ArecBalrin
ArecBalrin
About
- Username
- ArecBalrin
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@HatCreature said:
I wish I saw this first so I could post it here instead of making a separate thread lol I made a Clown add-on or maybe it can be an ability change all together. I agree, there IS away of changing Killer abilities and making them stronger without changing them completely, add-ons are one way to do it but it doesn't have to be.
Here's a link to my thread with a Clown change I mentioned.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/80728/clown-add-on-buff#latest
Just to check I understand it, I'll summarise your suggestion.
- It's an addon called 'Heavy Sedative'
- It causes his power to apply a debuff called 'Sleep Transition'
- ST is similar to Deep Wounds but without mending
- Instead a survivor needs to wake-up from it like Freddy's dream-state
- ST will not count-down while a survivor is within Clown's TR
- When it does count-down, the survivor falls asleep on the floor until they recover or are woken. Recovery resets the timer.
Your suggestion is intended to be a straight buff, limited to a single new addon. There has been concern from people that Clown has been lacking as a killer. To me he's maybe even over-shadowed by new-Freddy who has a very similar active ability(on top of all his others!), that slows vulnerable sleeping survivors temporarily and can be used while moving full-speed but doesn't have a reload.
Clown's 'meh-ness' can be marginally justified because he can reload anywhere, unlike Huntress or Trapper who must collect their ammo. In the PTB his move-speed decrease whilst charging a throw was removed so he could throw without slowing-down(like the Huntress does), instead of making his actual ability more powerful. I personally do not like the direction he was taken, frankly because I do think all killers should be harder to use, harder to master and consequentially more powerful in return.
I don't think direct addon changes are the way to go, at least for most of them. Instead addon changes should support core mechanical changes that require more investment from the players but offer better results.
I'll have a think about Clown.
-
I'm reminded of an exchange in the UK Parliament between the speaker(who chairs sessions) and the MP Dennis Skinner.
"Half the people on the opposite side are crooks!" - Skinner
"The gentlemen will withdraw that comment" - Speaker
"Ok then, half of them are NOT crooks!"
-
Killers are still waiting for 'addons being lost every single match no matter what' to be addressed.
-
@immortalls96 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/625261#Comment_625261
Eh..maybe..but it foesnt seem to be helping us so far..look at gf
There have been 3 years of compromises beforehand. Demanding higher standards is only a recent thing, mainly because every time the devs claim to have learned some lessons, too many people believe it(see Freddy the first time round).
When people offer solutions, I want to know what problems are being fixed.
When people make complaints, I want the causes to be defined in specifics.
When people give suggestions, I want the clarity of standards and not the distraction of them talking about their desired consequences.
I don't want to have to take anybody's word for anything either: I want these things to be demonstrably true and verifiable by anyone.
We have not had this.
-
@immortalls96 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/625249#Comment_625249
Yes I agree it doesnt solve any killer issues..but..it gives one less thing for survivors to throw at us when we talk about the state of weaker killers..and it's far better than what they are demanding
If we accept these standards, then we accept conceding things which are unjustified because the other side are asking for something even worse. Obviously the way to get what you want if you notice someone doing this is to make unreasonable demands; then less ridiculous but still-unreasonable suggestions get taken seriously.
This is why people do not so easily concede anything, even in a non-zero sum game.
-
@immortalls96 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/625239#Comment_625239
I agree that only one side gets heard in some cases believe me I do..but..finding a good middle ground on something like this is a decent start
Which is why my first reply was 'why would killers agree to this?'
It had the appearance to me of a solution looking for a problem. It gives survivors yet another bit of breathing-room, on top of their ever-growing list of 2nd-chances, without solving any killer problems with said 2nd-chances or any related issue.
-
It's one possibility. I can not actually think of any point to EW2: it exists simply to not have the drawbacks or benefits of the other tiers. This makes it completely antithetical to the concept of a higher skill-ceiling and skill-floor, with strength in proportion to that.
One alternative would be that instead of removing EW2, make it do something other than being 'not EW1/EW3'. I didn't suggest that because I haven't yet been able to imagine what that could be.
-
@immortalls96 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/625218#Comment_625218
While I agree I try to be fair to both sides and I fully understand the feelings some people have on moris even if I dont share them..but the devs need to be given suggestions or else they'll take a blind swing at trying to appease the mob and it could be for the worse..so far this is the most fair solution I could think on
The devs take bad-swings at things all the time, partially because they are fed suggestions that can be used to justify them all the time.
I happen to think the last 3 years has had too many suggestions and not enough debate and consensus-building for them and that's why the quality of feedback and some of the devs decisions have been so poor.
-
McLean told me when I asked to consider his gen-teleport to be his main-power; the thing he's most about now.
Despite him having addons that affect all four(FOUR!) of his powers; two active and two passive.
Conceptually, he's a mess now and just borrows from other killers. I expect different devs will give different answers at different times regarding what his main utility is supposed to be; in accordance with what player feedback says is the most or least fun. They have made him a killer that is infinitely-flexible: when they nerf something they can claim it's a minor change because it's not his main-power and this will change depending on what is on the chopping-block. Meanwhile miniscule paper-buffs can be presented as significant by claiming 'his main-power' is receiving them.
So far this hasn't happened because only a few of us have been moaning.
-
@immortalls96 said:
Well considering I myself am a killer player..even make YouTube vids on it, I don't tunnel most of the time , and a common issue I run into is two hooking everyone , common issue with good players , itd give survivors no excuse to whine , make it the counterpart to keys almost perfectly, plus it wouldnt make the mori any less useful, just needs a tad more setup and not even a hard setup at that
You think that if survivors have no excuse to whine, that this will stop them?
They already don't and yet they do.
We need to have a conversation about features which artificially shorten and extend the game. Singling-out individual features though just leads to double-standards being applied to different ones.
-
I'll kick-off by talking about the ultimate 'M1 killer', Myers.
Typically labelled as a 'stealth' killer owing almost purely to a small TR in Evil Within 1, he currently seems to have three variable playstyles: 1) Butt-surprise Myers, 2) Ultimate evil Myers and 3) Classic Myers.
1) Stays in EW1 and tries to focus on grabbing unwary people off gens. Generally considered a meme-build.
2) Always involves extending the duration of EW3, sometimes combining this with Judith's Tombstone to mori survivors. Also considered a meme-build.
3) This is his vanilla and generally what survivors expect to be up against when they find out they're against Myers.
Out of all these though, only 1) is an overt stealth-based playstyle. It definitely takes some skill, but once survivors are on to it then it becomes very unlikely to catch them. Myers has to revert to a classic playstyle then. The problem is though: he can't, he's stuck in EW1 if he uses Scratched Mirror.
There is a skill of sorts to managing and building EW, with it basically rewarding you for how close you can stay to a survivor, which becomes harder to do once you are up to EW2 and the TR has extended.
Proposal:
He should be re-designed around the meme-builds, but not as straight choice between the two(though addons can still allow that). Get rid of EW2 and have just two tiers of Evil Within: the stealth one and the M1 rampage. It's tempting to suggest Myers get more direct chase-utility; all the high skill-ceiling killers have that, but he'd lose some uniqueness. The limit on EW points that can be absorbed from survivors should also be either raised or removed.
The goal is that now the killer has access to the two most useful stances, without the dividing-middle; in return for having to manage the challenges of both. The only benefits of EW2 are that it's not EW1 and gives access to EW3. If Myers only had EW2, he'd just be a Trapper without traps and a smaller TR. It's a stop-gap and a fall-back, so get rid of it.
Let me know your thoughts.
-
Ok, so why would killers agree to this?
-
@woundcowboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/625101#Comment_625101
They’re also working on hundreds of other things that have more priority... like the game functioning lol.
I think people being blinded is a definite functionality issue, maybe even a significantly higher-priority because it's eyes literally being damaged. Games have Epilepsy warnings for far less intrusive and dangerous stimuli.
-
@woundcowboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/624881#Comment_624881
That’s just it, nothing is simple. Every change has to go through a ton of testing and approvals.
It's a texture-swap. Anyone can mod it into the game in minutes, it's just doing so might trigger a VAC ban.
The devs have made far more drastic changes in the span of a week.
-
I think it's all feedback but not all feedback is useful. There needs to be a method to filter what is 'information' and what is 'noise'. The problem is the devs don't state what, if any, method they use to filter. The result is players don't know what the ideal framing for feedback is and the devs seem to respond to it almost at random, regardless of it's merit, effort or information-content.
-
Doing the gens has a 75% win-rate on-paper. Those are the odds of you not being the guy on the hook.
If survivors did this, killers would camp less because most who do it was trying to win and if this decreases their chance to win, they wouldn't do it. Camping is not fun; a killer trying to win and have fun would rather be doing anything else, even if it's yet another over-long frustrating chase. The only reason to do it is to punish a specific survivor which can be classed as a form of rage-quitting, or if it seems obvious survivors will not do gens.
Why is a 75% win-rate still not good enough? If this were another game, any tactic with a 75% win-rate would nerfed.
Seeing as we are discussing this topic with rock-bottom standards, let's do that. Survivors doing gens should be nerfed if someone is on the hook: it has a theoretical 75% win-rate. That's broken!
-
@woundcowboy said:
I know it’s funny to say, but the devs being bad at the game is not a blow up, at all. A dev’s responsibility is to make sure the game works as it is supposed to and to create and support content. They don’t have time to solely play the game and become gods at it.
I have a friend who works at Netherrealm studios and it is the same thing there. Balancing is second to supporting the game’s functionality.
It took BHVR 18 months to address flashlights blinding people IRL. It was solved with a simple texture-swap.
-
@ZacKdbd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/624772#Comment_624772
Didn’t look back at my comment. But of course a butthurt killer is going to say the things you’re saying. Go cry somewhere else ;) how about get good and don’t chase a survivor for 5 gens
Ok, this is just you being abusive. We're done.
-
@ZacKdbd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/624734#Comment_624734
and survivors haven’t said that either? That’s why I said MORE killers. Put your comment in the first slot of the trash pile lmao
Really? Where did you say 'more killers'?
I'm reading 'More like killers cry because they have to use effort', which is your only use of 'more' in that post. Your characterisation of what killers say and think conflicts with what killers actually do say and think.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/624752#Comment_624752
As I said before developers do not have to listen to ANYONE. They do listen to feedback and Spirit post PTB is the best example of this. This is not a contest which side they listen to more as there is no side. Health of the game is what matters for ALL players across ALL ranks - that is why balancing this game always will be an issue. This game should never lean towards being a competetive one - in the end it's not balanced for it and never will be - some people just take this game way too seriously.
If I ask someone a question, I have a responsibility then to listen to the answer and any further information. To do otherwise is to treat the other person disgracefully. It gives me a poor reputation and discourages anyone from answering in future. It's a bad idea.
No, I don't 'have to', but only as long as words don't mean anything and no one has any responsibility to anyone and everything is basically nihilistic meaninglessness.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/624744#Comment_624744
Feedback can only give them ideas and some general direction but in the end all the changes are by their own design. They are the devs and they are responsible for their game and balance - they do not have to cater to anyone - whiny survivors or killers.
This isn't about catering to anyone: it's about the relationship between them and their audience being governed by standards. This is how things are made fair, rather than decided by knee-jerk reactions, strong opinions and mobbing.
-
@White_Owl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/624739#Comment_624739
Many people suggested that exact change on this very forum.
Can you link a thread where it is discussed? I'm trying to establish how the devs determine what feedback is worth listening to and what feedback isn't, because they sure as hell don't tell us their method.
-
@White_Owl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/624725#Comment_624725
First off, you're going off topic.
Second, that isn't true. Just the recent nerf to MoM proves the contrary, they basically killed the perk by following our feedback and ideas.
Really? Who asked for the specific change that happened to MoM? People arguing against something does not imply they are in favour of it's exact opposite and it should never be interpreted as such. MoM had to change, but who asked for the change that was implemented? Have the devs explained why they chose it?
-
@White_Owl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/624716#Comment_624716
It's the same exact thing just with a different context. There are multiple people behind the project and only the final user is the one supposed to use it to its fullest.
Which should mean two things matter a lot:
- The end-user feedback is extremely important
- It's a two-way street; they require information from us and should respect it
How they respect it is by having clear and consistent standards for collecting and appraising it. They don't get to pick and choose what they want to hear. They also need to provide end-users with much more information, so we can better understand their design intentions and shape our feedback based on it.
None of this happens though.
-
@White_Owl said:
I suppose you also want a race car engineer to compete in F1 races...
An engineer doesn't need to know how the whole of the car works, just how it fits together. The people actually designing it will include engineers, scientists and experienced drivers, all of whom have a competent level of understanding of the others disciplines they are not specialists in.
The frustration that is often expressed is that the devs collectively do not seem to grasp how their game works. Whilst there is more dialogue between players and developers than with most games, the quality of it is very poor.
-
@ScottJund said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/624668#Comment_624668
Survivors have perks that result in an additional hit needed to down them, and killers have perks that remove that additional hit away (MYC, NOED, Haunted Grounds, Devour Hope, etc.) I dont see a problem.
I don't think anyone argues otherwise. It's the implication that these things are of equal-value, that's something that needs more flesh on dem bones.
-
@Seanzu said:
Good Devs aren't good at their own games, almost every game has a community that far surpasses the skill the developers ever will have.
Looking at the statistics and numbers is far more important to devs than being able to compete at rank 1.
Hideo Kojima can do a 48-hit combo with a flawless victory and fatality in MGS2 and the game doesn't even have that stuff in.
The 'Sid' difficulty in all Civilization games is named after creator Sid Meier as it's the difficulty he himself plays at.
The reason why Link is an expert at the sword, the bow, magic, any musical instrument, sailing and horse-riding the moment he first touches them is this reflects Shigeru Miyamoto's own experience of reality.
Gabe Newell had 2k hours on DOTA2 before it had even been released. He can jungle/carry with IO, whilst also being the courier for the team.
As for the devs setting any kind of store in data: we have yet to see them produce any useful statistics from it rather than mislead people with them.
-
Pinhead as a concept/character from The Hellbound Heart is owned by Clive Barker. Pinhead of the Hellraiser films is currently owned by Dimension Films on license and they only make new films to hold on to their film license. The actor Doug Bradley is so strongly associated with the character, he might have a stake in the likeness from the films as well. It seems a remarkable coincidence that Freddy, as the one unmasked licensed killer, is the 2009 Jackie Earle Harley one rather than Robert Englund- the actor synonymous with Freddy. That's more than just issues with rights to the character; JEH can't argue that it's his likeness in that burnt-face, but Englund's make-up explicitly allowed for his expressions and likeness to come through.
Freddy didn't need the actor and the writer's permission: they didn't use the Englund version and Wes Craven is RIP. They just needed the current rights-holders permission: New Line Cinema and Warner Bros. Pinhead from the films would need the permission of the writer(Barker), the studio(Dimension) and possibly the actor, but Doug Bradley has been sour on not being cast in either of the two straight-to-video films released since he last starred as Pinhead in 2005.
So they would probably be left using one of those other Pinheads, who apart from the head are almost total re-designs. The director of the most recent film 'Hellraiser: Judgement' said the re-design was out of 'respect' for Bradley, to distinguish his Pinhead from the new one. To me, it seems more likely this was done for legal reasons because Bradley might have a valid claim to be a co-creator of the classic design of Pinhead. Bradley had been offered pittances to return to the role, but turned down the latest one because he would have had to sign an NDA just to read the script. He's been treated appallingly, so really might just veto any use of classic Pinhead and no one will want to risk settling it in court.
-
@Usui said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623669#Comment_623669
I'm sorry we don't all come here to write a thesis about how unbalanced this game is.
You should then, because most things said about the state of the game are poorly-supported. If people somehow hypothetically had a minimum meaningful word-count, they'd have to put a lot more thought into what they're saying rather than making drive-by arguments without any substance.
-
@KillermainBTWm8 said:
This ######### can happen to survivors as well ofc we won't talk about that. Complaining about second chance perks nowadays is quite funny considering most if not all have counterplay. If someone has one bad game as a killer "SURVIVOR OP PLS NURF". Survivors do this as well. A killer can have an extremely unfun and unbalanced game and so can survivors. That's how this game works though people will religiously say that their side needs buffs and that the other side is a bunch of whiners that need a plethora of nerfs :/
If you accept in principle that both sides can have extremely 'unfun and unbalanced' games, then you are accepting that such things can be measured. If they can be measured, the overall picture is knowable.
We can know to what degree there is over-lap between random elements and the extend that player actions can decide outcomes.
Killers have complained for a long time that we lack agency in-game, we are forced to be reactive, based on our experiences and objective comparisons of the dynamics of interacting game mechanics. Most of us are confident then that any fair-minded look at the overall picture would reveal a Venn picture with killers in a small circle, being over-lapped by two very large circles for randomness and survivors, that ony slightly over-lap each other.
This is why of course survivors call for changes to the game, but rarely ever better information. Killers requests feature a desire for information almost as much as they want specific game changes. Everyone knows a clearer picture would support killers, but most don't want to admit it.
-
@indieeden7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623711#Comment_623711
Blink at the floor and it cancels the blink, it was added with the saw chapter when they allowed her to blink through the floor for some reason.
I think to call that a 'cancel' of the blink is really disingenous. The blink happens and can't be stopped from happening, only the distance travelled can be altered after max-charge has been reached. A cancel would be Nurse starting to charge but then stopping, or starts the blink but can cancel it mid-transit. Neither is the case here.
The Saw Chapter(patch 1.5) added yet another vertical map when the devs were way behind on removing dead-zones for blinks from existing ones. They either had to restore her base move-speed to normal or give her better vertical function; they had over-nerfed her map-pressure the first time round when the issue had been her chase-utility.
-
@Theluckyboi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623714#Comment_623714
Perhaps if you stopped writing in shakespeare it would be easier to understand you.
I've told the people who habitually do it that I will be reporting it from now on. Please do not do it again.
And no, i am not false quoting you, i am just replying to your points, nothing that is ban meritorious
This is the first time you've indicated you're just not understanding. This conflicts with the fact that you responded to one point by taking of quote of what I said and then changing it's tone and character; you understood well enough to make the misrepresentation.
Misrepresenting someone in this way is personally abusive. Just stop. You don't need a degree in English to understand that; it's basic common-sense.
-
Agreed.
But now chase times must be cut in half with either severe chase-utility nerfs to survivors or significant across-the-board buffs to chase-utility for killers.
-
@Theluckyboi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623697#Comment_623697
"Killers are weak cuz there are 4 survivors and they all have 4 perks which makes up for 16 perks in total!!! Thats so unfair! how am i supposed to do anything about that?!!!"
How in the world isnt that victimization?
The more 2nd-chance perks a survivor has equipped, the less chance there is of any single one of them needing to be used; hence the situations in which any specific one is activated is of course rare. That is the point and all survivors benefit from it, not just the survivor who has equipped them.
So, you are admitting that sometimes said second chance perks wont even be used in a single game? Then, why insist they give such a massive advantage to the survivors? why insist they are overwhelming to the killer because "they are 16 perks"?
False-quoting goes quite a bit further than mere selective-quoting, it in fact crosses a personal boundary into wilful misrepresentation.
I've told the people who habitually do it that I will be reporting it from now on. Please do not do it again.
I have already explained how the synergy of 2nd-chance perks work and how the synergy is so great that it means any specific one being triggered is a rare event because of it. It does not need repeating by me now, it just needs some reflection from you.
-
@indieeden7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623457#Comment_623457
I mean, Spirit and Billy aren't all that hard to get good with. Even Nurse isn't as hard as people make her out to be ever since they made it so she could cancel her blinks.
When was the change made that she could cancel her blinks?
I think you mean she can shorten her blinks, so does not have to go a full-distance on a full-charge. This is unlike with the Huntress, who can charge up a throw but then cancel it without throwing. The Nurse must blink, she must blink for the full-duration and then wait-out the fatigue, having only achieved a shortening that survivors seem to have problems reading.
-
@Theluckyboi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623669#Comment_623669
The problem here is, many of the points in your post are nothing more than mere victimizations and focus on extremely rare situations that almost never happen
If my post is so vague and poorly written is because i dont usually write rants so big, i had to this time because so many of the points you made were stupid.
When you selectively quote anything, it will usually look stupid.
You have a wildly different standard for what 'victimisations' are if you think anything in my post resembles that.
What reference I make to situations describes the process by which 2nd-chance perk synergy works and it works like this all the time. The more 2nd-chance perks a survivor has equipped, the less chance there is of any single one of them needing to be used; hence the situations in which any specific one is activated is of course rare. That is the point and all survivors benefit from it, not just the survivor who has equipped them.
-
@indieeden7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623401#Comment_623401
I was mainly trying to point out that it doesn't only punish bad players. Say you were in a five gen chase with someone and their teammates didn't cleanse all 5 totems and you only then hit them with NOED, they obviously weren't a bad player, you were just using a perk that punishes them for not doing something that they didn't have a chance to do. I don't have that much of a problem with NOED but I don't like the fact that it also punishes players that weren't playing badly.
Well there is a simple solution to this: make chases shorter. They have become increasingly longer, to please survivors with no regard to what killers feel about them. It's disgusting that a chase even can go on for 5 gens.
The survivor entered a fail-state when the killer first found them. The killer is punished by survivors having extensive, match-long benefits that support their preferred playstyle. The circumstances under which NOED has actually done something remains the same, except now the killer has more than two places to go looking for someone.
-
@venom12784 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623318#Comment_623318
I don't agree with that at all. Swf can be toxic but not every swf can be toxic. Just like the player base of this game. Not everyone is toxic. But having a feature in the game to go up against someone who just destroyed you or you just destroyed breeds toxicity.
Again if you want to do this you can send them a friend request and give them a "kyf your bro"
This is the 'not everyone plays optimally' double-standard for game-balance, but with extra-steps.
I can also take your same point: if SWF is not always toxic but can be, then Rematch might also not always be toxic even if it can be. How do you make the determination that SWF does not breed toxicity but a Rematch option would?
-
@Theluckyboi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623154#Comment_623154
"killers weak"
"survivors OP"
The fact that your post has this amount of support really brings light to the fact that the forums are extremely killer biased
Let me tell you where and why your logic is flawed
Killers have 4 perks against survivors 16
The classic "argument" that has been repeated over and over again
You are not taking into account those 16 perks are all distributed between 4 survivors, perks that most of the time wont directly affect you as killer and will only give an small defensive advantage or will only reveal the aura of their teammates
Killer perks are if anything, not strong enough considering the disadvantage a killer is at.
https://dennisreep.nl/dbd/perks/killer/
Judge by yourself, how many of the perks listed here can actually be considered weak or not worth using on any killer? Almost every perk helps you ends chases faster or make tracking survivors easier, saying that killer perks are weak is downright stupid.
Most useful killer perks have poor-synergy together or form off-builds which are sub-optimal.
all of which not only synergise and can be equipped to all four perk slots without clashing, but each one in-use decreases significantly the chance that another will have to be used
Literally, what the hell? Killers have way more perk variety with better synergies than those of the survivors
Montos videos are a prime example of this, just how many survivor builds has he done in the past 6 months? Only like 4 or 3, on the other hand he makes killer builds every day, because killer perks synergize way better than those of the survivors.
Please name at least 5 synergies of survivor perks, i am waiting.
We are reaching victim levels here
Survivors meanwhile have recieved an average of two new 2nd-chance perks every year
They get nerfed the week after they have been released, so...
They each get two chances to be hooked before it's fatal
Well, thanks for naming one of the game mechanics. I dont know what point you are trying to prove here
They can heal an unlimited number of times working together or act independently if they run Self-Care
Which makes them waste time, time you can use chasing other survivors and downing them, its up to you how you use it.
After this, you just make a rant about survivor perks you dont like.
If the killer is able to slug them instead and they can't get healed, they can self-revive with Unbreakable after a long chase where MoM or Dead Hard gave them a way to ignore a hit.
I am starting to think that the people that upvoted you post didnt actually read it, have your forgotten that MoM got nerfed to the ground in the GF update?
I think the format where a person chooses to respond with selective-quote followed by counter-point, then another selective-quote followed by counter-point and so in, that's a very obtuse way of making a reply. It becomes an entire house of cards of bad-faith.
I choose what my points are and how I frame them, not you. If I attract supporting upvotes, it's not necessarily because they all agree with me; some might appreciate that I have a particular stance on how I engage with others directly. I might use hyperbole and rhetoric when I'm discussing ideas and general points-of-view, but when it comes to individuals; no matter how much I may disagree with them or think them misguided, that they have personal agency is sacrosanct.
If I ever set out to demolish the genuine express views of someone, I first assume I know nothing of them. Then once I am confident I have a good idea, I will get clariifcation and specification from the person. When I have an accurate picture of what they really believe and why, that's still not good enough: I will then assume it has no inherent flaws internally even if they are obvious. I will set myself the difficult challenge: of arguing against the strongest possible version of their viewpoint, with no assumption of bad-faith on their part.
People have noticed this and I am striving to be consistent with it: I want better standards of discussion than what currently exists here.
Reading your own post and trying to sum-up it's entirety; I'm not even sure if you're arguing with me, or for an audience.
-
@Andreyu44 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/622207#Comment_622207
Playing killer is already less stressful than playing survivor
The low-resilliance survivors demonstrate in regards to stress, expressed by their constant DCs, suggests otherwise.
Killers have to stay a whole match, spinning multiple-plates and knowing that giving it 100% with zero mistakes still means that by default the survivors will win. That's actually stressful.
-
@indieeden7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623326#Comment_623326
I'm sorry but that isn't true, the whole point of NOED is to completely skip a health state. Where a survivor could get hit once, they could possibly run a killer around until another survivor opens the gate they were working on and then run back. It saves the killer an astonishing amount of time and many good players die to it quite often.
It saves the killer 50% of the time, which is a very long time considering the extensive options survivors have kept receiving for extending chases. That is if the killer finds someone, which to each person is 50% if they go for an exit and don't even try to hide. You aren't refuting anything I've said.
It's an anti-mashed potato perk. For it to be an actual 2nd-chance perk, it would have to revert a killer fail-state and the only clearly-defined fail-state for a killer is a survivor escaping.
Currently, the game considers someone getting caught in a trap mid-chase to be Trapper 'losing the chase' in the emblem system; such are the incredibly low-standards the devs have for what they consider to be a killer fail-state.
-
I don't think NOED even counts as a 2nd-chance perk, even if it wasn't a Hex perk: most killers can not guard most exits on most maps. Survivors literally only have to pick a gate and it's a 50% they'll be found. Then there has to be at least 1/2 of a chase.
You have to not only be a potato but a mashed potato to lose to NOED.
-
@venom12784 said:
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. This would cause alot of griefing and harrassement.
You can do this all ready now that I think about it just do kyf
A good reason to remove SWF, which isn't going to happen. If this is the standard to go by though, then SWF would have never been introduced.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/623098#Comment_623098
#########? You play vs the same people, they just dont need to waste time to invite each other again. The gameplay does not change at all.
I would be fine with this, on two conditions. The first condition is that random solos also got to rejoin in the same lobby after a match.
The reasoning being that currently the main issue with solo and especially low-rank solo is that people not only can't share information, but don't know if others are reliable and what their playing habits are. I think this is at least as important as communication is.
The drawback to this is that it completely drops the pretense that the game is designed around one killer against four survivors who may or may not be loyal to each other. The devs have fluffed any attempt at mechanics which get survivors to turn on each other and if they are at all serious about closing the gap between SWF and solos, then this might be an unavoidable step.
Currently in some other games, if you find yourself with others who play well with you, there's the option to keep playing with them for the next match.
The second condition is that the devs expressly commit to ending the double-standards where the game is designed around survivors having fun alone and killers get changed if they don't serve that purpose. Even strong killers have been designed around survivors, whether trying to nudge them towards diverse playstyles(Nurse, Myers) or giving them secondary objectives((Pig, Plague). It means the emblem system has to change because it's just as nakedly partisan as 'the victory cube' was.
This all of course depends on them actually listening to killers, so I might as well be yelling at clouds.
-
I try not to get excited about characters that have amazing potential for unique and visually-stunning abilities or traits. Freddy is possibly the ultimate expression of that, yet the best they could originally come up with is him being invisible by default and his rework just has a bit of blood squirting out of stuff.
So I kind of hope they delay Clive Barker characters like Pinhead and Candyman or any more Wes Craven ones, until after the art direction starts going places.
This is of course assuming rights issues can be overcome: Barker owns the concept of the characters, which is different from the film versions.
-
Killers have 4 perks against survivors 16, more if they are SWF because they VOIP allows them to share basic information normally limited to perks at no cost. Killer perks are if anything, not strong enough considering the disadvantage a killer is at.
Most useful killer perks have poor-synergy together or form off-builds which are sub-optimal. Survivors meanwhile have recieved an average of two new 2nd-chance perks every year, all of which not only synergise and can be equipped to all four perk slots without clashing, but each one in-use decreases significantly the chance that another will have to be used. Imagine every survivor using all their perk slots for this.
They each get two chances to be hooked before it's fatal. They can heal an unlimited number of times working together or act independently if they run Self-Care; punishing a killer for not tunelling someone already injured. They can then restart the chase after being picked up if they were rescued recently and the killer doesn't have to tunnel them: just search the wrong locker. If the killer is able to slug them instead and they can't get healed, they can self-revive with Unbreakable after a long chase where MoM or Dead Hard gave them a way to ignore a hit. When hooked at the end of the game, providing the existing 2nd-chance perks have given them the chance to be rescued, either Decisive Strike or Borrowed Time will virtually garauntee they get away no matter what almost any killer does.
Now times all that by four.
-
The stats aren't false; just not very helpful.
I maintain that win:loss stats in DbD can't be used to make any meaningful interpretation of the state of game balance; they in fact reflect the match-making and ranking systems. Heat-maps of where the most up and down-ranking happens during a monthly-cycle might shed some light on this.
Then there is player-specific information to consider. I regard survivors as having become demonstrably worse at the game; older players have left, newer ones have come and learned bad habits from the dominant meta and have such little knowledge of how it used to be. This is why so many regard the Nurse as 'ignoring all game mechanics' because 'all game mechanics' to them simply means 'looping, pallets and vaults'.
A handful of people that know what they're doing could be winning 80% of matches, but they can never play enough matches to counter-balance the vast numbers of people losing 50-80% of the time. The ranking system does not distinguish very well between average people playing a lot and top-players; down-ranking rarely seems to happen(hence the need for information about this). If the ranking system worked to divide players by ability as incrementally as possible, we should see as much down-ranking as up-ranking.
I think in that sense the 1-20 ranking system is flawed and a global ranking system might be better: listing the best-performing player at the top and then each person below them. Currently, loads of people can share the same ranking in the current system. In a ladder system though, every rank is unique: there is only a single No.1 and a single No.13,008.
-
@Peanits said:
I would only be in support of seeing that after the game. Whether you like to admit it or not, people would dodge SWF groups just because they might be a challenge. If you're playing to win, you might as well prepare for the worst all the time. Worst case scenario you win by a larger margin.
People don't dodge SWF because they 'might be a challenge'. They dodge them because they are inherently unfair and without significant mistakes by them, the killer has no chance. This has been demonstrated repeatedly and the devs admitted it would be the case back when they said they would never allow premades into ranked play, but the archive of that livestream is missing from their Youtube channel.
Also, because of the borked design of bloodpoints and emblems, 'winning by a larger margin' for the killer means de-pipping and getting less than 10k BP after hooking everyone in the first two minutes. Survivors meanwhile get to enjoy these systems as they are designed entirely around rewarding them for their preferred playstyle.
When do killers start getting treated like we have agency?
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/620527#Comment_620527
Seriously what you have been smoking lately? People criticised her all over the forum because she was very weak in the PTB. All the changes you listed happened not by "accident", they were the result of the critique from the PTB. So stop bashing the devs for only releasing storong killers "by accident" because that is not true. They overbuffed the Spirit after PTB backlash and they did a pretty good job with Freddy rework.
This is a very selective telling of what happened and you haven't addressed anything I've said.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/620335#Comment_620335
Spirit was not introduced by accident as a high tier killer. After the PTB feedback they buffed her and her addon Prayer Beads so the change was intentional. Stop spreading false info.
You didn't specify one false thing I said and instead launched into this non sequiter. You notably do not talk about the specific 'buffs', because if you had then any sensible person would have reasons to question that they were all undiluted 'buffs'. Many issues the survivors seem to currently have with the Spirit comes from not knowing or understanding what has changed since her PTB and release.
If anyone is curious about what those changes are:
- If you are within the terror-radius of her husk, you won't hear her phasing. Prayer Beads or not.
- Prayer Beads went from reducing the sound of phasing to removing it completely.
- Her base recharge time went from 20 to 15 seconds.
- On release, her lunge-speed was increased to match that of other killers, along with Hag and Huntress.
- The animations on the husk were changed to match her usual idle animations seamlessly.
These changes are not game-changing in terms of how to play against the Spirit; there's nothing survivors could do before that they would no longer work afterwards. They say nothing about how viable she was in the PTB or on release and if she has overall been made better with what are mostly 'buffs on-paper'.