AlwaysInAGoodShape
AlwaysInAGoodShape
About
- Username
- AlwaysInAGoodShape
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,498
- Last Active
Comments
-
Yes, there is indeed a wall / anything that will block the survivor from getting a FL save almost 90% of the time. Tree, wall, debris...
This is only the case when the survivor screws up and is not in the killer's control. If a survivor doesn't want to die near debris, they don't.
So if we believe your overestimated number of 90%, what is this supposed to suggest? That because the 10% is so low, the flashlight mechanic should therefore be allowed to be dysfunctional?
Because against good survivors, this 90% = 10%, or as Ochido puts it: "Crawl away from the wall crawl away from the wall!".
You could always just check your surroundings and make sure that there are no survivors nearby. Faking pick-ups also exists. If you do find them and chase them away and immidiately return and turn your back, there is no window for the survivors to do a FL save.
This was also mentioned in a comment above and we already covered this one. You can only "Fake" picking a survivor up insofar you are standing on top of them. It is still the survivor's behalf to screw up.
It's also really hard to fake the first 50% of your pickup animation because only at the end of the animation do survivors need to be beaming.
I don't understand as to what you mean "balance's mercy".
Chapter 1, Section 1 Subject: For easier reference.
The way to counter FL saves or flashlights is Lightborn / Franklin's, and you can equip those in the lobby if you see survivors with flashlights. If they last second switch, that's too bad and the devs should fix that. Or you can just use the methods above.
We already covered why the Anti-Build (Light-Born) is bad game-design and doesn't work. The game should not malfunction for you not having a specific perk.
Survivors not being able to last second switch doesn't solve the 2nd aspect of balance's mercy: Flashlights through chests.
The flashlight simply has to be a proper mechanic in the game.The other methods above: Wall staring, slugging do not work and are also in control of the survivor.
Since the anti-build is invalid, staring at a wall is in control of the killer and slugging forces you to deal with a 240 timer while someone else heals the survivor back up while you hunt to other survivor and it becomes tick-tack-toe.You lose by the fact of them wielding a flashlight and you shouldn't. Both players should have an interplay between choices that they have in order to create interesting back and forth.
Again all of your points and my responses to it were already mentioned in the Original post.
Please make sure that when you comment, you show how my reasoning against a certain claim is invalid instead of bringing up the same points I brought up in the original post and already refuted;
Argue about how the location where the survivor dies IS ultimately in the killer's power, etc.
-
You did not stop at "Flashlight-Saves cannot be countered". You stopped earlier because you repeated:
There is a reason why you get to see survivors' items in the lobby.
Which was already debunked in the main post as a valid form of game-balance. See: Balance's-Mercy.
There's always a wall nearby
In your dreams. The survivors are in control of there being a wall nearby. It's not in your power and this too was already mentioned in the main post.
if not, the insanely fast pick-up animation still makes it near-impossible if you play your cards right.
I'd say this is outright false. You have a window to react; 10%. It is this minimal window that allows you exactly to get your save if you indeed played your cards right.
And if you played your cards right you'll not be punished for: Bad ping, missing your aim, etc.
It's rewarding players who play their cards right. That is the essence of the FOV Wheel.The current system will punish you if you play your cards right, as if you fail at their exact technicality you'll not get the save.
Currently if you play your cards right or wrong, it doesn't matter; all that matters is that you apply to the end-of-pick-up-flashrequirement. -
Act like you’re about to pick the person up
Oh yes, act.
Against the ######### I play at Rank 1.Act. Ok. Look down.
The funny part is that this could actually WOULD be a valid strategy IF the 90% version was implemented because then you'd have to be ready at the start of the animation and not at the near end.
It's hard to fake it when you have the fake the first half of your pick-up animation before they would be required to do something xd
-
@Master said:
Actually you can be blinded from outside your POVThe rate at which you get blinded somewhat varies based on your exact angle, but the angle is 33% of 360 degrees = 118.8 degrees.
Currently Premonition gives you a warning when looking in a cone of 45 degrees.If you currently have less than a 118.8 degrees as FOV then the flashlight area could also be decreased.
I took 33% as a maximum value, so if the Devs'd consider it, they can reduce that 118.8 to the exact FOV we have currently or if you have more FOV then the effective flashlight range should be 118.8 exactly.
I didn't cover this in the OP but glad you brought it to light!
-
1
You seriously need to learn to paraphrase. That fact that you actually break your post up into "chapters" says everything. Make your point and be on with it.
My chapters are not the same as a chapter in your favourite novel. Every subject could've been it's own post. This post is also not about "making my 1 point", because it's about making all the points surrounding the topic of flashlights, meaning that if there's anything concept introduced to the game due to the flashlight being added, then it's covered in this post.
For the amount of points (not singular) that I made in this post, I think I did things quite brief.
2
Anyway, this little snippet is just bizarre. Killers already have ample answers to being flashlight blinded while picking up a survivor. It isn't easy to sneak in range of a killer picking up a survivor especially since you don't know which direction the killer will actually face while doing so. Even if you do, timing it just right so it blinds after the survivor is all the way on the shoulder isn't very easy.
So the skill and difficulty level for the survivor is already quite high. The killer has multiple answers including finding and chasing off any nearby survivors with flashlights, facing into a wall or opposite direction of the would-be savior so they don't have time to get into position, or using perks such as franklin's demise or lightborn if flashlights are shown in pre-game lobby. So why should this aspect of the game be nerfed? It's already in the killers hands if they give survivors the opportunity to flashlight save.
Killers already have ample answer to being flashlight blinded while picking up a survivor? Like the one already being mentioned in the post?
You cannot be dependant on Balance's Mercy, thus there goes Lightborn.
A survivor dying near a wall is also something survivors control, not you.
Being forced to slug, requiring you to chase a survivor is also in their control. And why you attempt the scaring away, that survivor gets healed behind your back.In other words, there aren't a lot of answers, and the answers that currently are their are only availably if the survivors decide to make them so.
So the skill and difficulty level for the survivor is already quite high.
Most of the flashlight difficulty comes from the awkward mechanic and having to aim your beam. This is not the healthy form of difficulty, because when these requirements are always met, there really isn't much drawback.
So why should this aspect of the game be nerfed? It's already in the killers hands if they give survivors the opportunity to flashlight save.
We already showed why this is not the case. The presence of the flashlight alone, even when aware already mandates you to slug and is thus fully in the hands of the survivors, not you.
So why should this aspect of the game be nerfed?
Because we buff and nerf the flashlight in the most perfect way: That both the killer and the survivor have a fair chance to use their flashlight.
Normally the use of flashlights depend on abusing a technicality of the Devs forcing your neck to be stuck during an animation.
That's not what I call great gameplay;
Remember when Laurie Strode blinded Myers in Halloween, because Myers neck got stuck while he climbed through the window?Instead of building on top of this weirdness, we replace both the Flashlight-Escape and Flashlight-Save on something that is conceptually sound:
The the unsuspecting survivor used their flashlight against the killer, they managed to blind them and run away!This means that you can't blind during most of the animations, and only during the pick-up animation when you are the "unsuspecting" survivor.
We also make it possible to blind during chases without the locked neck abuse. Since the new flash-time is so quickly, when you run around a corner and shine towards an unsuspecting killer, you can actually blind them because in order for them to be able to react, they needed to be alert, but this too is something that the killer gets to respond to, creating more dynamic scenario's other then: You vault --> Me Blind You.ExeThat is why certain things need to be nerfed and other to be buffed (:
Allowing the noobies to have fun with it too. -
Me in Chapter 1 Section 3:
You forgot to Anti-Build? Bad luck. Left to balance's-Mercy? Well... (Anti-Build = Lightborn)Try staring at a wall! That's 1 thing. But now there's no wall nearby, what now?
Now there's nothing but to slug.
You:
No flashlight counters?Act like you’re about to pick the person up and the survivor with the flashlight will swarm out with the save giving away their position and then all you gotta do is hit them away.
Then, there is the perk Lightborn
(Wall part missing)
See, that is the point of this "too long to read post". It's to cover EVERYTHING REGARDING FLASHLIGHTS, meaning that you could have guessed it; Your comment is basically: Chapter 1 Section 3 Subject 1, but you forgot to mention the Wall strategy. (I even covered Chapter 1 Section 3 Subject 1 in less sentences than you did!)
I prefer people to read the post instead of commenting incomplete sections of my post (Chapter 1 Section 3 Subject 1)
If there are parts that you don't want to read, check the Table of Contents, it makes life really easy (:
-
@The_Crusader said:
The devs just decided survivors should have flashbangs instead. From the design team that brought you Decisive Strike.Tough love, we're used to it.
-
@Vietfox said:
Haha no way i'm gonna read this.If you only want the solution, try chapter 2, section 2. Table of contents (:
-
Link:Public Poll: All seeing VS Blindness
The community seems to be split on bumping up Solo's to SWF's because this would require giving solo's the same free communication tools SWF's receive through the virtue of being SWF. (Perks like bond, aftercare etc).
Many believe it to be un fun and want a more horror-esque-feel to the Solo gameplay, but that introduces even more issues due to SWF's playing under the same rules.
EDIT:
We could however solve the (sometimes bad) Solo experience through solving the Death-Efficiency problem. (Making players less dependent on their teammates for their win). -
@Raccoon said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape
You've wasted a lot of keystrokes "arguing" with a contrarian.Should have just made an original post about it and link it instead. Sigh.
Thought, at least he/she is not trolling.
He/she mentioned 2 very valid issues:- There is a huge gap between bad players (killer-survivor) and good players (killer-survivor) and
- The game malfunctions around the moment 1 player is dead.
Both are very valid issues, but the only mistake OP makes is believing this is an issue of the game being Killer-sided.
1 is the problem of an unequal learning curve and 2 is the problem of Death-Efficiency
-
(You kept misquoting what I said about rank btw. I said people didn't deserve to inflate DBD's Rank 1 with a real Rank domain, while you pretended that I said that people didn't deserve their DBD rank 1 or that nobody in rank 1 could be good + Misquoting my mentioning of the 0.1% playing together with the worst 50% under the name of "Rank" 1 and pretended that I only said that 0.1% of the players are affected by the game being survivor-sided.)
The rest of your post (the original one) is you telling us that bicycles are faster than planes, because planes had all these difficult buttons that you had the press while the bicyclist only had 1 main goal; to pedal. We already covered why this is not the case and why your post is only an illustration of the learning curve of killers and survivors rather than any new statement about whether the game is killer/survivor sided.
Thus why the first reaction with the picture goes: A story as old as time.
You are simply in the learning process.
New players who played 10 hours of killers will more often win against survivors with 10 hours of experience, but (good) survivors with 1000 hours of experience will dominate (good) killers with 1000 hours of experience. (The plane example)
Your post should be about how to limit the gap between Killer-versus-Survivors at the lower percentile of players against the higher percentile of players (which is what me, and others are working on).
As for the main statement; the game remains survivor sided and you will come to that conclusion yourself if you spend enough time learning both sides.
-
The problem with camping isn't that the killer does it.
It's that the killer (scenario dependent) should be doing it.
-
There's no way to know who is and isn't biased, or even what side they main. There are other problems as well. What if someone owns multiple copies of the game, for example?
Then we can still take a look at the perk and translate it into numbers. Perhaps their proposed numbers are off, but we can change them accordingly. It is often the problem with a perk proposal, the structure of the perk. Their bias will most likely show in the numbers that they give the perk and we'll tone them down when we need to.
The devs listen just fine. They read suggestions. They answer questions in the Q&A streams. What people are complaining about, in fact, is that the devs don't do as they want. They conflate "listening" with "doing what is requested", and therein lies the source of the complaints.
A part of that is correct, but I'd also add that a part of this listening is not revealing the conditions on which they would accept an idea.
For example, take our conversation about Self-care being part of the base kit of survivors.
My stance would be to fix the game in such a way in which survivors after the death of teammates remain to have a reasonable chance to survive, meaning that you aren't team dependent.
Less dependent game play also heavily rewards stealthy game-play as you not rushing objectives doesn't mean that you'll lose when (some of) your teammates have died.
Because of this stance I promote mechanics that lessen dependency.It could be that the Developers do not want this at all. Maybe they believe that the death of 1 should likely amount in the death of all, as this would discourage stealth as well and they believe stealth is bad, because they believe that what is so addictive about their game might be all the stimuli gained from continues interactions and where as stealth can create very exciting interactions for the survivor, they wouldn't know how to make it so that the killer would receive the same amount of stimuli on that side, making killers more likely to quit.
Both approached have valid points, but we know too little at what the Developers would listen to and what they believe about their own game.
There are a few things we know: Killers predominantly for fun and not competitive, etc.
If players had a better picture of what the Devs believed about their game then we'd already know the answer to this:https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/34144/public-poll-all-seeing-vs-blindness#latest
or many other issues.
I could go into reworking the whole Ranked system in DBD and turn it into an actual rank system, but I know little what they believe the purpose of their rank system should be.
Do they deliberately make it so that everyone in the game can be rank 1? Do they have the Escape + BP + Emblem system run at the same time so that the players always feel that they've won somewhere on some front? Or is the emblem system just a failed attempt at formulating a players contribution to the match?
It's this part of us not knowing what the Devs WOULD listen to that adds to much of the confusion.
Of course there are a lot of impulsive players (maybe very young) that will shout whatever they believe at that moment is the problem and of course that will be ignored and these people have already reduced themselves to a meme, but as for the rest who could see the game going both ways, we often don't know where the Devs would take it, while we'd be able to come up with solution and ideas for either way. -
Divide the Survivor vote by 4 when it comes to perks.
(Or multiply is with whatever ratio you believe you deal with; if you think 25% of the survivors vote non-biased then multiply the survivor vote by 0.33)
We can also look at suggestions for new perks and translate it to "Amounts of seconds stalled" / "Amount of seconds it slowed the game down" and use that as objective measure.
Then we look at how frequent you are able to meet the conditions and adjust the numbers slightly if we see it as easy conditions to meet.Since the developers hold the final vote, it still going to help us see where the community want to see things moving and as long as we don't promise that the most voted perk ideas are used, we're safe.
Since 90% of the community doesn't know much about the interrelated mechanics that are at play in this style of game, listening to the community would solve 1 thing and break the next, but it should still give us a lot of information and ideas and dayum;
This game has 50+ perks per faction but it feels like there are less than 10.
-
you know calling out grammar mistakes in your argument shows that your losing the argument.
I never called out any grammar mistakes in your argument. That is why you refuse to quote what I actually say, because you deform what I say and misinterpret it. That's what I called you out for; for you having a conversation with a self-imagined me rather than the actual me.
It's so hilarious how you deform what I say that even that sentence is an outright lie.
Start quoting me and stop having fake conversations with things that were never said.Your argument for rank not mattering is a joke because there are legit players that can go every match and get two pips a match.
We already covered why rank doesn't matter and you failed to show that it did.
We already covered why at rank killers can frequently 2 pip.Killer vs survivor is killer favoured for inexperienced players and becomes survivor favoured when players start actually playing the game correctly.
We went over this a million times, but you keep reminding us that you're bad at the game.
No i want a % as to where everyone else falls.
Everyone; worst player and best player can be Rank 1. That is the whole point. Everyone can be Rank 1. You can be a survivor and be the reason why you lost the game while still pipping. Both the killer AND survivors can win IN THE SAME MATCH.
Everyone falls in rank 1. It just shows that you played the game frequently within this rank-reset period.
It
Is
Not
A
Ranking
SystemNo your the one dancing around the argument how can you legit have an experiment when the majority of test subjects know there part of the experiment, experiments like this arent experiments.
Yes they are. Because literally every experienced player in this game with 4k hours and talent have experienced the same. From TrueTalent to Ardetha to TydeTyme to Marth88 to everyone with a brain.
I dont need to quote your stuff because i dont need to
Great reasoning... except you already screwed up in the first sentenceof your response where you started talking to an imaginary person correcting your grammar. (which never happened)
The only thing that happened was (the actual me, not your imaginary version of it) pointing out that you deform the things I say, which is exactly what you did in this very SENTENCE! XD
and you did devalue everyone in rank 1 because i said there were legit players that got to rank 1 and you said because even bad players can get there its not really competative.
Since you're unable to create a distinction between the 2, clarify which one you are talking about:
1. DBD "Rank" 1.
2. Ranking Based Ranking System rank 1.Everyone in DBD who is Rank 1 deserves to be DBD Rank 1, but that rank 1 is not telling you much.
If you are Rank 1 in DBD you do NOT deserve to claim that you are the best player in the game or that you're part of the x% of best players within a certain rank domain.This is evidently true, and since I am repeating myself here, I really doubt your reading skills.
No i want you to play like you said you played, go around the map aimless to where pallets and windows are, not knowing how some perks work, play against a doctor without knowing his power and how to counter, etc...
I will just do some gens, run blind to unhooks and die quickly in chases while climbing to rank 1.
And i already know the rank system isnt a legit one
God, what am I even dealing with.
my point was not everyone in rank 1 doesnt belong there because there are good players
I already said everyone belongs in Rank 1 in DBD, but that doesn't mean you are the number 1 best player in the game, neither does it mean that you are in the top x% of best palyers because Rank 1 in DBD is neither a Rank nor a Rank Domain.
How can you not understand this dude?
For the last time:
Nothing in your post is anything we didn't know.
You are telling us a bicycle is faster than a plane because noobs learn how to control a bicycle faster than a plane, thus the bike wins the race in the beginning.
We keep telling you that a plane will always win against a bike when both the bicyclist and the pilot know how to use their vehicle and all you do is scream that bicycles are faster than planes.
-
I'm guessing you propose the time limit to deal with keeping the game hostage on the survivor's side or something along those lines?
I believe that a time limit on completing all generators would hurt the Death-Efficiency currently, but the further the curve it bent, the less it would matter.
In the video linked at the bottom of the main post, you see how much time it took me as a solo to have a chance at completing 1 generator. Any time-limit would've never considered that amount of time I needed.
I've been trying to think of an end-game solution myself, but am yet slightly unsatisfied with the ideas:
How to deal with the end-game.
Turning the Power off
This is the idea that a killer can "Hit" the exit gate handle. A new sound would have to be created and will be heard globally when the killer is hitting the exit gate handle.If the killer hits it x amounts (similar to above 400 seconds-80 per completed generator), then all the power will turn off and if any exit gates or hatches were open, they will close and the game ends in the killer's favour.
This would allow a killer a to have a tool to close the game, but since survivors can hear the sound, they will know that they need to rush the objective or they'll lose.
The killer can use this as bait too, hitting it a few times and running around the gens again to see which ones have been worked on. All and all it prevents games from being taken hostage by the survivors.
Blurry Notification
Know that notification when a generator is completed? It's comprised of 2 parts: The Yellow generator aura and a black background deforming circle, which we'll call "The black circle" for short.When the killer hasn't come into contact with ANY survivor for over X (let's say 100 seconds?), they will receive a black dot circle that kind of jumps around like a Doctor Skill Check in the estimated Area where the living survivor(s) are.
This allows a killer to get a decent opportunity at finding survivors every so now and then, thus never feeling completely desperate.
The notification is not too precise, thus it allows survivors to have the game I linked below in the original post, which could happen more frequently with the Death-Efficiency solved, but it does take away this hopelessness feeling for killers.
We could even try implementing it so that for every time the Black Circle notification appears, it will become slightly more precise.
So to answer your question:
However, I'm curious what your take would be on this. Improve the death-inefficiency, make it worse, or have no bearing on the issue at all?
The timer would only be a problem if the curve was bent the way it is now, so basically; when a lower-survivor count does not have the same generator efficiency as a full survivor count team, then the timer will make it worse and it does so to the degree that curve is bent downwards.
I'd suggest that (if you want to solve some End-Game problems regarding keeping the game hostage) you do so through game-play based mechanics that ultimately leaves this timer up to the killer as I hope my 2 examples illustrate to some degree show how this manual timer would ultimately work. (:
-
Let me respond to your collection of miss-phrases and fallacies;
So because multiple people can be rank 1 it negates the rank system.
Yes, it completely does, and remember Rank Domain =/= Rank.
yeah its not a good bench mark but just because some are bad doesnt mean all are bad and didnt earn the rank 1 spot.
In fact everyone who is rank 1 in dead by daylight deserve to be Rank 1. It simple has nothing to do with you actually being good at the game.
What you don't deserve is inflating Dead By Daylight's Rank 1 with a Rank 1 in real Ranking system would indicate: meaning that you belong to the best top % of players in the game, because in Dead By Daylight this is simply not the case.
Rank 1 in DBD just means you belong to a club of grinders who passed the basic non-retardation test (the constant emblem system).Yeah because if you were playing like you said you were, killers would have exploited you especially low ranks and you wouldnt have made rank 1.
More denial, beautiful. I'll make it even more fun for you: I'll film 3 consecutive games at the rank where I'm now and I'll play 3 at rank 1 all without perks to show how irrelevant the Emblem "rank" system in DBD is.
So 50% are bad and 0.1% are best where do the rest fall.
Every player at any skill level falls everywhere based on how much you play. If you are a terrible game-thrower who dies every game, you'll still pip and climb to rank 1 if you execute even the basics of the Emblem system.
(Or in short: Just run for hook rescues and you'll still pip in nearly all of your games).
Im taking into account normal players, ones that dont spend countless hours to play this game, his experiment is about the top .1%
So you admit again that your post is nothing more than reminding us that bad killers have it easier against bad survivors, where as good killers have it very hard against good survivors?
It's as if we're going in circles here.its not that i didnt understand it was the fact you devalued everyone that got to rank 1 because some that got there werent good.
Me: Moustaches indicate little about how fast of a sprinter you are. You can be terrible at sprinting and still have a moustache:
You: its not that i didnt understand it was the fact you devalued every sprinter that got a moustache because there are some humans alive that have a moustache and aren't good at sprinting.
Me: Bruh...
I say that your moustache is not an indicator of sprinting skills.Final note:
At least try to quote what I said instead of your deformed paraphrases.
Do you want me to do the perkless 6 matches at my current rank after the reset and at rank 1, while playing ridiculous, making my team lose while pipping?
If I manage to, will you admit that you are wrong about the ranking system and admit that the only thing your post does is illustrate that if DBD had a real ranking system, you would be near the bottom/middle far from being a good player and have limited understanding of the game? -
It's the solo version of Discordance but easier to outplay. Although it would work the first few times when it would just be released, if it were to be used, you'd see people developing the habit of letting go for that 0.5 second rendering it useless.
Because such a perk would have co compete with:Hex: Ruin
Spirit Fury
Bamboozle
EnduringA perk that is so easy to outplay would still never see play as it's completely outcompeted by Discordance.
Although Surveillance does definitely need a rework... making us desperate for solutions, we should make sure that it would actually be a perk that people'd run.
But again, you're definitely right. This perk needs reworking. -
honestly this perk would be quite decent if they extended the timer a bit
They don't want to do so because it would be an un fun mechanic and they are right to do so. The current design is problematic.
-
I came up with this example to explain Rank, since you did not understand it the first time:
Real Ranking system:
If you run 100 meters in fewer than 9.58 seconds you'll be rank 1!DBD ranking system:
If you run 100 meters in fewer than a locked 80 seconds for over 20 times within the Rank Reset period, you'll be Rank 1!Rune-scape:
If you cut a locked amount of 1000 million Iron ores, you'll be the highest level!Real Ranking system:
Only 1 person is rank 1 and only x amount of people find themselves within a certain rank-domain.DBD ranking system:
Everyone in the world can be rank 1 simultaneously!Rune-scape:
Everyone in the world can be the highest level!I honestly shouldn''t have needed so much explanation to get the point across.
DBD does not have a Rank system; It has a grind system that requires you to at least have the skill of running 100 meters within 80 seconds of time; a requirement everybody can fullfill.A Ranking System:
The requirement to reach a certain rank is relative to the skill of the players and changes as players get better;
Real Ranking systemA Grind System:
In order to achieve the reward of the grind, you have to fullfill a certain non-relative coded condition a repeated amount of times.
DBD (emblem) ranking system
Rune-scapeIf it is your claim that DBD has a real ranking system, then you have to show
1: how the requirements to rank up and down in DBD is a relative condition changing by the virtue of players playing better or worse, without the intervention of patches or added code.
2: How the win of another results in the loss of another: How Ranks are scarce and limited.If you fail to do so, then you admit to the point that DBD does not have a ranking system and that DBD in fact has a Grinding (Emblems) system calling itself a ranking system.
-
@Okuu46 said:
Am i the only person who tries to avoid high rank matches as much as possible, because i simply don't want to deal with the Toxic people at those ranks?
personally i think its not worth getting into those ranks, because you know for a fact that 90% of the games your going in; you'll be facing off with the most Toxic people within this community of a game.I don't know, its like once you see yourself in those red ranks, theirs nothing good that comes out of it and you know your going to have one hell of a stressful match. I guess to simply put it, theirs nothing worth going for at those ranks, besides a crap ton of Toxic behavior and rage inducing play styles.
They should honestly bring in casual rather then rank so it will be mixed, rather then knowing every match your going in will be Toxic play...Play:
Self-Care
Urban Evasion,
We're Gonna Live Forever
SaboteurNever do any generators. Keep sabotaging hooks to 99% and gain near 500 points for each one sabotaged. It grants points really fast without giving you emblems.
Now, whenever someone is hooked, go for the save for the We're gonna live forever stacks.
In most of your games you'll lose, because you have 1 less person doing gens, but you can still go for a hatch escape if your teammates were good enough.With this playstyle you'll still be able to farm bloodpoints without pipping too often. You might even Net Depip if you do it well enough.
(Hatch escapes give 2000+ in the objective category)
(You can get 5000 for your survivral category)
(You'll max altruism easily)
(You'll max Boldness easily as breaking hooks counts towards boldness (500 for each hook + skillchecks)Yw (:
-
@ReneAensland said:
@ShyN3ko said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@ShyN3ko2:15 - 2:25
They give the perk 10 seconds in the trailerThey probably intended that perk exactly the way they stated it there; without a timer, but realised it was so un fun that they really did not want the perk to exist in the first place, bringing it where it is now.
If the perk reveals aura's of people nearby, you'll basically always know where the survivors are when it comes to doing the objective against a lower-survivor count team.
That is why this perk should not work globally:
(final offer)
Surveillance:A survivor gains the exposed effect for 20 seconds after touching a regressing generator. When you are within 12/18/24 meters from that generator, gain a sound notification.
This is a good idear, but the balance part is hard.
Oof...Exposed effect is a tough one.
I haven't seen Make your Choice being mentioned as one of the major problems in this game, so that one isn't that scary.
-
This is a good idear, but the balance part is hard.
The analysis is:
A survivor has the choice to touch a regressing generator. They aren't (in part) obligated to do so, unlike Make Your Choice, which is a perk that you "have to play into".
Since the killer has to be close to the regressing generator, a survivor refusing to touch it can still win the trade if other teams are working on other generators.
If the killer is not near and the survivor keeps hiding, then the killer wins.
If the killer is near and the survivor stops hiding, then the killer can down and hook a survivor preventing a chase ranging from 10 seconds to 5 minutes.
All sides of it have counterplay. (:
Of course it wouldn't be as META as Hex: Ruin or others, but it would find itself as a niche perk for stealthy killers. Something that actually inspires to consider build-variety among the sea of killers.
-
If you think no one plays competative in ranks and doesnt earn rank 1 by being a good player, you are delusional.
It's as if you have no reading capacity. Earning rank 1? What are you talking about? that you earn what a real ranking system would produce or the DBD grinding system that calls itself a rank?
Since you clarify so little and hide in vaguery it's really hard to address your non-point.
I find you not having any knowledge about how the game works, playing with randoms, and reaching rank 1 in 2 weeks very questionable unless you put in some time and if you did, you would know how the game worked.
So you are in denial?
What if I record for you deliberate terrible gameplay while reaching rank 1 from rank 10 within half a week, will you abdicate that the ranking system in DBD is not a real ranking system? Since through reading and reasoning it wasn't obvious to you?Oh i watched the guy you were promoting and saw his no run perk videos where he beat most survivors pretty easy i also watched his videos about the experiments and its not that good of an experiment, the experiment consisted of him getting together with these people and having them all run the same perks, most people dont play that way. If your argument for survivors being stronger is you take some of the best players in the game have them all run the same perks against random killers and thats why they are stronger, thats a weak argument, it would be like taking the patriots and having them destroy a big league team from a local town and going hey i think we need to give them a huge handicap over these other teams because did ya see what the patriots did to them. Of course there gonna have an edge.
He plays no perk killer against rank 1, which is again comprised of both the worst 50% and the best 0.1%. He as a killer main fully admits that survivors are the dominating force in this game, as he can get better results on survivor as a killer main than he can get on a killer main as a killer.
That literally delegitimises your entire point.
He plays in a weird manner that is "not normal"? This is called actually trying your best as a survivor.Since it's dead clear that you belong among the lower-tier players, I doubt that you would even consider having actual strategic pressure on survivors.
-
@thekiller490490 said:
Can we please get the ability to start kyf alone as either killer or survivor? Let us explore your amazing looking maps!
(Not my original idea btw)A lot of starting players feel the frustration of not knowing enough about the maps and therefor losing a lot.
It gives you the desire to game-throw, meaning that instead of doing gens, you just want to spend SOME games solely learning the maps and pallet-spots rather than having to being chased while remembering and sitting at generators for 80 seconds.
This is why I personally started playing killer: So that I could explore more freely throughout the map.
In short: Great idea!
-
2:15 - 2:25
They give the perk 10 seconds in the trailerThey probably intended that perk exactly the way they stated it there; without a timer, but realised it was so un fun that they really did not want the perk to exist in the first place, bringing it where it is now.
If the perk reveals aura's of people nearby, you'll basically always know where the survivors are when it comes to doing the objective against a lower-survivor count team.
That is why this perk should not work globally:
(final offer)
Surveillance:A survivor gains the exposed effect for 20 seconds after touching a regressing generator. When you are within 12/18/24 meters from that generator, gain a sound notification.
-
And get a notifiaction, if a survivor touch it.
Killers need more information.
Because killer has no information ingame.
Example:
Make your choice.
The survivors have more information about this perk,ingame, as the killer.Killers need less information and more anti-looping tools.
Solo-Survivors need more SWF's-like communication and less non-SWF related communication. -
what mode do you play with survivor?
I only play solo.
Me i dont really play swf and dont like being on mic so i would say im a decent player because i got to rank 1 with no communication with randoms.
I already told you that rank 1 is not an achievement.
I got to rank 1 within 2 weeks with both killer and survivor. By the time I was rank 1 with both i didn't even know how many maps there were, I didn't know where most of the pallet spots were, I didn't know what the doctors ability even did or how it worked, I didn't know how the hatch-spawn mechanic worked, I didn't know that a key could reveal the aura of survivors, I didn't understand kindred when teammates had it and the killers showed up in pink;I basically got "Rank" 1 before knowing how the game even worked.
Rank 1 means literally nothing.
Rank 1 in DBD would mean being Bronze 1 in League of Legends, but unlike DBD, League of Legends does have further representations of skill beyond the point of bronze 1. -
List has been updated!
this list is actually really bad lol a lot of the problems you put up there aren't even problems or they can be dealt with easily
If this was a list of problems it would be really bad, but it's not.
It's a list of frustrations and that in itself can be seen as a problem.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
@ReneAensland said:
He went to 23 I think and he admitted he had a lot if help from Vooshy.
He's REALLY good non the less.I'm not doubting his skill, he's good, but when you use a survivor main like Noob who has people killing themselves in game to help him it really doesn't add credence to this conversation.
It absolutely does. Just count the duration of the chases. The friend is irrelevant here.
-
Wow, he won 22 games in a row near rank reset? He must be just amazing that really shows the imbalances that newer killers can be beaten by 4000 hour survivors this proves so much now thank you.
Also counting DCs as surviving as well kind of changes it a little, and hatch escapes, if three people die and one gets the hatch while that survivor did escape and survive three or less survivors died for it to happen lmao, doesn't really matter
"Oh, 3 people died and one survived? Doesn't really matter, that one person escaped so it's 100% imbalanced"
It's not about the (most often) 2 random bad players that play along. It's the fact that 3 clones of Noob3 could play in 1 game together against a killer and absolutely bully the killer.
Even a nurse can be bullied with the right communication or pre-communication and planning.
-
@ReneAensland said:
We need, absolutely need, a new ranking system.Absolutely. Just the amount of people fake-citing their (non) rank as credentials is through the roof.
When people talk about gen rush, I'm pretty sure they are not blaming survivors for only focusing on their main objective. It's the most logical thing to do for survivors. It's just about how fast all 5 generators can be repaired if survivors rush gens as effectively and organized as possible. And it is indeed still a bit of a problem unless you are running Hex: Ruin. Survivors can repair gens so fast that the killer has pretty much no time to have a chance of fulfilling their objective (except for Nurse). At least playing normally.
It's more of a design problem though. As seen in the videos of tru3ta1ent, it is indeed possible to win against even an extremely well organized survivor team without Hex: Ruin, but the way he had to play didn't lool like much fun for either him nor the survivors.
Gen times are as much of a problem as camping, tunneling and the gap between swf and solo survivors. Although I'd argue camping right now is the biggest design flaw of the game.Reading my mind again xD
-
@SenzuDuck said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@SenzuDuck said:
@jackmadrox said:
Gen Rush.Gen rush hasn't been a thing since BNP's were removed, and even then they were rare.
I don't see why a negative connotation has to be put on survivors for doing their objective.
I think gen times are just fine right now.Even with BNP removed, I find the 5% winrate of killers on a higher level quite terrifying. (Marth88's experiment)
Marths experiment that means nothing because it's looking at it from one teams perspective.
There's been a lot of changes since the experiment so the stats definitely mean even less than they did now.
The killers he faced probably had a dozen of decent matches before that one bad match, it doesn't mean anything.Devs have showed recent stats and less than 50% of survivors survive at rank one, those are pretty good numbers.
The Dev's cannot show stats of "Rank 1" because DBD doesn't have a real ranking system.
People who are rank 1 can be terrible.
Rank one doesn't mean top 1%, it can be literally the worst player who understands the basics of the pip system.Marth88's experiment was closer to what a real rank 1 would represent.
A lot has changed? Then why not take a look at the recent 22+ survival streak of Noob3?
-
5-Tokens bonus is moreso to give the Killer enjoyment & fulfillment once every few matches.
If you have a Survivor team that isn't new, and that Hex Totem (usually) won't live for THAT long.gocha (:
-
@SenzuDuck said:
@jackmadrox said:
Gen Rush.Gen rush hasn't been a thing since BNP's were removed, and even then they were rare.
I don't see why a negative connotation has to be put on survivors for doing their objective.
I think gen times are just fine right now.Even with BNP removed, I find the 5% winrate of killers on a higher level quite terrifying. (Marth88's experiment)
-
So it's just about the first thing (5%haste) being weak and the perk not lasting long enough to reach 5 tokens?
-
@Boss said:
Huh, i have quite some annoyances with this game.
But i'm never frustrated, while i am still passionate.If annoyances count, i guess Devour Hope switching from a 1-Token power that gives away your Perk to a 2-Tokens power that doesn't do anything unless you're in specific situations and even within those situations the bonus is way too small to matter unless you're in specific situations within those specific situations, annoys me.
I think I've understood you correctly here.
I'm not even sure if it's true but the tier 1 and 2 versions might even be stronger than the tier 3 version due to the perk giving itself away. I'm not 100% sure if it does, but I'm happy I didn't pick that perk in my bloodweb yet xD -
@ModernFable said:
I don’t see “the DBD community” anywhere on this list.This list updates faster than you think.
-
Aggressive Example: Looping a Doctor while collecting tears of light by walking into them.
Stealthy Example: Hiding from a Nurse whIle collecting tears of light by walking into them.
We don't need more mini-games to replace the actual game. We already got the hatch.
Instead of avoiding the underlying issue we should solve it instead.
-
3 gen doc is fine. A 3 gen doc that can insta down every time a survivor touches a generator is NOT fine. This is all pointless to argue over though since your perk doesn't actually exist.
By the time there's a 3 Gen and the survivors screwed up to get 3-genned, there aren't many pallets, which means chases end mostly instantly. I doubt that the exposed effect is at its peak at that point.
-
100 % efficiency is 3 survivors doing gens. 4 Survivors doing gen's is a 133% efficiency.
Although it's true that survivors can work on that efficiency, for the sake of simplicity and illustration it's unnecessary for people to understand the issue at play.It would even be possible for a whole team to complete 1 or maybe even 2 generators before the killer has even found someone, but we'll leave that to be horror stories for killer-mains.
As for:
introduce "stages" that change the possible ways of escaping depending on how many Survivors are left.
When the first survivor dies the fixing generator stage of the game ends.
Survivors are moved into a new area by the entity and now try to escape by performing another objective that was designed for three people working together.After another survivor dies they are moved into yet another area where the last two remaining survivors need to work together to escape.
Then the last survivor aka "Final Girl" can try to outsmart the killer by escaping another area designed for this specific stage.
Let me give you a few reasons why disagree with this solution.
- The main point is to compensate for efficiency gaps (chapter 3). If you are going the create a whole different game each time for every time a survivor dies, then that completely undoes any progress you've done in the first game. I just don't see how this could go into play, especially as a killer could try to hook as many as possible and would kill 1 person when there's only 1 gen, thus changing the game and having everyone at a disadvantage.
- It's too complicated for what we're trying to achieve; Not only do we not want to create a different game from this issue, we also want our solution to be as least as work as possible for the Developers, which is why I proposed the memoir system and the terror bar.
The main structure for this is already in the game; The HUD for the terror bar, a counter for the amount of survivors alive (which would be used to see if players would have to receive their next memoir, etc)
All it would need is to have it's own icon and the lines of code in which we specify the exact powers they give.The powers that they give are also not new; They are just changing some variables conditionally.
Although your solution could be a cool idea for another game, it is too unrealistic in it's implementation.
We don't want to change the core gameplay of the game. We just want to create a more balanced experience in the current form of the game.Final Note:
As for your understanding of the Death-Efficiency issue, it shows that you took your time to understand the issue and I see you put some effort into writing your comment, which is what we need to see.Are are exactly on point with these intentions, showing that you comprehend it, which is really what we need if we'd want to solve the issue;
A weak link in a team does not anymore reduce the chances of other survivors to escape.
For killers the gameplay could be more fair as well because a slow start in the first phase can always be corrected in the second, third or fourth phase of the game.
-
Yeah 4v1 you have a shot, ill agree but if a survivor isnt helping what are your chances with a 3v1, i play on console so i know, yeah you can disarm a trap but what about the addons that can counter that plus traps come back, any addon a killer uses can help deter those counters
This is where you do have a point. Not the point that the game is killer favoured (which it isn't), but that the game is very dependant on the progression you make as a 4 survivor team.
This has more to do with the fact that there are game-mechanics that predominantly target low-survivor count teams.If the game were to be less teammate-dependant they'd have to change a few core issues with the game:
-
I'll lay it out for you one more time:
Rank in Dead By Daylight is not a Rank
A rank means that you are a certain rank and you are the only one that has this rank. Often, multiple players share 1 name within a certain range of ranks:
For example in League of legends, many people with a similar rank will be called "Gold" or "Platinum", but only you can be in that 1 rank, which is what you see at a challanger tier: There is only a Rank 1 challanger, not 2.
You can compete for that rank, but it's impossible to have 2 people with the same rank.
Dead by Daylight is different. What is called "Rank" has nothing to do with a real ranking system, but has more to do with grinding. If a bad player plays enough and knows the basic mechanism behind the pipping system, they can make it to rank 1.
In fact, all killers and survivors alive could be rank 1 simultaneously.
This shows us that we're not dealing with a real ranking system."Rank" 1 in DBD is where both the worst 50% and the best 0.1% reside, because again, rank in DBD is not a rank.
Statistics inflation.
This is why the survival rate is 40% at Rank 1. This is due to the a bunch of grindy 12 year olds playing the game a lot and dying.
When you actually look at good players versus good players (thus what a real ranking system would produce), then you see the survivor winrate skyrocketing. This is why people can pull off 25+ survival winstreaks.
Learning Curve:
When both players don't know how to play, it will be easier for a killer to catch a survivor than it is for a survivor to navigate through an unknown map, which is why when players are bad you see the folllowing:
30% survivor rate for survivors.But when both players are good, you'll see the outcome of the Marth88 experiment:
5% winrate for killers.A game in which players who don't know how to play produce a 30% winrate for survivors, where-as good versus good players produce a 5% winrate for killers, how can you possibly consider this game being killer favoured?
In Conclusion
Your post is nothing more than you reminding us that you are among the lower tier players, which is where bad killers have it easier against bad survivors, where as good killers have it immensely hard against good survivors.
Telling us that you are rank one (if you are) is also not going to prove anything. Playing against Marth88/the Depip Squad will, but you will not be able to win there, just like the over 300 test subjects of which less than 5% were able to win.
If you are going to respond to this comment without doing any research, or speaking from credible experience, then I highly advice you to watch at least 3 games of the Marth88 experiment or any other good killer against good survivors.
For your satisfaction; In the first game linked below, there actually is a mori, and you'll see why it doesn't matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls52x8aYPnA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kCgXuIQQ9s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On1Y5O7EQ2I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzCgFNuiDm4 -
Survivors have numerous goals, do gens, dodge killer, help other survivors and escape and they have perks and equipment that are limited in some way to complete that goal.
1.
Survivor vs killer is only harder for survivors as a starter level as being chased is harder when you don't know where to run than chasing somebody who doesn't know where to run.
But after both become experienced the survivor has more tools to win than a killer has an ability to stop them from winning. This makes the killer dependent on the survivor screwing up.2.
At a competitive level, killers are inferior. Marth88 has over 300 documented games in which the killer has about a 10% win-rate+Neutral pip.
That is game-balance at it least-finest.They are faster by a longshot even the slowest killer can catch a survivor.
Imagine my shock.
4.
So how is the killer weaker, i have more ruthless killers awards then successful escapes by a longshot.
At a competitive level, no you don't.
The only reason you do or might at rank 1 even is because Rank in DBD isn't really a rank, it;s just a seasonal grind and doesn't represent that you are the best x% in the playerbase.
If you would have to play against top tier survivors then you'd suffer so much your eyes'd pop out, and there was nothing that you could do.
5.
the most it can delay you is 16 seconds.
It takes about 133.33 seconds to do all gens if only 3 are rushing the generators. Add a 30 seconds for running inbetween and your decisive (with your 16 seconds example, which is a low estimation) would already buy you 10% extra more time in the game. Multiply this by 4 and the survivors have 40% extra time to finish the match.
Now realistically, you also waste time by picking up the survivor + being stunned for 4 seconds. 1 survivor will stun you at the start and 3 will stun you after 35% which adds another 5/6 seconds for each.
Add that together and your decisive strike (1 perk alone!) has already bought you about 70% extra more time than you'd need! And this is if the survivor dies after 16 seconds in a chase, which must have been a pretty bad chase!
Killers don't have a perk that slows the game down by 70%.
6.
Offerings that allow a killer to kill a survivor that was hooked once(Should be twice) or increase the hook count by three when there everywhere already.
And the Marth88 experiment showed that Mori's weren't even enough.
7.
Yet some very powerful killer perks like bbq and chilli have no cooldown at all.
No cooldown? Is it always active? The cooldown is variable meaning up until you hook a survivor and it goes on cooldown after about 5 seconds again.
Against really good survivors you might not even be able to get a hook off, meaning you would've had an infinite cooldown. That seems like a pretty long cooldown to me.
8.
Killers are overpowered, thats my take on survivors vs killers.
In summary, this is not a profound opinion; this is the learning gap vs the mastering gap shown in the graph above:
In the beginning: Killers win most of the time, survivors die a lot
At the end: Killers get bullied, survivors can go for 20+ survival streaks.And that isn't even taking into account that Rank 1 is also home for a bulk of terrible, but frequently playing survivors, blurring the competitive numbers.
-
Wow, you are really tying yourself up in knots trying to justify this power. Btw, that perk idea would be completely broken on a 3 gen doc. Can you even imagine Doctor with Overcharge, Pop Goes the Weasel and your perk idea? An exposed status tied to working on generators is the only missing piece of the puzzle.
If you think a 3 Gen doc is broken, then I don't think you know what broken is in this game. Getting 3 genned is a choice survivors make.
- Pop goes the weasel? Someone has to be hooked for that to go off = Counterplayable.
- Overcharge = Counterplayable
- Exposed status effect = Counterplayable. Remember, you are not stunned or anything. The killer has to be surveilling that gen to get use out of the perk.
- 3 Generators close to each other = Counterplayable
Unlike aura-reading solution this actually has counterplay. In any other aura-reading variants, it's either too weak (as Surveillance is right now) or it completely locks down late-game counterplay, where you cannot get any gens done, because the killer will always know which gen you are working on, making the perk always useless or gamebreaking.
This is why Surveillance is the way it is, with 16 seconds. Because the Devs created a perk concept that hasn't really been touched yet, but saw how un fun it would be so they nerfed to the ground to the point where it isn't useable.
We don't need more variations of that. -
The perk is called Surveillance. Here is a little help as to what the word means since you seem confused.
sur·veil·lance
/sərˈvāləns/
noun
close observation, especially of a suspected spy or criminal.By it's very definition it is supposed to help the killer find survivors! What you suggested isn't a terrible idea for a perk. It would pair quite well with a buffed version of surveillance. But again, way off on the direction that a perk called surveillance should be.
Now think again. How do you get use of this perk? It's through surveilling a generator. You, the actual you, in order to strike a survivor who dares to touch it.
My suggestion is all about surveillance. The picture fits it even more perfectly since you're actually surveilling it rather then having any type of notification or aura reading while you are all the way in the desert;
close observation, especially of a suspected spy or criminal.
Where-as the old surveillance is just aura reading and has nothing to do with surveilling, my suggestion does the opposite and makes it about actual surveilling and makes it an even more suitable perk for the type of killers to whom it would be appropriate to use:
The pig
The Wraith -
Surveillance:
After a survivor touches a regressing generator, they gain the exposed effect for 10/15/20 seconds.
Are you gonna behave? - Amanda
There is no point in creating a highly conditional survivor find perk. Not only is finding survivors not that valuable, but to make it highly conditional? That's not kind.
Anti-Stealth perks is the last thing we need anyway.
So to give this perk some actual purpose, the above makes it harder for survivors to bully killers who have to keep kicking the generator that survivors keep tapping. (:
-
We need:
The full perk rework contest
This is a contest in which every underused perk will be looked at, and the devs agree on turning that perk into the most upvoted suggested version of it.
To solve the underlying issue for balance in this game.
Through the introduction of 3 new gamemechanics: (Chapter 3, Section 3)
Link: Solution to the Death-Efficiency Problem. Solving the game's biggest issue
and the specifics on how these 3 new game-mechanics are used will also be up to a vote.
To address the tools that are given to SWF's for free
Because SWF's get so many things for free through the availability of communication, we seek to close the gap between Solo's and SWF's.
Because it's problematic for the game to have 2 different power-units play under the same rule, we make sure that we create the mechanics that will solve this problem and make it fair for the killer.
-
@Jago said:
Could it be possible to have some of those detailed stats, that, I think, everyone should enjoy ?Escape rate as solo survivor
- Escape rate as SWF
- Percentage of killer using NOED
- How many time a killer spend in a 8m / 16m / 24m / 32m radius near a fresh hook (<10sec / <20sec / >30sec)
- Killer pick rate ratio
Everything based on ranking as followed : 20-16 / 15-11 / 10-6 / 5-1
Thanks.
How about:
-Use rate Rate Per Perk. (for all perks)
-Escape rate per Perk (for all perks)
-Average total generator progression per amount of survivors alive divided by the average time those survivors were alive in that amount. -
Solved Threads if the previous was implemented:
Is body blocking a bannable offense and if so how is it bannable in what ways?
etc. etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeWJcSWe-_0