ArecBalrin
ArecBalrin
About
- Username
- ArecBalrin
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
She doesn't ignore 'all survivor escape mechanics' as others say: she ignores just the mechanics which survivors have developed tunnel-vision over. These are mechanics which she was explicitly designed to counter, because the devs wanted to discourage survivors from over-reliance on them but to diversify their playstyles.
Only later did the devs then start treating the exploits survivors were using as core game mechanics. They could not get away with touching the Nurse again though because they had already given her the single largest set of nerfs to any character, just shortly after release, without listening to killer feedback or explaining their reasoning; something they would go on to do repeatedly with new killers and features before peaking with Freddy's knee-jerk nerfing.
After her initial nerfing, the Nurse was the weakest killer in the game. Since then, only two things have changed that are relevent: Nurse-mains developed the way of playing her which we know of now and survivors forgot how to play against her, which would still work because whilst the newer-style capitalises on her strengths(requiring a higher skill-ceiling to be reached), her weaknesses remain the same.
In fact, the graphics engine overhaul that happened in early 2017 borked the PoV camera for all killers and would have made Nurse even harder to play. The devs have no intention of ever fixing it BTW and said so.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/576562#Comment_576562
Then the devs didn't think those ideas through. Like they don't take affect if another survivor is within a certain area of the hook. Idk what ideas they tried though, tbh.
For the devs, 'thinking an idea through' means listening to survivors, who were of course all in favour of it. Killers warning that survivors exploit every flawed design that they find was ignored; until the devs did a PTB on it and survivors did exactly what killers said they would.
This remains the case and if the devs won't listen to killers, they need to at least stop listening to survivors also.
When it dawned on the devs that punishing killers for tunnelling and camping was fruitless because of the way survivors would always try to abuse it, they turned to the carrot rather than the stick. Survivors still don't seem to realise how it was their persistent feedback on hook-camping that led to BBQ being introduced as an incentive for killers to leave the hook and to not tunnel until they had hooked everybody at least once.
Survivors screamed the house down about BBQ for well over a year, neglecting to use their own counter-part to it: WGLF, giving them the exact same benefits(save for what they already have in their base kit, aura-reading the hook) and working in conjunction with BBQ. They had asked for this feature unwittingly and then complained about it. Their inability to understand what it is they actually want is a key reason why the devs must stop listening to them. They'd get better informed feedback by shaking a magic 8-ball.
-
@AokiiSenpaii said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/573154#Comment_573154
Actually, yea. Take a step back and look at what you Killers call "NOED"
If you want to have bottom-scraping standards of argument, we can all do that.
NOED is a 'rubber-band' feature, the opposite of a 'snow-balling' feature. There are many of them in the game; survivors have most of them and they do not have the absolute counter-plays that NOED does.
If we get rid of all rubber-banding features, that would be a huge nerf to survivors and hardly a nerf at all to killers. Of course, survivors will scream the loudest as they do about everything which they wish for and then get, because survivors do not know what they want and that's why the devs must stop listening to them.
-
Okay um campers are garbage no one likes them and its frankly a cheap tactic for cry baby killers.
Survivors already got an unjustified penalty for killers being near the hook 'but not in a chase'(dependent on the game's utterly unreliable ability to detect a chase) in the emblem system, whilst simultaneously securing for themselves BONUSES for not doing their own objectives or trying to escape a chase, but for simply griefing and stalling the killer.
This game will not be fair until the devs stop listening to feedback from survivors.
-
@Kilmeran said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/572512#Comment_572512
@ArecBalrin Hang on a moment . . . .
@Peanits Can we have that missing Livestream back? Because if that's true, then something is amiss. Especially since the Devs directly said that SWF was always planned to be implemented in the October 2018 stream (or around thereabouts), which seems like convenient revisionist history on their part if what he says about the now missing Livestream #6 is accurate.
I have to be careful about what I say, because even expressing that I have an opinion based on clear evidence like this has got me into trouble elsewhere before. I make a point of not personalising it, not targeting any particular person(I never say which dev said what for example), but it doesn't matter: simply pointing out that not everything they say can possibly be true at the same time got a hair-trigger reaction.
I'm also having trouble finding the streams where it was stated that auras for hooks with a survivor on them no longer appearing for killers(in all cases, it was gone from the game, only survivors could see it) was a bug they were working on fixing, along with a stream months later where they said it had actually been an intended change all along. It seems to have disappeared from the patch notes too, when they announced they had fixed it as a bug.
-
Anyone that talks about Nurse 'ignoring mechanics' doesn't remember that said mechanics were exploits which the Nurse was intended in the devs own words 'to discourage survivors from using' prior to the devs removing them, so survivors would diversify their playstyles.
The devs bottled it, replaced infinites with pallet-loops and survivors have not changed their playstyle in 3 years.
Her addons are not an issue either. There have been no changes to the game that would make them an issue. In 2017, the recommendation was to avoid using addons because they mess-up your memory and you had less accuracy. You can practice with addons, but have to learn every single combination which can effect time-to-distance or else trying to use extra blinks to compensate won't work.
Have Nurse-mains become super-good at that? Either they have, or survivors have become considerably worse at the game, which seems to be the most likely case.
-
People say EGC was meant to stop survivors from holding the game hostage. Maybe that was the intention, but that isn't the effect. They can still hold a game hostage, just not indefinitely and due to their predeliction for taking risks, they're actually less likely to leave until forced to. This is for the EGC scenario where survivors are winning as they have got at least one gate open, or have held the game hostage by 99%-ing the gates thereby forcing the killer to take the intended humiliation of having to open the gate themselves to start the timer.
Then there is the other EGC scenario where the killer is winning. The fact that EGC on hatch-closing automatically powers the gates fuels a big argument against the idea of fairness for the killer. Peanits has confirmed that the issue with garaunteeing gates don't spawn close is it means most killers would have no chance to win; but this is de facto already the case. I have constantly been keeping an eye out when I play and when I watch streams for any instance where due to the gate locations, the killer is able to effectively guard both. I have to date found only 7, out of the 22. Even then it's only a chance to have a fortunate gate placement for most killers.
Either one of the EGC scenarios favours the survivors to a degree where it's like it was designed for them; to troll when they are winning or to get multiple chances to escape yet again when they are losing. It's all work and frustration for the killer and defeats the entire purpose for why we asked to be able to close the hatch in the first-place.
-
WGLF is obviously designed to work in conjunction with a killer using BBQ.
BBQ incentivises the killer to leave the hook, WGLF incentivises a rescue.
Why does BBQ alone then get the aura read but not WGLF? Because survivors already have the relevent aura read by default. When killers went through a period of not being able to see the hook aura and find it again(the devs first called it a bug before later saying it was always an intended change, then eventually fixing 'the bug'), the survivors still could. They didn't have to run around the map searching for the person needing un-hooking.
Considering the time-frame for this bug, shortly after Leatherface was released, it suggests that the dev-narrative that is true is a mix of both. We'll never know though. But WGLF is entirely equal to BBQ, survivors just don't see it.
Imagine if killers didn't need to use BBQ in order to get the benefit of auras when they hook someone; BBQ would still do exactly as it does now, it hasn't been nerfed, it's just the core feature for killer has recieved the aura read. This would mean it works exactly like WGLF rather than different but equal, yet survivors would scream about this 'huge buff' to killers without regarding BBQ as being strongly nerfed.
-
@Peanits said:
Limiting perk slots is by design. It forces you to pick something you want to specialize rather than letting you be a jack of all trades. While there are more perks in the game, you are not meant to equip a whole bunch at once, you're meant to make sacrifices and swap out one for another.
If a 4-person SWF pick different information perks, they aren't bound by this design.
Killers need 16 perk slots to be even close to equal.
-
-
@Peanits said:
Just dropping by to clarify; a generator actually takes 80 seconds for a single person to power, not 60 seconds. I'll also drop this here for the sake of conversation.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/016/VSZZGYDNBD21.jpg
And now I'll go back to lurking and see what kind of suggestions everyone has.
This isn't that helpful. If that's the modal average then it's saying 11 minutes is the most frequent length of matches, but might not represent most matches. If it's the mean average then it can be skewed by relatively few games which are much longer than usual. If it's the median average, then half of all games are less than 11 minutes and half of all games are longer than 11 minutes. So which is it?
If it is the mean(what most people think of when they think of averages), I'm not sure why the X axis is for rank. People might be puzzled as to why there is little change in the length of matches as we climb through the ranking; in low ranks survivors just can't be relied on to do gens but that problem diminishes as you rise and killers start struggling.
The thing is the axis for rank can not account for players of different rank joining games, whatever their role is. This will flatten the time axis across all of them. Then when you do account for roles; the killer has to remain for the whole match, so is the measure being taken per match or per player? We know from the technical note in the post where the graph was first released that the blip at ranks 1-2 is caused by the measure being taken post-match, so if a person de-ranks then the result records them as rank 2 even if they started the match as rank 1. This means also that the measure is not being taken per match, but per players, which has implications as unlike the survivors- the killer is there for the whole thing.
Changing the X axis to cover roles though might have revealed some interesting information with relevance to killers earning more bloodpoints per match versus per time.
-
The OP has failed to support the central assertion; that EGC by hatch-close favours the killer.
I have tried finding maps where it is even possible for it to favour the killer due to the position of the gates; whether they are in close-proximity(so any killer can guard both effectively) or without gauranteed obstruction by level geometry and/or tiles(where Billy can zoom between them rapidly).
There are 7 such such maps, out of 22, where this is even possible. Even then, the gates only have a probability of spawning in a position unfavourable to survivors. Every time I ask someone claiming EGC is unfair on survivors to state what maps they are having issue with, they either ignore me or demand I simply accept their word without any specifics.
Please change that.
-
Can BHVR restore livestream #6 on the Youtube channel so we can hear one more time when they said they would never allow premades into regular matches because it would be impossible to balance due to 3rd-party communication?
-
@Carlosylu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/74771/the-trapper-conundrum
Cause the traps he sets can instadown a survivor, whyle the hag uses them to teleport and Freddy to slow them down.... So...
That's a rare addon. The base effect is they become injured and are trapped, with unlimited chances to attempt escape until the Trapper arrives. If they are already injured, there is no cumulative-effect.
The hit-box is also so tiny that a survivor can get past it in a door-width of space one one side or the other if it's placed in the middle. It's even easier if it's off a bit to the side.
He epitomises the complaint that survivors must make mistakes above all else in order for the killer to win; it's not enough to simply play better than the survivors. Trapper has to play the odds, but survivors have garaunteed mitigations.
-
@feechima said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/570414#Comment_570414
You completely missed my point. I'm not saying that the game is Killer-sided. The OP is saying its survivor-sided. I'm pointing out at list of my own to counter his list of changes that have been made that dramatically increased the quality of gameplay for killers. I'm saying that they are attempting to balance the game which means nerfs and buffs on both sides. And many killer mains from when the game first came out have said that it is much easier than it once was. The game will 'NEVER' be balanced because it is only balanced in the personal opinions of the players which will not all agree.
Well I didn't say you said the game was killer-sided; you missed MY point, which was that people making lists of things, whatever they think, does not mean anything. I should have probably done more though to distinguish that point from my disagreement with your suggestion that the game has got better for killers along the lines of the list you made.
-
@Horus said:
Top 5 counters to new freddy
1.Genrush(Obviously)
2.loops
3.Always stay awake
4.remember pallet positions and which have been used
5.instaheals
Except for 3, this is basically the survivor-meta already.
-
Basically, play as SWF. Two people, asleep and awake can confirm to each other whether any pallet is real and simply throw it down.
Stay together and the dream-state becomes nothing: you don't need to run to the clock furthest from you, the limited spawns mean that one is always nearby for someone and they can wake everyone else up.
Balance can not be quickly determined in a PTB, but new-Freddy's glaring weaknesses are already being probed. Freddy's only base advantage for sleeping multiple people is it lowers the cooldown on his teleport, something which he gets little use out of if everyone is together anyway.
Freddy has basically been designed so survivors can have fun. No killer-focused concern has been addressed.
-
@HP150 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/570682#Comment_570682
...I strongly feel like SWF is the single most broken thing in the game, the game was not intended to have SWF from the start, and the problem needs to be addressed before they rework Ranked to actually matter.
With that said, some people really don't live in reality when discussing SWF or understand why SWF is broken. Hint: SWF groups generally don't consist of a Delta Force squad relaying every movement in real time, with video feeds of every teammate's computer screen.
Still watching Hexy and here's another SWF problem for Freddy.
The devs made a point of emphasising that when a survivor falls asleep, their particular clock will spawn the max possible distance from them. They can however still wake each other up if at least one of them is awake.
Hexy used the addon that means they all start in the dream, but because the SWF made sure to start together with an offering and there is a limited number of spots the clock can spawn, a clock inevitably was forced to spawn near them. One of them was able to use it and then they could all wake up quickly together.
Freddy in this sense is uniquely strong against solo survivors, but uniquely weak against SWF who are alreadytesting a meta against him. If the devs are serious about bridging the difference between solo and premade survivors, this is going to be a set-back.
-
Yeah, watching Hexy and something occured to me as he plays against a Freddy using the addon for fake-pallets: SWF with one person awake can tell them whether a pallet is fake or not, so the ones in dream who can see it know to throw it down.
Using that addon against a 3-4 person SWF is basically throwing your only chase utility away.
-
Here's the problem in principle: a PTB is never going to be long enough, with enough people participating, for a meta to evolve. A killer who might seem strong in a PTB can be turn out to be a paper-tiger given time + thousands of monkeys typing in the live game, like Freddy the first time or even Nurse after her initial nerf.
A PTB is okay for finding out the basics, discovering bugs, but is never a good measure of balance.
-
@Andreyu44 Freddy was weak and people still complained and the devs listened to those complaints because they were volumous(survivors) over those who were rational(killers).
OP, I am against the idea of feedback based on specific requests for changes; they are the problem that has made a mess of the game, they can not be the solution, whether they are calls for nerfs or buffs.
Whether or not the Nurse is OP at whatever level of play; she was designed for a version of this game that no longer exists. The point of her was to get survivors weaned-off looping so they would diversify their playstyles. They wouldn't, so the devs simply changed the game to revolve around that particular playstyle, which the Nurse is designed explicitly to be strong against.
The devs have yet to explain why they did this, what their justification is and if they believe the same standards should apply to both survivors and killers equally.
-
@ClogWench possibly why Scott/Vinc3Vega's channel has really taken-off in the last year is that he's different. Whilst definitely way above-average as a player, people aren't watching to see him win as much as they are to see his hijinks, which are not so overtly toxic as Ochido.
When he does his 'Scaredette' plays, contributing virtually nothing the whole match and still gets out with a pip, it's glorious.
-
@feechima said:
If you used to play the game since the beginning how can you have missed all the ways it's gotten easier for killers.
1.) Less pallets
2.) Closing infinite loops down
3) Removal of pallet vacuum
4.) Nerf to Vaulting
5.) Exhaustion nerf
6.) MoM nerfed
7.) Buff to killers like Wraith, Trapper, slight buff to Spirit, Huntress and now total Freddy rework
8.) Nerf to gen cooperation
9.)Nerf to Leader
10.) Hatch can be closed now
11.) EGC
12.) Loud/additional survivor sounds including louder footfalls to make them easier to track
I could go on.... And by saying this I'm not saying its Killer-sided. It's no one-sided. They are attempting to balance the game. Right now it is just in the killer's favor more often than not, but the tide may turn.
Because whilst you make a list you think is important, someone with the opposing view can make another list which they think is important. What reason would there be to claim your list would be more significant than theirs?
Back in 2017, someone started a thread on the Steam forum listing 'all nerfs to survivor since release' and it was ridiculed for the very-loose definition of 'nerf' that had to be implied to include many of the things on it. In response, another thread was started listing 'all nerfs to killer since release' and a point was made of using the exact same standards established by the original thread. The killer list though dwarfed the survivor one and survivors gave up maintaining their list not long after. The creator of the killer nerf list still updates it.
Depending on your standards, that is quantative and qualitative proof that the game is very much not better for killers. Changes to the game do not happen in a vaccum; a list cherry-picking changes which nominally benefit killers ignore changes that are inconvenient and maybe cancel-out other changes.
-
Morf, Vinc3Vega and Bahroo(when he can be bothered to play) are the only people I watch. The main thing is they are entertaining. I don't regard anyone though as being an authority on the game just because they say so and when it comes to hours-played, all the hours in the world don't help if someone can't explain the rationale behind their point-of-view, whether I agree with it or not.
-
Something is running that slows pages down the longer they are up. I can see the delay between my typing and it appearing in the comment box increasing all the time, even now. It seems to reset when I refresh the page, which I guess is why the forum saves a draft every minute or so.
-
I define 'bias' to mean "being in denial, ignorant or attempting to conceal a favour or leaning towards something".
The devs do not need to know they are biased for it to be the case, as long as;
- They dismiss any suggestion of it
- It can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree that they are biased
I think both conditions are met by the history of the game and their way of responding to feedback. I don't necessarily share the same standards with others who believe the devs are biased though.
The strongest case that can be made for it is not any individual change to the game or interaction they have had with the playerbase, or even a comprehensive list of them. It's the differences in standards which the devs apply across the board, throughout the life of the game.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/569792#Comment_569792
Exactly.
The double standard is real around these forums.
Except that isn't what killers say at all. This fake claim about a double-standard is only being made because of the very well-cited double-standard where survivors defend the balance of the game on the basis that 'few survivors play optimally' whilst simultaneously calling for killers like the Nurse to be nerfed because of her maximum potential, which few Nurse players are capable of.
@darktrix just pulled this nonsense out of nowhere. Killers complain of having little control over the matches and having to rely on survivors making mistakes, which is the opposite of saying 'everything is balanced' when killers win. The issue for killers is that win or lose, our own effort had only a marginal effect on it. Having to invent things that killers supposedly think or said saves on having to actually listen to killers though.
-
Anyone can make a bad-faith argument, just watch:
NOED triggering is the killer's 'reward' for protecting their totems successfully.
So yeah, when someone makes the bad-faith argument that 'NOED rewards failure', anyone can make an equally bad-faith argument back which shuts it down. This carries on, back and forth.
The discussion will be repeated in a new thread not too long after and we get nowhere.
-
Noticing that the thread is now a total retread of every discussion that has ever been had about SWF, which is what happens when an SWF-related thread starts with a non sequiter.
A reminder that the devs said they would never allow premades into ranked play just weeks before they introduced SWF. At a glance, that appears to be one of two or three dev-streams that are not available on their Youtube channel.
It would be awfully inconvenient if it was available, because it would reflect poorly on an answer they gave to a question in a Q&A stream last October, where they stated they always intended for it and had been working on the code before release. Both this and the missing dev-stream can't both be true. It's livestream #6 from June 2016 right afte release, if anyone stumbles on it.
-
@Boss said:
If it's slower now, assuming the devs back up their promise to buff the recovery speed, it's a bug, not a nerf.
They do actually have some form with nerfing things and not telling us, then when we ask about it they say it's a bug.
Hook auras disappearing is the most memorable one. They first said it was a bug that they were working on fixing, but after it was stil there months later they said on stream they had no plans to fix it because it was an intended nerf all along, just not in the patch-notes.
A few more months later, the patch-notes list that 'the hook-aura bug has been fixed'. We never found out which version of this was true and why it took almost a year to fix if it was a bug.
They claim the borking of the killer PoV camera after the graphics overhaul(it is not in fact meant to look like it currently does, for anyone who doesn't remember) was unintended, but they had no plans on ever fixing it. That's when the survivors 360s started; their entire playstyle is based on exploits and bugs the devs just wouldn't fix.
-
I came looking for a well-reasoned argument explaining how SWF is balanced.
The OP didn't even attempt that but instead talked about the problems with playing with randoms. This does not at all address the topic of the thread title.
I broadly agree that solo survivors have issues, especially at low ranks, which need addressing. This does not budge my opinion on SWF at all.
-
@HorsePower said:
Do you even realize that survivors automatically go into Dream State when they get hit by Freddy? How is that a killer with no power?
They can be looping him for so long that they could end up in dream-state passively before he even gets to hit them.
The thing is, if you can easily hit a survivor then what do you need a power for? It's a power that only works, if you don't need it.
-
One thing I want to raise and yes, it's mostly a whine about how the devs demonstrably do not listen to killer-mains.
Whenever it is suggested, I never see any strong objections(from killers) to killers being more difficult to use in return for being proportionately stronger: raising the skill-ceiling basically. It also evens out the advantage killers have in low ranks whilst making more of them viable in high ranks.
The problem? It means making other killers more like the Nurse, which the devs said they were going to avoid; not making it clear whether they meant being ableto clip through objects specfically or in general just being more difficult but also more powerful.
Everything I see wrong with the outlined design for New-Freddy looks like a deliberate avoidance of anything that makes a great demand of the killer to use and in return, the toys won't bother survivor much either.
Killers should be harder and stronger, insert a joke about someone's mum here.
-
How would you describe your general design-intent for Freddy now, is he jack-of-all-trades for chasing, map-control, hunting and stalling survivors, or is he a specialist in something?
-
The OP is right. NOED currently depends on being triggered mid-chase or you managing to find someone at an exit-gate, which if they're out in the open is 50/50. The counter-play for survivors already is to hide or go to the opposite gate to the one the killer has. When it was made a Hex perk, it was regarded by killers as a massive nerf, but survivors are of course never satisfied.
Now this is a very low-standard of discussion; everyone will just play 'one-potato two-potato' trying to find an excuse more petty than the previous one to come out on top. We end up not actually discussing what the purpose of a feature is and if we agree in principle.
Would be nice if we gave it a try though.
-
It's not the time to finish a gen that's the problem. It's the time to finish a chase.
Guess which has had the most change?
-
@[Deleted User] said:
A killer is as viable as a player is smart, and their ability (or lack there of) to outwit the survivors.
It has nothing to do with perks, add ons, or mobility. They’re just sugar and spice on top off what should be sound fundamentals and sound judgement.
The things you're trying to separate are the same: if a killer is not playing according to their resources, they have neither fundamentals or judgement. They are different for each killer; no one should play a Trapper like a Billy or a Nurse like Myers.
How viable a killer is can not be separated from the environment they exist in, it can however be separated from the player in control, which is what killers talk about when complaining of the low skill-ceiling on most killers.
-
This puts the meta entirely in control of the devs, who had a problem with giving straightforward information about even collision-box differences until a Q&A stream last October, more than two years. Hard no from me.
Restrict survivors instead; force them to diversify their never-changing playstyle.
-
I'm scared about any change to Distressing; it's been part of my Trapper off-build since the beginning.
Distressing is an OG perk, with the original point seeming to be that it gave survivors more warning that you were close, in return for giving you the Deviousness boost. It worked well with Unnerving Presence, that made skill-checks more difficult but in return giving survivors more opportunities to increase progress. This works extremely well in lower ranks where people were not ready for it, whilst giving you a useful-read in mid-rank about which survivor was the weak-link.
The game has changed however and I don't think BHVR anticipated killers would develop the build of 'hiding inside your own expansive terror-radius' as it covers a huge part of some maps. Distressing gave survivors a chance to hide, but they don't even try hiding any more anyway and often won't leave a gen until they see the killer, so killers use it to confuse and ambush instead.
The devs rarely give killers anything without also taking something significant away. It could be the Deviousness boost, it could be its synergy with other perks or something like Unrelenting where the entire purpose of the perk was destroyed.
-
The issue is that both base generator progress and overall perk-adjusted progress have barely increased whilst chase-duration has massively gone up. The one increase in base progression of 10 seconds was more than cancelled-out by the time added to each hook-stage.
Oppose survivors constantly lobbying for ways to extend chases and more 2nd-chance perks.
-
@TRB124 said:
Firstly, please don’t compare Adrenaline with NOED. Adrenaline REWARDS survivors for completing their objective, and is entirely preventable if you do your job as killer and prevent gens from popping. NOED rewards failure.
Secondly, do survivors really have time to do totems? Against an inexperienced killer, yes. But it still doesn’t justify NOED as it rewards failure but it is avoidable in this situation.
But against a killer that applies constant pressure? Imagine a game as survivor where you just about manage to pull through by finishing all 5 gens with 2 survivors left, only to get rewarded with being instadowned by NOED. When the killer is applying constant pressure you have no time to do dull totems as every second you aren’t on a gen is detrimental to your survival.
Every single 2nd-chance perk rewards the survivors for failure and punishes the killer for doing their job. Where a mitigation is available for the killer(such as not picking up someone who has DS active), the killer is being forced in their decision and the consequence for the wrong choice is certain.
When NOED activates, the killer has a mere chance to down someone and can only do so if a survivor makes a significant mistake. They otherwise can not simultaneously guard every exit option the survivors have. NOED is always a 50/50 chance of finding someone at a gate, which decreases if the survivors actually bother hiding. The killer then has a catch-22 decision whether to search around or rush to the other gate.
Survivors not only have a simple mititation against NOED, it's not even an unearned victory for the killer if they manage to get someone, unlike a DS or BT is in the last few seconds of a match.
-
@miaasma said:
i'm very certain you're a troll by this point, placing everyone into a category of survivor or killer in this super weird cringy way and thinking that everyone who says they "play both sides" is a survivor main in both sides' clothing
either way, not really much else to be discussed with somebody who thoroughly buys into a partisan ideology regarding a video game but then feels fit to discuss balance ever despite their own admission that their point of view is inherently unbalanced
Being aware of my distorted-view means I can compensate for it. You can't, as is evidenced by your inability to entertain the idea that a person saying 'I play both sides' is not being honest. Most people who play both sides do not ever feel the need to declare it; only people trying to be persuasive but not be questioned need to do so.
Thank you again though for giving me opinions I do not have. It's all you can do.
-
@miaasma said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567583#Comment_567583
i can't believe you can type nonsense like this and not realize how much it outs your killer bias, but i also can
the only reason anyone feels the need to point it out on this forum, specifically, is because people get accused of being survivor mains when they don't
That's exactly what makes it obvious they are survivor-mains though: their inability to see the different significance those words have for killers. Imprecise words, imprecisely used, like 'bias' are survivor-speak too.
I'm not biased; I'm partisan. Someone who is biased is unaware, in denial or hiding their sympathies and their lens is distorted as a result. I can't be accused of any of these: I'm completey aware that my start-point is always that of a killer-main. Survivors accuse killers of bias all the time because they think killers are like themselves; that they're just survivors with survivor-thinking, who happen to have chosen Team Killer instead of Team Survivor.
This is why survivors give killers opinions we don't have, words we didn't say and thoughts we don't think, as you have done, repeatedly.
-
@miaasma said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567572#Comment_567572
it doesn't. there's no other reason to point out that you play both sides. you are just being pedantic by saying this, which undermines any point you were trying to make to begin with
not that it needed much undermining
Anybody saying 'I play both sides' and also 'killers just want to 4k' and other survivor-meme nonsense like it, is a survivor-main. The point is that their declaration is meaningless and the fact they think it matters is what outs them as a survivor-main.
Many people, practically everyone, plays both sides: only survivor-mains needs to assert it though.
-
It's due to how match-making works when survivors are SWF. The match is made either according to the average rank of the premade groups(unlikely) or the person with the lowest rank(more likely).
This means you can have a SWF premade group made up of three people in ranks 1-10 and one person who is rank 17 being matched against a killer that is rank 14-20, rather than 1-10. If the lower rank survivor is being looked after, they do better than they otherwise would against killers who are equal or higher rank than them. Their rank then raises, so they are thus 'boosted', but do not have the experience or skill required to get there on their own.
Now it has expanded from that to mean when you are playing so badly, it's as if you have been boosted; you are playing like you belong in a lower rank. It's meant as a joke though as ranks are not a good indicator of skill as almost anyone can rank up just by playing a lot in a short space of time as actualy down-ranking is rare unless you abandon matches.
-
@miaasma said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567561#Comment_567561
literally the whole point of saying you play both sides is to indicate that you understand both sides from playing them extensively
playing mostly killer with a little survivor (as well as the opposite) doesn't fit that description. you still main one side, even if you play a bit of the other
can't believe this needs to be explained to someone
It needs to be explained because you invented it and super-imposed it over the explanation given by every single person ever who has said 'I play both sides'.
-
@miaasma said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567532#Comment_567532
people who "play both sides" indicate that they do so in order to communicate that they don't main either side, so you missed the point of my reply
your next post is just as laughable, honestly. somehow survivors are the only ones not concerned with fairness while killers are egalitarian saints
just more to cringe over
I missed the point because the point is absurd and no reasonable person can be expected to get it. This is the first time I have ever heard of anyone believing that 'playing both sides' means there is no preference for either role. The reality is that killer-preferring players still play survivor and survivor-preferring players sometimes go killer; is there an alternative way of describing these people without confusing them with your unique definition of 'plays both sides'?
-
@miaasma said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567398#Comment_567398
i visibly cringed reading this
your borderline martyrdom of killer mains while assigning survivor bias to anyone who does play both sides betrays your own killer bias
lots of people do not play both sides, which is painfully obvious reading people's posts on this forum. and even less people play both sides extensively
I have never accused anyone of bias: that's also a survivor-meme.
You also didn't bother reading the post you're responding to. Most people play both roles, but only survivor-mains have a need to let everyone know they do, for the reasons I've outlined.
-
If survivors wanted fairness, they never would have asked for the same compensation that a killer gets when a survivor leaves a match, but for a killer leaving.
You got to keep your item+addons, the killer got the missing Sacrifice points plus the tiny Quitter Bonus per survivor, which is still less than what most addons cost. At least that was how it was on-paper; killers mostly just received the Quitter Bonus but not the Sacrifice because survivors were disconnecting in a way that denied it(so they could preserve their own items no less). Survivors complained about that exploit and it got fixed, only after they got the unjustified point-boost; it was left as-is for months when only killers suffered it. The devs fixed it in weeks when it applied to survivors.
It was never enough though; even as killers continued losing addons in every match with no opportunity to earn them back, survivors demanded more unearned points on top of their existing advantage. I've even seen them demand points for when other survivors leave or disconnect, a recipe for premades to grief other survivors.
Do not claim survivors are concerned with fairness.
-
..That also means players are left speculating a lot when we discuss things and have more heated arguments than we otherwise would.