasonal grind, and that rank 1 is not a category for the Top x percentile of the players and that as a result, a lot of good and bad players all find themselves under the same banner; rank 1, meaning that you can consistently 4k or escape with both factions when you are good at the game.
This is not a sign of game balance. It's just a sign of a non-functional ranking system.
-
I disagree with your solution.
Of course, you define the problem purely by the Check-mate phenomenon, where the killer cannot hit the survivors and the survivor cannot jump in.
And this is where I think things go wrong: The problem doesn't start here in my view. It started before the hatch was ever introduced into the game;
Before there was a hatch, games in which 2/3 people were dead, inevitable escalate into the death of the last few survivors who now by their own, have to do sometimes triple the amount of generators alone then their entire team was able to do, and this leads into something very un fun;
You don't want to lose before you are dead.
So what is the problem? The first problem is that the death of teammates caused such a great amount of damage in the ability of the team to repair generators that you as a team become dependent on the state in which 4 survivors are alive. Often after the death of just 1 survivor, you can expect the death of all.
Now here's the second problem: We know that the game becomes DYSFUNCTIONAL once 1(sometimes 2) survivor(s) die(s). Instead of fixing this disproportional damage to a teams efficiency after the death of 1 survivor. we got the hatch, which basically is a mini-game that is there to replace the dysfunctional main game.
Problem 3: Since your chance to die rises tremendously for every survivor that dies, we suddenly create a jump up in survival chance once only 1 survivor lives. Which results it: When there are 2 survivors alive, they have to wait for each other's death in order to get their replacement game.
Problem 4: Because the hatch is born out of the need for there to be a chance at winning, it practically needs to be close to a free win. Unless we solve the problems that caused it.
Problem 5: There is a check-mate problem.
Now, your solution tries to add to the replacement of the dysfunctional main game, and that by trying to have you complete 1 generator:
You are likely NOT going to be able to finish your generator. Even less so if your team finished a lot of those and there are only few that the killer has to patrol.
Because your teams generator efficiency plunders while the killers regression ability doesn't, you will likely see more regression than progression.
Albeit why I suggest instead doing the most standard thing you can do regarding check-mate scenario's for both the hatch AND the gate:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/39771/bloodwarden-for-free-on-every-killer/p1
This would count for the hatch as well, and allows the killer to always hit survivors without it being a mistake.
Killers can still grab survivors out of the hatch, but survivors can no longer afford to stand right next to the killer.And to solve what I mentioned to be problem 1,2,3:
And by then, the hatch doesn't have to be a free escape and neither is it necessary. With the basic check-mate scenario's eliminated, we can then discuss the purpose of the hatch, as it's no longer about replacing the main game.
That is how I think the hatch is solved. -
I may have missed this part but once you use one of these hooks that cause an effect is that the only time it happens? Like those special hooks are a one time use whether someone was sacrificed on them or not?
There are 2 effects as the Choice hook has 2 hooks.
Upon hooking someone there for the first time, the other hook will be broken for the rest of the match. The effect of the Special hook however will remain, meaning that if they aren't sabotaged and survivors die in it a close area, then the killer can use that effect multiple times, and without a proper response from survivors:
The Bloody hook.
The killer permanently gains +0.75% extra movement-speed.the effect of that can be devastating.
-
At rank 20, yes. At rank 1, 40%, but the escape rate at rank 1 doesn't represent the escape rate of the Top percentile of the playerbase.
Here is why their statistics are fallicious:
And that is why custom statistics by great survivors (Marth88's experiment) result into a 5% pip-rate for killers at rank 1, without a single 4k in about (I think) 300 games.
-
The stats are a collection from Marth88's experiments and collection of statistics from over 300+ games recorded on youtube (Google Spreadsheet), together with escape rate statistics from the Dev stream.
-
This is not about buffing or nerfing either side, or about the belief that either side is too strong.
This part is about introducing more dynamic gameplay elements to the killer faction, which requires the killer's decision making and planning.
If you evaluate the current killer strength as 100% and survivor strength as 100%, and we would add the Choice hook, increasing killer's power by 10% to 110% then that'd require us to balance survivors out along the lines of that, buffing them up by a 10%.Now, see, the devil is in the detail. If killers actually need to utilise this mechanic properly and thus demanding planning and skill not always present where as the +10% survivor buff is readily available, then the Hook Buff resulted in a killer nerf among lower ranks; exactly the effect we are looking for;
We work towards making the Blue and the Red line overlapping, and yes, contrary to initial instinct, this might mean that you have to buff killers in a way that only allows their power to be properly utilised by players with experience, thus you must increase the complex mechanics for killers in order to match the learning curve. -
@redsopine01 said:
I would say change the Seth hook to a instant hook on the rescuer but if it's a obsession that's hooked they instantly dieI see what you're trying to do there xD
-
@Tru3Lemon said:
more survivor nerf and more killer buff nah wont happendPower between factions is relative. Pick a cool survivor buff Idea out of the bunch and throw it in the same PTB patch.
-
@tt_ivi_99 said:
I really like everything here except the "gens malfunction", instead It should be an x% of slower repairing speed to all survivors for 1-2 minsThe point of the Pressure hook was to create a hook that prevents camping, while also creating a moment in which suddenly stealth is very valid, since everyone can hide, since nobody has to unhook anyone, creating moments we don't usually see, but
an x% of slower repairing speed to all survivors for 1-2 mins
Also sounds balanced!
-
@ChesterTheMolester said:
They won't, they are working on reducing the grind.Thee only thing that makes it a grind is the fact that you only can get 1 perk (TIERRRR) per bloodweb. That's honestly the only thing that needs solving.
-
@XavierBoah17 said:
So when working on a gen, Filling up that blue-ish pointer instantly completes 50% of that gen?No. Your progression bar has a standard condition. For example: A generator requires you to sit on it for 80 seconds.
There are 2 main pointers we can use: The vertical progress bar or the condition pointer.
Let's say we use the condition pointer (which doesn't affect the progress bar but just enables something else):
If you reach 50% of a generator, it's noise will be reduced. (if it falls below 50% then the noise will return.)(This would be very usable on generators)If it's a vertical progress bar pointer, then it'll most likely not be on a generator, since generators don't have special conditions for you needing to fill the basic progress bar. (:
-
@BACKSTABBER said:
Broken? Funny? balanced? I feel it would be more funnyWhat happens when you have more than 5 Hex Perks? do you get like a Sales Coupon for not being able to have the other few spawn?
-
@Fizz said:
I can see what your saying but still, Why add to it. If you enjoy the game, do what you can while playing to not be part of the problem. If your part of the problem then as far as I'm concerned I have no time for you.Part of the problem? I made sure that I got a lot of BP's consistently. I did exactly what the Blood-point Category motivates me to do in order to unlock teachables. (I probably got more BP than my teammates. Who's throwing now?)
I literally played to score Bp, and since rank is meaningless and BP is the only meaningful reward system, I don't see anything wrong with what I did.
The fun fact is that if everybody started to do the same, then the sabo thing might actually start to work xD
-
@Fizz said:
Firstly, It wouldn't matter what system they had in place, people would find a reason to dislike it one that replaced it and secondly why would you wanna add more? If you like this game then do what you can to be part of the solution not the problem.it does matter what system they have in place. A real ranking systems filters out non-optimal/bad-sports in the higher ranks and good teammates in lower ranks will be able to perform better then their trolling teammembers and thus climb up to higher ranks as well, pushing "toxicity" to the bottom of the ranks.
You can't do that if your "ranking" system is just a grind system.
-
@Fizz said:
In a game that has so much toxicity as it is. You want to encourage more?Yes.
And maybe after a year people start realising that this "toxicity" has literally been coded into the game under the name: Bloodpoint categories and Emblems.
Edit: And the "ranking" system.
-
@PolarBear said:
I'm not gonna do this. This is what people would call "toxic". You aren't helping your team and basically just throwing.Everybody throws. Even the Devs throw when playing this game. Barely anyone sides with the killer and everybody misses out on guaranteed double pips as a result.
I did not create this ridiculous rewarding system, I promise you.
-
@PolarBear said:
Ok so farm players and don't do the objective. What a fun time for your teammates.If you want to do the objective, I recommmend: Switch out premonition for Left Behind. Now you can probably nearly earn your objective points and scores twice as fast (:
-
Best map: The pale rose - Backwater swamp
Worst map: Haddonfield. (I really dislike the fences, making the entire map so awkward from otherwise being a pretty cool environment. -
I actually just wanted to sabo and realised the pip system doesnt work on saboing.Jigmac said:And you want to depip just to play against newbie killers so you can stomp them? -
1: I forgot about that one since i think of it as you're still basically exposed and most of the time killers get you so good catch.
2: That's not always accurate though, a good killer can change their angle to chase you where they want you to go and they decide when to hit and not to hit. Think of an M1 killer they have to decide when to swing and down that survivor.
3: The only time the survivor gets to decide is when both sides are farming, and when they run to the corner of the map to frustrate the killer.
4: That's still incorrect unless you magically find all 4 standing there twiddling their thumbs while they wait for you to get DS stunned. Most of the time the others are further away doing gens, breaking totems and searching through chests.
4: Yes it can buy you more time or it can help the killer tremendously because people rush in for a save or as a distraction. I've also rarely seen a 4 man swf with all 4 havin DS and when I've faced them I still get 2-4k usually.
5: That's incorrect since DS is a wasted perk slot really and it's not the best thing in the game for all the reasons both I and others have listed. The only pseudo fallacies here are the ones you're using since plenty of survivors don't run DS and do just fine.
6: Now don't start with rank means nothing nonsense or that the killers are potatoes because there's lots of good players at rank one that belong there because they know how to play.
7: I could care less about the Red Herring licensed perk nonsense or what Tru says because as some killer mains on here have said. He's just a streamer so his opinion doesn't mean that much or they do when you reference a streamer that says something they disagree with.
8: I choose to run or not to run perks based upon my playstyle and what I feel best suits how i'm trying to play at that time. I don't go off of whether someone says don't use it or use it nonsense and neither do a lot of others.
9: If you're going to use him as an example you might as well use he who shall not be named as an example of people promoting something and their followers making themselves proud for following his example.
1: Correction: most good killers get bad survivors so good catch. Good killers don't get good survivors. Instead, the survivors get an extra chance at a chase for 10+ seconds and for every second, other survivors can get 3 times that amount of gGn time done. A Chase lasting 13.33 seconds? Oops, that perk just bought them half a generator.
2: Good survivors can also change their angle when good killers change their angle, or abandon the spot where the killer mindgames themselves.
3: The survivor is the only one that controls their position, up until they are picked up. The survivor can only due to a mistake die at a position unintended, but they there they still controlled every position for them possibly to die on.
4: Your point is that when survivors are not moving they don't gain distance? I'll promise you, that works the same way for adrenaline.
If a killer runs after 4 survivors in a straight line and 1 gains a sprint-burst, then only 1 gained increased distance from that killer.
If a killer runs after 4 survivors in a straight line and gets stunned, 4 survivors gain increased distance from that killer.5: Marth88's statistics would like to have a talk with you.
5: I'm using a fallacy? "Plenty of survivors don't run DS and do fine". That is NOT EVIDENCE of DS being weak. ITS LITERALLY EVIDENCE of DBD having a fake ranking system. A good survivor will do well WITHOUT ANY PERKS, due to the fake ranking system that matched bad players with good players and lacks a rank-domain.6:
Me: The fact that you have a drivers license doesn't mean you're a pro racer.You: Now don't start with drivers licenses are meaningless nonsense or that drivers are potatoes because there's lots of good pro-racers that have a drivers license and deserve to have one because they know how to drive.
Me:
7: Your point is? I don't remember my point being that you did what he says. I'm saying that he and other influence a lot of other people not to use it, and evidently for this reason, they do. It's not because they are submissive/stupid, but because at their own hands they "fix" the game through such a social contract.
8: True has a lot of subscribers. Others do care.
9: And that's the reason why we also see highly motivated SWF teams with flashlights and the whole package. Because they do have influence.
extra 10:
I hope we're not still pretending that DBD has a ranking system, when everybody can be rank 1 at the same time. Delete the rank reset so playing frequency is eliminated and nearly everybody that plays the game will be rank 1.You don't have the Olympic games when everybody can have the golden metal at the same time.
You don't have a football match if both teams get to win during the same match.And death by daylight's "ranking" system (cough, seasonal grinding system) has both of those anti-rank principles.
But since I already covered this: -
Since when did DS heal you a healthstate since you're still in the injured state when the killer drops you.
You are in the dying state when the killer grabs you.
Yes it does but if you're good they don't make it far and if you planned ahead you're downed them close to a hook, dribbled them, made them fall where you want etc. The smart ones which aren't as common are the ones that wait until the gates are open.
Survivors control where they die.
No it doesn't because that would require the entire team to be using it and each person being downed and use it. That is unless you're standing around after initiating a chase each time to give them extra distance.
It only requires 1. The killer is stunned while every survivor (whether they have DS or not), gain distance.
That technically correct and incorrect since if you get slugged you can't use it, you get dribbled near a hook you can't use it, you're the obsession and killer has Rancor. You're also forgetting if you don't use it before you've been hooked and the killer has a mori you don't get to use it.
Dribbling still buys you time. Dribbling makes things even worse if you get it off. Adds a secret bonus to power. Organised survivors (whether SWF or not) can get everyone's DS off if they want to.
Is it a problem and needs to be addressed yes, is it completely game breaking no since if it was it'd be in every loadout in every game.
It doesn't have to be in every load-out because DBD doesn't have a real ranking system that would otherwise mandate you to play with the best available, and if it had, you'd see a whole lot more DS and a whole lot less "Look rank 1 without perks". That is just the pseudo-rank fallacy. Since no perks are required at higher ranks, no perk could be OP by that logic, because there's never a need to run them.
To add to that is: DS is a licensed killer perk + opinion makers like Tru3Talent promote an anti-DS incentive that makes people proud of not using the perk, so they deliberately avoid it
-
Pirate Build:
Heal yourself in less than 10 seconds build:
Can switch out Ace in the hole for Streetwise/PlunderersWhere the hell did he go?! Build:
-
@BlackReaper said:
its a really good idea but, to put some major changes in the ptb they must do it, and major changes takes a lot of time and they waste work and time on some potencial changes instead optimisation of frame rate and the graphic engine.
This could be a possibility when they get a large enough team to work on that.Something comes at the cost of something else, basic economics, yep.
But when they do, I hope they get coders, excelling at mathematics (:
-
@XavierBoah17 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape The Memoir Build should not reward survivors for a killed survivor. A killed survivor should be what it is now...a loss of another person.It doesn't have to. Only when the Death-Efficiency curve is bent upwards and surpasses the efficiency at the highest normal efficiency at any survivor count, do survivors benefit from losing a teammate;
y = 3 survivors working on a generator (100%, thus max 133% with 4))
X = amount of dead survivors.
Everything would have to surpass the 1st dot in height.I believe the death of a teammate should make things harder. But what I don't believe is that the first kill should consistently spiral into the death of all.
This is what I mean by misconceptions.
-
Well, here is the dilemma:
In DBD (or basically anywhere), there is such a thing as a "debate". A debate has a topic, a debate can be started, a debate can progress and a debate can be settled.
In DBD there are a lot of debates:
The Hatch Debate
The Safe-Zone Debate (Related to open gates)
The Killer-VS survivor debate (branching into "This perk is OP" debates)
The Solo SWF gap debate, etc.
Allowing for Skill Debate/Unintended mechanics Debate (Which are in opposition of each other, but not inherently)
The Flashlight debate
The Rank debate (With children like the DC-debate, et al)
The Camp/Tunnel Debate
The immersion Debate
etc. etc.Now to take the Solo SWF gap debate. I remember making a post about a stealth feature telling you when your teammates are in a chase. I argued that in order to have an objective measure for survivor-power, we'd have to close the gap between Solo's and SWF's, as it's impossible to have 1 objective strength for killers (if they were equally balanced) matching against 2 different heights of strength of survivors.
Now in this debate, thesuicidefox frequently repeated that he didn't like increased communication. I reminded him that by ignoring it, you wouldn't close the gap and that he didn't come up with arguments why not solving the gap and having more blindness/immersion would be better than the other way around and why he had a "base-game bias".
But to check the point for myself, I made a poll asking for the votes between blindness(immersion) and increased communication (aura reading) and as evidence proved, the majority ruled in thesuicidefox's favour in the manner which people find the game most enjoyable.
This told me that the debate is settled: The Solo-VS-SWF gap cannot be solved through such communication methods that hinder immersion and have to be solved through different methods.
This brought me to the idea to solve it through the ranking system, by creating solving what I call (the non-competitive-axis,(meaning that if 1 represents a win and 0 represents a loss, the game can end in more than 1 win, as if an object can rotate in more then 1 direction at the same time, which should and is impossible)
while adding an ELO that incalculates the disproportional win-rate of SWF's to make their win similarly proporionally underwarding to that disproportion.
Now to me, the Solo-VS-SWF debate has moved forward, and undeniably against my post about the Stealth Feature, but I built on this progression.
This is mainly the purpose of the mega posts. They aren't really a "posts". They are the full formulation of a debate to the max degree it has developed.
I think I've made over 30+ posts now, and I've only linked about 3 posts more then 1, and those exact posts are mega posts that formulate a debate. (Typically I include 1 chapter with a possible solution, and this solution too confronted with the collective rebuttals and complains that I have found around a topic before creating it.
So the question is; how do you move forward in a debate, if instead of us creating a highly developed futuristic society (through linking non-rebutted posts), most of us don't keep track of our progression and keep reinventing the wheel instead?
What if an idea persists the criticism of 50 people? Alright, let's try a 100. Now what about a 1000? Such a system doesn't exit on forums typically. Instead posts become history.
Now what if you write a post in which you give a rebuttal of a systemic misunderstanding, like the Death-Efficiency problem, in which is shown why in order to rework the hatch, you must first understand why the hatch exit (to tackle death-efficiency), which could completely change what you believe is the purpose of the hatch. If the hatch is there to solve an otherwise impossible win, then it has to be a free escape! If the hatch is just another cool way to escape but has difficult conditions, then perhaps death-efficiency should be solved! With that in mind the only issue left with the hatch is the safe-zone/checkmate effect (Hatch standoff).
So what do you do when you read multiple "Hatch-Rework" posts, when you quickly find that they are all the same misunderstanding; not knowing that the hatch is supposed to be a nearly free escape as a result?
When people post reworks about the rank-issue and do not understand that the survivors and killer are 1 team, that the core issue is not "The amount you need for a pip/double pip should just be increased!".
If people are allowed to keep reinventing the wheel, then why should I not keep showing them how to make a cart out of it? Should I instead rephrase is (which summarises a huge chuck of forum arguments), or just copy paste the section linked?
They re-start the debate and I keep linking step 2 (and 3,4,5,6,7).In cases where people are ready to move to step 3, which i remember someone in the Death-Efficiency Problem post did by posting his own paragraph about how slugging and unhooking was too problematic in the same way your inability to heal yourself is, and could've been perfectly included into my post.
Since then I've continued building on his idea about making slugging part of the base kit, while providing the high-rank killers with alternative and more healthy solutions for expressing their skills, but barely anyone is ready for that debate.That is my dilemma.
Of course, if people perceive me linking my comments as shameless self-promotion (I promise I don't get paid for views), or me wanting to shove my own version of the game down their throat, then that effect is undeniable and bad.
My long posts are very un personal and I have no particular desire of having "my own cool perk creation" in the game.
I collect every frustration that appears with any part of the game and deem it valid, but I check whether their response to that frustration actually addresses the cause of it:In my Section in the Death-Efficiency Problem post for example, I covered how both factions believe the other to be OP is part of the extreme outcomes produced by Death-Efficiency curve together with an unequal learning curve between survivors and killers, but instead we keep getting the primitive debates about "X are OP". When I repeat this it's not out of self-ish reasons. It's just to move the debate forward, and I am happy that you used my terminology (Death-Efficiency) in 1 of your post, because that helps and forced people to understand something/rebut idea behind it and you just summarised a page of text to just 1 word, meaning the debate goes faster than ever.
Do we have trouble explaining why rank in DBD is not a rank, yet we can't call it a grind purely because some people can't reach it?; The non-competitive-axis causes this. Conversation over, in just 1 word.
So how do we solve rank? a competitive axis with elo system and rank domain. Problem solved.
"X is OP" > "Git Gut" > Both are wrong. There is an "unequal learning curve" that has to be solved. Convo over.
That ^ is how quickly we can eliminate entire threads that are stuck at the wheel and restart already rebutted conversations.
And since definitions of words that we specifically use to describe precise DBD-related problems, like tunneling, if not understood also need to be referenced.If I guess people view linking that negatively then I guess I could lessen it or stop, but my "Topic" posts will always be long, because their purpose is to terminate as many posts as possible that build on reused misunderstandings, and I can confidently call them misunderstandings up until someone has rebutted mine.
TL;DR: We don't have a gladiator system so we keep reinventing the wheel, which is why I do the things I do. The dilemma is that I don't see an alternative.
-
DS can definitely escape but they’re still injured regardless. Most of the time killers are provoked by this DS user and tend to try to kill them first which can waste your time in your own game as killer.
Just like adrenaline, DS heals you a healthstate...
Just like adrenaline, DS grants a distance between you AND the killer.
But unlike adrenaline, Adrenaline only allows for extra distance for ONE player, while DS allows for extra distance for THE ENTIRE TEAM
And unlike adrenaline, its free health-state cannot be negated through the use of insta-downing.
And unlike adrenaline, DS CAN BE USED ANYWHERE DURING THE MATCH.
It objectively has more power.
-
You now have both a higher FPS and a higher (maximum) sensitivity.
If you miss a hit, it's completely your fault now (:
-
If I get you correctly here, your comment is not about the linking, but against it being too long?
Here's what I think is too long: Having to invest too much time on reading something I don't know the exact subject of. Which is why walls of white text are so uninteresting.
For this reason my "long" post is split up in chapters and sections (and even subject), of which all could've been a separate post.
But I prefer separate posts relating 1 subject being coherently put together better rather than having things scattered around in separate post on the same subject, all needing a smaller (often similar) introduction and as a result rereading things.
(Since such a collection of subjects cover a bigger topic more widely, they almost always add to a smaller post as a link, as such smaller posts as a result often try to be less coherent paragraphs of such a mega-post.)If someone isn't interested in understanding the full picture of systemic and underlying problems regarding the game and prefer recent drama, then I guess my posts are just not for them generally.
-
Tip: If your comment needs multiple chapters and sections like it's a legal document or a book, it's way too long. Shortening them might get people to actually read them.
Do you mean my comment above or the linked post?
My comment above only link 1 subject of the whole post and doesn't need the whole post and isn't even mandatory for understanding my comment. It's just available if he/she wants to know HOW we can actually use rank to solve SWF balance-wise, rather then just stating we could.
EDIT: If you also meant the multiple links like the Poll, that it just me providing evidence for what I say. What can be bad about that?
-
Yes I did, but that was before freddy and before I realized how broken the game is in some regards
This game is really good at appearing something completely different then what it ends up to be:
Stage 1: A scary game in which you have to hide for the killer and be careful not to be found while that killer hunts for survivors:
Stage 2: A game in which it doesn't really matter whether you get found generally: It's just about running around corners as efficiently as you can and using windows as often as possible before using up the temporary windows (pallets). The killer isn't that scary anymore.
Stage 3: You discover flashlights, reverse pallets, exit-gate-safezones and you start t-bagging. The killer is inferior and has to slug/effectively-tunnel.
Stage 4: You realise that the killer isn't even your opponent. Both can win at the same time and cooperating is almost always better than fighting.
Stage 5: Stage 4 becomes so boring that you start playing the game to your imaginary win-condition and you reject the ranking-system.
Stage 6: ???
Stage 7: We've been replaced by robots.
-
Your title made me think you were confessing to some kind of crime or something.
-
@PigNRun said:
How about you just let me enjoy solo Survivor as it is now? :PAs this is a response to the "THE CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN SOLO AND SWF BUILD" build;
The "THE CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN SOLO AND SWF BUILD", is highly experimental. A lot of players have let us know that they really love immersive blind gameplay:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/34144/public-poll-all-seeing-vs-blindness/p1
Even though there are examples of Solo's really enjoying such interactivity with their teammates:
Such a build may not go through and that isn't the worst thing, tbh, because we can solve the SWF issue through rank as well;
(Chapter2, Section 2: An introduction to ELO, of:)
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/41674/why-everything-you-believe-about-rank-in-dbd-is-wrong/p1Although that wouldn't make it more"fun" (neither worse) necessarily, but it would make it balanced nonetheless.
The "THE DYNAMIC CHASE BUILD" build is also experimental, but a little bit less, as your ability to escape chases is also fun for the survivor and less looping and more juke-type of mindgames can also be fun for the killer.
The "THE MEMOIR TEST BUILD" is what I'd consider very NON experimental and they might as well put it in an Official PTB patch. Only the exact variables I'm unsure of.
Radical changes that would ruin your fun as Solo survivor would never go through (:
-
@laKUKA said:
The DEVS are lazy.... the fast way to fix this, is more pips slots
Change the entire emblem system gonna take forever....More PIP slots doesn't actually fix anything, so it's right for the Devs not to waste time on such a solution.
-
@BigBlackMori said:
If this happened medkits and Franklin's would become mandatory and Unbreakable would become useless. Overall it'd be a Survivor buff in the wrong area (self-sufficient recovery) which is the last thing this game needs.Self-sufficiency is actually the first thing this game needs, not the last.
I agree with OP that the change would be a step in the right direction. (To put faction-balance aside as it is relative)Although I'd argue that preferably, we wouldn't have the ability to self-recover from the dying-state in a specific item, but that all survivors can recover from the dying state at a speed of around 40-60 seconds and faster with unbreakable instead.
The lack of self-sufficiency together with a lack of real ranking system is a big issue.
And even if we'd have a real ranking system, I still think dependency isn't really the way people like to play this game, as in;Nobody likes to lose before they are dead.
-
Ah I see.
There's a problem with that though.
If definition = more ranks overall:
This will just cause rank to be a longer seasonal grind.If definition = more Emblem points to get a PIP, then this will not make the game more competitive. It will just make the players team with the opposite faction more often, as that is the most beneficial way to gain PIPs in this game, as shown in example:
(Chapter 1, Section 3: "You are not in a real competition")
What the Devs should do instead is make this game a Survivors VS Killer game, instead of having survivors and killers be a team. (By introducing an Emblem system with a competitive axis, as defined in Chapter 1, Section 2: The competitive axis)
-
In theory, more pip slots will make it so skill levels are more spread out, and thus neither side can be carried. Then, a simple adjustment to how pips are gained can fix pips being "handed for free".
Pip slots?
-
It's probably "illegal" gameplay, but;
Only ingredient missing is Object of Obsession, together with bond and Open handed. Keep waving at the killer and show where all your teammates are.
But hey, you didn't get that from me.
-
End-game chat "Debate" between SWF and killer
Before and after:
-
When it's true
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7vG49IiNQ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USzQikC8juk