ArecBalrin
ArecBalrin
About
- Username
- ArecBalrin
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@dannyfrog87 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567242#Comment_567242
well. you see. look what they did to ghostface. after devs CLAIM to no longer do knee jerk reactions .... they say one thing but they do another. ghostface isnt viable at red ranks. seems the devs are scared to make a killer powerful or they do it on purpose?? ive no idea any more what goes on in there heads lol. or brains. but is what it is
Worse still, they rarely talk about what their design intent is for each feature and killer. They outright told us the purpose of the Nurse was to get survivors to diversify playstyles and depend less on loops. They told us Myers was an answer to the ganging-up that was dominant at the time.
They nerfed both and in Myers case removed his multi-stalking, which was essentially a complete U-turn on the design intent. Maybe they don't share stuff with us because then we ask questions when they contradict themselves, but that isn't our fault and they've chosen the wrong way to handle it.
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567398#Comment_567398
You’re more likely to understand both sides struggles if you play both sides, that is why people clarify. I’ve seen people from both sides make fact based arguments and others who don’t.
I'll believe it when I see it; but whenever I do see 'I play both sides', I wouldn't lose any money betting on what follows being a predictably survivor-focused perspective. Put it in the same box as 'killers just want 4k'.
Most people play both sides. Killers do not need to announce it and understand it's meaningless, except for identifying the obvious survivor-mains who have no idea how they look to others yet obsess over it.
-
@NuclearBurrito On release, Trapper was the only killer whom did not gain any speed-speed from his special, as both Billy and Wraith did. This is when I first identified in my mind that the game had features for 'snow-balling' at one end and 'rubber-banding' at the other.
All the starting killers could apply map-pressure but did so in a different way. Wraith found people who tried hiding and Billy caught up to people who tried running: both were designed to snow-ball, they were effective early-game. Trapper was different in that his map-pressure didn't come into play until later; it was retro-grade. He would rubber-band into a better position after a long delay. At that point, Billy would have taken out all the runners but struggle to find survivors who were hiders and Wraith would have the opposite problem; how to catch those with original Sprint-Burst on a 20-second cooldown. Trapper could capitalise on any weakness as long as he had time.
The direction of the game when the focus shifted to extended chases, more detection for killers and 2nd-chances for survivors hurt the rubber-banding killers hard as they became starved for time. It didn't help solo survivors either, who need to depend on stealth more because even if they know how to extend chases, they can't trust that the others are doing the gens.
I see this with the Freddy re-work; he's clearly a rubber-band killer being changed to a possible snow-balling killer.
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567378#Comment_567378
That is subjective, while you say noed is the fairest I say Devour Hope is. Someone else could say bbq or haunted grounds is.
I applied an objective measure. Survivors are not going postal on Devour Hope, they're targeting NOED.
The only flaw in my reasoning is that they are targeting NOED as a means to an end and might not actually care about it. Maybe they're really bothered by Devour Hope and all it's fairness ruining the game for them. Getting something done about NOED would give them a boost against Devour Hope as killers might then switch to it if NOED gets changed. That's conjecture on my part.
They have consistently lobbied against every fair thing in the game, so it's a reliable measure of what is fair.
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567362#Comment_567362
You called playing both sides a survivor meme even though killer and survivor mains say this.
I won't dispute this, just your framing of it: killer-mains do not need to say that they are killer-mains. Some have and I'd ask them: 'what was the point of that?', because they don't need to.
Survivors-mains need to because they're obsessed with status and they assume people who are very different in terms of personality are actually like them. They want others to believe what they say 'as a killer-main' or 'I play both sides' because they want to avoid discussing details; they want others to just take them at their word.
Killers do not need to do this because when you play as a killer you're managing your stress whilst making fact-based decisions which create that stress. Killers are resilliant, ponderous and detail-driven; spinning several plates mentally whilst not losing focus on priorities. If you're able to follow an argument, what someone has actually said and cross-reference it, you don't need to tell anyone you can be trusted because you are are whatever label. No one can direct a doubt that is legitimate at a killer which the killer hasn't already themselves considered.
-
It's the fairest perk in the game, which is why survivors keep talking about it with each other and at the devs, but avoid any good-faith discussion with killers about it.
Fairness is toxic.
-
Most killers seem to reject the idea that a match should be judged based on the number of killers. Getting that to sink-in with non-killers has been a problem for three years now.
When asking about 'viable' in terms of a character though or a feature, we're really talking about what the word 'viable' means. @DemonDaddy 's response is basically an attempt at doing this.
Unfortuantely it depends on everyone else agreeing on what is meant by 'playing a perfect game' and this is more ambigious for a killer than a survivor, because decisions a killer has to make are often catch-22. Our decisions don't mean we're were correct as often as they just mean we guessed.
So if being forced to guess is the root of the problem, then I'd say any killer that makes guess-work necessary is NOT viable.
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567339#Comment_567339
Can you type one comment without mentioning “survivor meme”?
When survivors stop posting them, I'll stop talking about them.
-
@Dehitay said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567082#Comment_567082
On the PC, the survivors have a lower enough than 4:1 ratio to killers. Which means that there are enough extra killers to where more lobbies will already be made and they can join one of these existing lobbies and don't have to deal with the majority of the wait time it takes for a lobby to be made. Since consoles seem to have a greater than 4:1 ratio for survivors, they still have to wait on the majority of lobby creation time. And of course, killers always have to wait on the full lobby creation time.
The devs can not simultaneously claim that the match-making delays are caused by too many killers with not enough survivors and that the new system only creates lobbies when four survivors are found to match to it.
If the both of these are true, after a long delay for the killer, a lobby should be full seconds after it opens. Survivors should not be waiting in the lobby at all, but they are.
-
@indieeden7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/567285#Comment_567285
You're acting as though survivors earning more points means you get less. The grind in this game is ridiculous and currently we all know that survivors earn fewer points. So what you're saying is that only 20% of the people in a match should get enough points to make any significant progress in a bloodweb despite the fact that survivors have a longer grind than killers.
If they keep the survivors bloodpoint gain the same as it is now, within a few chapters there will be no survivors for you to earn bloodpoints from seeing as they only ever get a fraction of the points that killers get. Maybe instead of instantly jumping on the killer main bandwagon of "SuRvIvOrS eNtItLeD" maybe just realise that everyone in the game is really trying to get points and you aren't any more entitled to them than anyone else. Also FYI, add-ons aren't necessary to play the game, you can play effectively with most killers without them and if you think otherwise then you've become too reliant on them.
If I thought survivors getting more points means I get less, I'd say so. You have to give me an opinion I don't have because you have nothing else to reply with. Your entire post is based on giving me this opinion and ignoring the view that I actually expressed.
Survivors do not care one bit about what is and isn't true. Change my mind.
'Killers get more bloodpoints than survivors' is an ancient survivor-meme which they have never been able to support with evidence. If we ever see a proper set of data showing points-per-time-played, there would be grounds to make specific claims as long as a time-series was available showing if and how it changed over time.
What we do know for certain is how what points each role has been awarded has changed and in which patches. We know what survivors lobbied for then recieved and we know what killers lobbied for in response but were ignored.
-
Survivors literally just want something for free, with no fuss or argument. It was already unfair before they got their first freebie in terms of bloodpoints and every request since has been for the gap to widen under the pretense of a killer-lead in points that doesn't exist.
If they cared one tiny bit for truth, they'd be talking about points-per-time-played, accounting for the post-match adjustments. They have to talk instead about points-per-match because on a level playing-field, the double-standards are nakedly obvious.
-
How has this thread been hiding from me? It reeks of survivor-entitlement and double-standards.
It's more expensive to be a killer: we lose everything we bring to a match no matter if we do our objectives or not.
That is without even addressing the survivor-meme that 'killers get more bloodpoints', a craven lie that ignores killers having to do more in a match and having to remain in all cases until the end of the match before they can go find another. Only BBQ changes this, but survivors have their equivalent perk that goes in hand with how BBQ works; survivors just refuse to use it.
The devs have made it 'more equal' before, when they gave survivors compensation points for when the killer leaves mid-match because killers got them. That was equal though: killers were being compensated because we always lose our addons and don't have the means to preserve them between matches as survivors do. When the devs changed this and gave survivors those unearned compensation points, it should have been alongside giving killers a way to earn our addons back during the match.
It didn't happen though and they still wonder why a lot of the OG killer-mains are always angry. It's because we don't forget stuff that happened more than a few months ago.
-
The penny slowly drops that 'population imbalance' is not a valid explanation for what has been happening with the match-making since it was re-worked.
They keep telling us a lobby isn't created until four survivors are found to fill it, then we go into a lobby which is unfilled and takes minutes to get filled, no different from the system before except now killers have this pre-wait tacked on that feels artificial and never changes in accordance with peak and off-peak times.
-
The new survivor-meme is that 'survivors are weaker now' and 'have got heavy nerfs', which is something they have been saying since 2016 but they resist any objective accounting of the nerfs in comparison to killers.
They're not weaker, it's just that survivor-mains have become worse at the game on average. I doubt that will be a problem for the de-pip squad.
Other than the change to interacting with pallets, which is a usability change rather than a balance one(pallets by design remain game-breaking), there's little an invested player would need to adjust and adapt with from a year ago.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/73746/depip-squad-comeback
Only if they play against top tier known killer mains not just some random potatos.
When survivors play optimally, the message is 'Not all SWF groups are Teal Seam 6, brah!'.
When killers play optimally, the message is 'killers need nerfing'.
Don't think we don't see right through this.
-
Freddy is already looking super mediocre, so he'll probably get a buff, and then a hotfix nerf, just like Nerface.
Be careful.
You can be banned for not liking the devs, not trusting the devs, thinking aloud that the devs are not honest, that they have made contradictory statements throughout the life of the game which have not been explained, etc.
At least on the Steam forum, it would be odd if their own official forum wasn't even more....weird.
-
@Atsuka_Anarchy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/563072#Comment_563072
So you're saying the killer should have the clear and major advantage of a chase? So any chase is a L for the survivor. Cool. I'll have a lot of fun in red being chased and not being able to escape for very long because the killer is entitled to have my butt on a platter.
It's kind of the point of an asymmetric multiplayer: the side with the numbers advantage should not also have the 1v1 advantage, that's broken. Your whole point rests on killers making the most of a bad situation, which isn't the topic of the thread: why killer-mains think it is a bad situation is.
It's demonstrably true that it is the case, hence why you had to talk about when it is sometimes better to change targets rather than tunnel, rather than why a survivor should be able to stall a killer for so long so easily.
When the game started, survivors had plenty of options and there was a diversity of playstyles. Then they found one that they liked and constantly demanded be supported at the expense of others, as well as killers.
-
@PickCollins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/557294#Comment_557294
Okay onto you. Make smarter decisions. If you think that guy is gonna get to the hatch before you can find him, then pick him up and let the others get off so the hatch doesn't open and you buy yourself more time. Also, cleansing 5 totems strewn about the map to solve Devour hope is unfair as #########. You wanna build around it then defend ur totem. I agree totem spawns need fixed, but you shouldn't need to do 5 times the work to deal with 1 perk.
Also if a Survivior running Adrenaline loops you while the others do gens then they were being a team player and helping buy their teammates time to finish the gen. Ergo they do deserve adrenaline. I'd argue they deserved it the most seeing as how they did the hardest job successfully.
My Noed rework/change/nerf would be to either make the crutch less powerful or a ground up "you gotta earn this" perk. Or to allow small game to reveal auras again and grant bonus item charge when you cleanse a dull totem. Either remove the haste or remove the insta down if you wanna nerf NOED. That and/or give Surviviors more knowledge. One idea I proposed was to create a line of "latent" totem perks. Basically the perk is tied to a single dull totem. If a Survivior cleanses a normal dull totem then a small blue flame comes from the broken totem that alerts the Survivior that there is a latent totem on the map. Cleansing the latent totem is treated like a normal dull totem with the latent effect, and the next dull totem is treated as a normal cleanse without the blue flame, so at best for the Survivior they gotta hit 2 totems to know for sure that the perk is down.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/557633#Comment_557633
Where In the killer directives from the entity did it ever say "defend the totems". In fact the two directives are "sacrifice meat to please the Entity" and "do not let the light in". AKA, kill the Surviviors and prevent the gens from getting done. Nothing about totems. And I appreciate if you would drop the condescending "you know you're wrong" line bc it's very annoying. And if you want me to be as flippant as you're coming off, I can probably guess that you run Noed and aren't comfortable seeing ur perk be the topic of controversy. It's ok tho, I remember when Surviviors defended old decisive....wait NVM pretty much all of them admitted it was a horseshit perk. Well at least they were adamant that met...wait no they admitted MoM was OP too...I guess they have more humility.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/557646#Comment_557646
Survivors not cleansing totems isn't contingent on your actions. Ergo, no, you didn't do jack ######### to earn it. If your perk triggering is contingent on the Survivior actions/inactions, then it's not a perk earned it's a perk given.
Ok, you avoided addressing my point by just editing it out. Nice.
-
How about getting rid of voting completely and expressing agreement/disagreement the way adults do it?
Anywhere there exists such a system, there is a deluge of comments which resemble car bumper-stickers: shallow, simplistic and passive-aggressive. People who like to read, take their time to weigh up their own conclusions carefully and behave conscientiously, they are discouraged from participating. Their views will often only be noted if an editorial decision is taken to highlight it by those running the site. More often than not, it's the snappy and superficial posts getting promoted though.
-
@GrootDude said:
I play both sides and mained Freddy for awhile, it took me longer to learn him than spirit and nurse.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/559656#Comment_559656
"I play both sides" is a survivor-meme.
Most people play both sides, but most people also have a preference for a certain role which they play more than the other; killers do not ever have to mention this. Only survivors are obsessed with ideas about status, so they make a point of talking about it all the time.
-
@gantes said:
"Freddy rework seems like a nerf before we even know all the details of the rework", episode 259 of "Why the devs don't listen to us".
Because they mistake survivor-mains for killer-mains? No killer-main would say that Freddy has 'a high skill-cap'.
I wish the devs would notice the very clear difference between people who think and talk like survivors and those who are killers.
-
@Frozenscum said:
There is no paradox there.
Placing traps in unusual places along common paths has no paradox in sentence.
Survivor will check narrow walkthroughs, but rarely will be aware when running between gens near non-pallet obstacles.
Traps placed around loops get survivors a lot, when they see no trap in pallet, they tend to think loop is safe, etc, etc.
It's not unusual if everyone does that; there is no unusual spot along a common path, this is a tautological contradiction.
-
@miaasma said:
i don't even know where to begin with that so i'm just going to leave it
no survivor mechanic breaks the game the way nurse does
The mechanic which the Nurse breaks is the mechanic that broke the game first. This game was not designed as a loop-around-the-pallet merry-go-round exploiting an unplanned/unacknowledged differential in collision on level-geometry, where the killer can possibly be stalled in a series of extended chases for the whole match.
The devs said it themselves when infinites were the thing: Nurse was meant to make survivors less-reliant on the loops. They had accepted they had to get rid of infinites and wanted to wean survivors off of them and diversify their playstyles. Survivors wouldn't though and found pallet-loops as an alternative, after they had complained about killers out-playing them in the pallet stand-offs and wanted the pallets to be made fool-proof.
The problem is that survivors do not change how they play, they never adapt, they have developed a reasonable expectation that the devs will always come through for them. This will remain for as long as nerfs to the Nurse are even being considered and other killers are not brought up to her level of utility with an appropriate skill-ceiling.
-
@miaasma said:
no killer should destroy the game just because someone is good with it
people justifying how strong she is (or even denying how strong she is, which just betrays a lack of experience) by citing how much skill she supposedly takes miss the point
having played a lot of nurse and a lot of other killers, nurse is effectively dead by daylight easy mode. it'll take a few days of practicing her to get the hang of it but once you're over that hump it becomes very easy to do well with her because none of the typical chase mechanics have any impact on her. anything that a survivor can do mid-chase other than break LoS and hope she loses them is ignored. for a game that is balanced around chase mechanics, having a killer totally ignore them isn't especially healthy
addons worsen the problem: stacking range addons serves multiple purposes; not only do you go further, but you go faster because the blink charge time isn't reduced, meaning it takes less time to charge shorter blinks. this is why a nurse with range addons is impossible to juke or avoid at closer range and even extremely difficult at long range. multiple blinks give her too much of a safety net for screwing up
no idea how you'd balance nurse without just fundamentally changing her but she's pretty awful for the game
The problem with allowing just anybody to speak as they wish is that it takes seconds to make claims which can take minutes or hours to dismantle by any reasonable person. I'll start with the simple:
- The Nurse 'ignores mechanics' because the game was not designed or balanced around those chase mechanics as we now know them. They did not exist when she was released and looping was not a supported gameplay feature, but an exploit that was never fixed. Infinites were grudgingly removed, but replaced by a super-buff to pallets which led to pallet-looping. Most of the killers are not designed to even cope with this style of game-play.
- The difference between how Nurse performs at opposite ends of the rankings challenge the notion that Nurse is 'easy mode' and that it only takes a few days to learn how to use her well.
- The Nurse has not had a significant buff, direct or indirect, that can explain why survivors are so poor against a good Nurse. It used to be that a Nurse would prefer to not use addons because they reduce accuracy in blinking; the idea of using extra charges to make corrections would have been laughable in 2017. The only thing that could account for the difference now is that survivors have got worse at the game and don't remember how to juke a Nurse at all. This lowers the bar and makes it seem like an average Nurse is a great one, but it's not the addons, it's the survivors.
- If you come up with a rule like 'no killer should destroy the game just because someone is good at it', you'd best also have an explanation ready for why this standard does not apply to any survivor. As most killers are designed with little utility for chases and players have had to put up with the game being changed in design around the preferred playstyle of survivors, it's fair to ask: why have they been allowed to destroy the game continually and simply get more support for it?
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/558313#Comment_558313
Me and plenty of other survivor mains on this forum are willing to discuss.
With a vast gulf in what standards are regarded as adequate. Survivor-memes exist for a reason, they are all derived from direct-quotes of things survivors have unironically said and there are no killer-equivalents, though survivors really try with nonsense like 'why do killers just want 4k?'.
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/558250#Comment_558250
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/558250#Comment_558250
Some from both sides demand and others discuss. Don’t act like one side is the only one with people demanding things.
I criticise other killer-mains. I tell them "don't become like survivor-mains". The two sides are not the same; the Patrician is not like the Pleb just because they're both Romans.
Kilers always request a PTB for any new feature. Survivors know they don't need to; the toys they get never come with a sting-in-the-tail.
As your exchange with Orion shows; killers don't just demand stuff because they want things to go their own way, but because there should be some consistency and underlying principle to how decisions are made. Survivors are repulsed by discussion along those lines though, hence why both here and the Steam forum are 'killer echo-chambers'. Survivors exclude themselves because they can't be reasonable.
-
@Frozenscum said:
I dont even use darkening addons on him, they are fun, but I prefer green setting tools to cut my time and increase time I have to reach caught survivor if he steps in trap not too far from me.
Just dont place traps in obvious places, predict paths and place traps there. Ofc some obvious places should be trapped too, like vaults on long walls, but overall beeing unpredictable is your best friend.
Do you understand the paradox there? A Trapper can not simultaneously avoid placing traps in obvious places whilst also placing them in such a way as to predict paths: those paths are the obvious places.
An unpredictable Trapper will catch unpredictable survivors, sometimes. A predictable Trapper will catch predictable survivors, sometimes. It's a matter of wits and bluffs(but mostly pure chance), more so than chases themselves even come close to, but survivors have the edge because of the long set-up a Trapper is gauranteed to go through if they want to get any use out of their traps, with a very uncertain pay-off.
Any prediction a Trapper can make, a survivor can too, but with the additional benefit of a head-start not afforded to the Trapper. One survivor making use of that head-start will shut traps down, with a 1/4 progress penalty compared to the 100% progress penalty a Trapper has whilst placing traps.
-
@DoubleTap said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/557757#Comment_557757
@altruistic Well yeah, this entire forum is just one giant Killer echo chamber.
We couldn't laugh at survivor-memes if it was an echo-chamber. Killers like to discuss stuff, survivors just demand sweeping changes with barely any discussion or testing.
-
We honestly do not know if the Nurse is 'too strong' or not. We don't know this because whilst good survivors can beat a good Nurse, they don't talk about it; they want her nerfing before every other survivor starts thrashing her every game, again. Other survivors just don't get the memo and of course they don't listen to what Nurse-mains say.
She was the weakest killer after her initial nerf, until the new meta for her was created and made her as she is now. Survivors just don't remember this and how easy she was to beat during that short period.
If there was any consistency to the balance philosophy supposedly being aimed at balancing for low ranks, then the Nurse would have had some major buffs already considering the performance of low-rank Nurses. It instead just looks like there's a double-standard for survivors and killers.
Overall, we need the devs to talk about balance in broad-strokes again, to explain what they think it means for the game to be balanced.
-
@Frozenscum said:
Awful idea, how do you even come up with it?
Trapper and Hag take their time to place traps to cut chase time later in match, I cant even count how much time I've started chase with healthy survivor just to pick him up from trap 10 seconds later. Can you achieve 2 hits with M1 Killer in 10 seconds? No.
You took time for placement and compensate it with chases cut.
You can play differently, place 1-2 traps and go and find survivors to start chases, picking up traps midchase and placing traps after hooking.
While Trapper and Hag can sacrifice 2 gens for that, it will pay off later.
I agree with you right up until you say 'it will' rather than 'it might' in regards the pay-off. It only takes one dedicated person disarming traps who is even remotely good at it and Trapper becomes a basic M1 killer with no benefits.
Trapper's anticipation-based ability is negated by survivors who are themselves anticipating it, in no small part to the traps being obvious even with darken addons and they can be ran past even when placed in the middle of a narrow doorway.
He's pushed more towards Hag's reactive-style, but without the support for it in his design. Trapper-mains requested to be able to set traps where they currently are without pick-up(useful for if you are already at carrying capacity or short on time) and the devs acknowledged it but...nothing. That would at least let him catch-up to Hag as a reactive-controller.
-
It depends on so much.
No one has it harder than the day-one, rank 20, level 1 solo-survivor who doesn't know it's a bad idea to attempt getting themselves off the hook, that skill-checks have a sound-prompt warning, that their pathing around level-geometry is smaller than a killer's, what each killer can do and that the premade they are with is going to bully them as well as the killer and the killer will probably take it out on them.
These are the only survivors I have any empathy for.
As a killer, the role itself is not what is difficult. It's the fact that a low skill-ceiling on most of them means I have very little control over the match and I'm reliant on reacting to survivors.
Survivors are able to take more risks and are incentivised to do so because it's one of the few ways they can have fun when the game isn't after it stopped being challenging.
-
Survivors bring up 'killer lobby dodging' so often, I begin to wonder if this aggro with the waiting times purely is artificial and a test to see if killers dodge less with a built-in delay, hidden by the pre-search for a lobby.
The way the system has been described as designed to work, is not how it is actually working. We're going into lobbies which are not filled with four survivors, but often have a wait of minutes afterwards.
-
The issue with the whole discussion on balance is we're not dealing with a generally-accepted meaning of what 'balance' is supposed to be.
Frequent call-backs to the devs saying they consider it a certain result of 2:2 in escapes and kills is unhelpful, because the devs never explained what they actually meant and understandably haven't done since because for anyone statistically-numerate, this is meaningless in a game with ranks and match-making. The match-making + ranking will always bias the median average of escapes/kills towards 50/50, regardless of how unfair the game might actually be. We don't know if the devs were talking about the median average in the first place though.
-
@BBQnDemogorgon said:
You can when with Freddy and Doctor against good survivors if you're good...
Low skill cap is a meme.
There is a big difference between a good and bad LF as well.
To say that the low skill-ceiling on most killers 'is a meme' is to basically deny or ignore the extraordinary difference between Nurse's performance at each end of the rankings.
-
The way I see it they are both crutch perks but people have been meta slaving so hard Ruin is their life blood.
If a 'crutch' depends on the other side playing sub-optimally and 'allowing it' to work, it's not a crutch.
-
The only feature which killers have expressly and notably requested, which has made it into the game, is the hatch-closing mechanic.
It was however only implemented alongside the introduction of EGC, which completely defeats the purpose killers wanted hatch-closing for. Brilliant.
But sure, say that killers are listened to by the devs.
-
@PickCollins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/557001#Comment_557001
I do play Survivior and killer, even if I play killer more than Survivior. Dull totems are in obvious spots this is more often than not true. But what you are saying doesn't refute what I've said. It doesn't change that 4/5 dull totems can get cleansed and Noed will still trigger. It doesn't change that NOED triggering is not contingent on the killer doing anything to earn the perk and is solely meant to punish Surviviors for ignoring a secondary condition that zero emphasis is put on aside from this toxic crutch perk. It changes none of that, and If you can't see that then there's no convincing you that this perk is nothing more than a pad for bad killers to get kills they don't deserve.
Killers have this issue. They'll never EVER admit when something is bullshit in their favor. Killers complained and moaned when Noed was reworked into a hex perk bc it was no longer a promise at that point. When Legion had the filthy and nasty blade bugs that were getting exploited they came at BHVR with the "######### why are you banning us for an issue you could try fixing instead of doling out punishment" thought process and then as Soon as they saw wake up was bugged and saw survivors with it they went "THESE PEOPLE DESERVE PERMABANS GATHER THE PITCHFORKS WE MUST RE ENACT THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS".
Hypocrisy, double standards, and baseless complaints have always plagued the killer community, yet they never admit it. I find it funny
If I was being ungenerous, arguing in bad-faith and doing whatever it takes to 'win' this discussion, I would say that killers earned NOED by successfully 'protecting their totems'.
You know what is wrong with this argument and you know that I know what is wrong with that argument. I'm going to ask you to acknowledge then what is wrong with your argument that 'killers have NOED activate without earning it', because I know and I know that you are smart enough to also see it.
-
If we accept the argument that 'NOED rewards the killer for screwing-up' then what we are accepting is the notion that a killer may not have a feature that enables rubber-banding.
This automatically invites comparison with survivors having many such options in kind. This leads us to concluding after much pointless debate that 'none should have benefits which they have not adequately earned'.
This means that in principle, all rubber-band features should be removed from the game and only snow-balling features remain. This would make the overall game balance considerably more frustrating, with people more likely to DC because they know they aren't likely to win: who ever is doing well a minute into a match might have an insurmountable lead.
-
Looping was as someone has already mentioned, an exploit which instead of being fixed was made a core gameplay feature, because there is a double-standard applied when weighing feedback based on whether it comes from survivors or killers.
It's also how pallets became major facilitators for looping, when they were originally meant to give survivors space to hide and escape the chase, not indefinitely stall the killer until the gates are powered.
You can't blame a person for using whatever the game gives them to win. It's up to the devs to make sure that the game overall is fair and fun for everybody. However, survivors are not bystanders when it comes to pallets and looping, among other things: they have actively lobbied for one particular playstyle which they have refused to allow to be changed for 3 years now.
Every time something happens that would affect that playstyle, something else is introduced or changed to replace it in effect.
-
@Rasinbran said:
Noed is in the same boat as Ruin where it's an absolute crutch for almost every killer.
A crutch that relies on a dice-roll that is less than 50% favourable, is not a crutch.
NOED is made 50/50 by virtue of there being two exit gates; on most maps they can never spawn in a position where they can both be guarded at the same time, even by Huntress or Billy. It is pushed below 50% by being a Hex perk that can be defeated before it activates and the possibility of the hatch.
NOED's de facto function is as an insurance perk; where survivors who are not that good but managed to focus down gens can have their plan back-fire. A survivor will only lose to NOED because they made a major screw-up.
Ruin is more complicated in that there is a less definitive measure of whether it has served it's purpose by the time it is cleansed. We don't know how quickly gens are done on average from the start of a match even if we know how long each gen takes, nor even a comparison of how it changes when Ruin is in use. It is however still countered by survivors that know what they're doing or are prepared to use an exploit the devs admit is unintended but they have no plans to ever change.
To editorialise; survivors have such an easy time in this game that in order to have fun, they take greater risks, always increasing. These perks mainly serve a purpose in boosting those risks so survivors are more likely to make errors. They are some of the only tools killers have for this; killers lack control over the matches in practically every other way.
-
What SWF needs is for the devs to stop compromising every time they have a decent idea. If they say the point of the Pig's RBTs is to 'give survivors a reason to turn on each other' then that is what they should do. If they say the Nurse is meant to encourage survivors to broaden their range of playstyles, no amount of complaining should make them U-turn. They also said Myers was meant to deal with survivors grouping-up and bullying the killer, but they flinched on that; destroying the machine-gun build and removing his ability to talk multiple survivors until the game reached a point where it hardly mattered.
These all hurt SWF much more than they did solo survivors,but all were changed so this was practically reversed so SWF have much less problems than solos do.
Bloodlust itself needs removing from the game: it's awful for low-rank survivors and not a problem for anyone else as long as they're not being an idiot. I don't really like sudden changes and rarely make specific suggestions, but Bloodlust needs to unequivocally be gone and not be replaced with anything.
-
@Ttwylerr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/555307#Comment_555307
And yet only a little later they admitted that they had already been working on the code for it but didn't have it ready at launch. It's funny since it was killer mains who actually showed me that.
Is October 2018 'a little later' then? This is ages after the fact and after they said in unambigious words in June 2016 that 'premades will never be allowed in ranked play'.
To say 'they worked on the code' is a sleight of hand, because of course they did: the game shippled with Kill Your Friends, which needs much of the same code.
-
@Ttwylerr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/555187#Comment_555187
Survivor's didn't get rewarded being able to party up was already planned even before release. Next time you wanna try to be snarky towards someone make sure you got your research right. ;)
The devs said in a stream just after release that they would never allow premades into ranked match-making, giving the exact same reasons that it would be impossible to balance the game then. This was livestream #6, the only one they do not have archived on their Youtube channel(I wonder why).
What's your evidence that it was always planned? Everyone who was following the game at the time knows what the devs said regarding 'no premades in ranked play ever'.
-
@JustJess said:
Bump!
I think the new Freddy rework is similar to my idea of Samara teleporting to gens...
So you need to re-work this idea.
Also, make it Sadoko, the original, even if we already have the Spirit; a number of killers are American, so two or more Japanese ones shouldn't be off the table.
Personally, I think it's very uncharacteristic for Samara/Sadoko to physically attack directly. This could be the first range-only killer and with totally different propers representing generators and hooks, replaced with TVs and stonewells respectively.
-
Seeing as they made Trapper's animation boring, I'd prefer it if there just wasn't any animation at all: the trap simply goes instantly beneath you while you're walking and then activates after a few seconds. The animation only serves to limit their use mid-chase, which doesn't matter much because its still obvious where you placed them.
The main issue wasn't originally that each trap took a long time to place; the animation whether long or short was still just seconds. The issue was having to travel around the map placing them, collecting them first in the case of Trapper whilst being limited in what you could carry. This made extra bag space popular for addons, but very little is done in regards to improving the traps themselves: any effect only applies if someone actually gets caught in one.
The devs chose to make trap placement individually faster, but that's barely a help compared to what map-wide zones of control being quickly established could do. Hag at least could be the reactive-controller, but Trapper needs help being the anticipation-controller and that means some better addons that mean they don't have to be set in predictable locations or during chases.
-
If your case for changing NOED rests entirely on a survivor-sympathy card, why post it in the killer sub-forum where it won't be welcome?
The issue killers have with unearned matched results stems from almost every killer having an awfully low skill-ceiling, that limits how much use they can get out of any particular killer with practice and that killers have very little control over matches but must play a reactive role. This does not translate into any perk with an 'unearned reward' for killers being a problem, especially if the overall game design itself remains one of survivors doing and killers responding.
NOED bucks this because it has to, under the current design of the game and the meta which survivors have developed and stuck to for 3 years now. Your suggestion removes NOED as a secondary-objective that is optional and lenghtens matches(something frequently requested even now but by people who don't acknowledge it as an already implemented feature), as something that survivors are supposed to have as a risk for not doing the optional objectives. It also removes a 'rubber-band' feature-option for killers(I mean a 'rubber-band' as a term to describe the opposite of snow-balling, something which gives the losing-side a chance of a comeback). That's all very well, but invites broader discussion about the similar feature-options for survivors which have become far more numerous and dominate the game.
-
Survivors complained about Freddy constantly, see what happened; a very weak killer was unjustly nerfed. Survivors complained about hook-camping constantly; killers got BBQ to encourage them to leave hooks. Survivors complained about 'having to lobby-dodge to play with friends in ranked' and look at what happened: the devs introduced SWF just weeks after making it explicitly clear that they would never allow premades into ranked play.
Changes made simply because a lot of people complained have always been bad, in virtually any game, not just this one. The content of those complaints matter a lot more than the number of people voicing them, but there is a resistence from a lot of people to talk about and accept certain standards of debate.
The standards for debate in regards NOED have been particularly low.
-
@Visionmaker said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/555049#Comment_555049
You need four survivors per killer to start a lobby. It doesn't matter whether you'll be waiting in the menu screen or the lobby screen. You'll still wait the same amount of time.
It is completely invalid to claim it is not due to population imbalance. You have no data and no proof. The devs tell you it's due to a population imbalance. Steam server trackers tell you it's a population imbalance. Yet you sit here and deny this. Matchmaking is your boogeyman.
The fact of the matter is that there are simply more killers than survivors for an even ratio, let alone high rank balance. But I'm not going to whine about how it's the dev's fault for driving one side away, like some people regularly do on this forum.
Right now, we have 3 survivors per 1 killer in US East. In lobbies, not waiting to make a room. Let that sit with you for a minute.
This doesn't answer anything that I've said. At all.
It's four survivors needed, just to start a lobby, yet lobbies are starting with less than four. As a survivor, I am joining lobbies which then still have a wait, some of them very long. The 'evidence' you're providing supports MY point, not anything to the contrary. Those people are in lobbies, waiting.
What is invalid is to characterise my expressed view as a 'claim'. I am not trying to persuade anyone else; people can make their own minds up. I am expressing disbelief at the claims I am being asked to believe, with little or no evidence supporting them. I think to say no one knows what is going on and what we're being asked to believe isn't credible is simply fair-comment.
-
@Ttwylerr said:
Nah the matchmaking is perfect now since it forces killers to play instead of abusing lobby dodging. Killers earned this.
It's ok for survivors abusing lobby-dodging and being rewarded with SWF getting added, but when killers do it they must be punished.
But of course, killers have no reason to complain. Ever.