ArecBalrin
ArecBalrin
About
- Username
- ArecBalrin
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/602252#Comment_602252
I can tell. It isn’t moving.
If it isn't moving, you can't tell because of the shimmer from the encoding trying to make up for the low bitstream; it doesn't have enough information to make the pixels accurate enough. It could be the grass in the scene moving, but the scene won't stop moving as the survivor camera keeps moving, so there's no way of knowing. The grass IS moving and I can see it moving; I just don't know if it's in the scene or because of the scene being constantly adjusted for.
Why the hell was the survivor camera constantly being moved?
-
I can't tell if the grass is moving or not. The picture quality is poor, the frame-rate low and it doesn't help that the survivor camera doesn't stay still.
-
Survivors came up with a simple counter-play to Legion on day-one: stay away from each other and just mend when Legion plays how the devs intended, which of course involves leaving them to let the mend.
Legion-mains developed the 'cooldown build' style, using addons that decrease cooldown on Frenzy along with the mixtape addons, to focus the same people down and making their usual chase-focused playstyle very difficult.
Survivors then made a counter-play to this by...no wait, they didn't. They did their usual thing of crying to the devs and having what kilers did as a natural part in the pendulum of: play, counter-play and counter-counter-play, no longer an option. They have form with doing exactly this and claiming there is no counter-play when they just couldn't be bothered trying.
Now they say 'yeah, well what counter-play could there have been after that? Tell us'. They are making this argument after-the-fact though: we don't know because we can't go back and play against the old Legion and do survivors job for them.
Killers had complaints about the lack of any counter-play to the survivors preferred playstyle, but the devs just kept buffing it instead.
-
@CoffengMin said:
in defense of 5: survivors might have gotten worse but so did killers, ruin and bbq made their job so much easier i feel most cant play without them
not to mention all the nerfs to survivors when there were a lot of killers who didnt really have a big problem most the time
I'm not going to express disagreement with this. What I am going to do is explore it and hopefully you will realise how I am looking at things. I can spot five topics within just your post here:
- Your apparent understanding of point #5 in my opening-post
- Killers also becoming worse
- Ruin and BBQ creating 'ease'
- Survivor nerfs
- Killers response
Addressing each of these separately would probably make a mess as bad as my opening-post but multiplied by five. They can be combined though into a discussion about just one topic which they are all caused by and in turn fuel: the hidden argument between goals and standards.
Seeking 'balance' is vague and because it's vague, it's assumed that balance is difficult. It's like happiness: if you don't set in stone what the word is supposed to mean, of course it is going to be vague and practically unobtainable. Meanwhile, there are people who are happy because they choose to be and get on with it; they're not fretting about when the next happy-causing thing is going to come along or how they can create it with the specific goal in mind of making themselves or someone else happier.
Balance is supposed to be something more concrete though: you can measure balance, it's this 'data-driven design' that is so faddish right now. The devs once defined their balance design-goal as '2 kills and 2 escapes', which people then assumed they meant on average. The first problem is that it was a vague statement even if you assume it meant an average: there are three basic ways of determining averages, which can give both the same or different end-numbers. The devs never clarified and of course wouldn't want to because aiming for any kind of average result across all games is also pointless, in a game where the match-making is supposed to work towards that result in the first place.
It says more about how well-designed the ranking and match-making system is than it does about the state of the game itself. If you make decisions based purely on the intended goals, this is a very poor way of determining balance. A well-functioning match-maker will strive to create 2:2 kills-to-escapes on any average by matching people to that end, no matter how skewed the actual game was.
Having a set of standards is another way of making decisions. Sometimes those decisions will agree with goal-based decisions, but sometimes they won't. It means if a feature has a certain purpose and it fulfils that purpose, it doesn't get changed simply for doing it's job unless it conflicts with a longer-serving and more-important standard. In which case; why were existing standards ignored?
Standards keep things consistent and prevent arbitrary conflicts. Like say a Nurse addon that improves chain-blink but removes 1 blink charge, serving an existing standard that difficult things should be more rewarding and vice-versa; only to then get ruined by a radical new idea of reducing default blink charges to 2, for which the justifying standard isn't even explained, only the vague goal of 'she was too strong, she needed balancing'.
Goals tend to be a single focus, meaning when there are unintended consequences questions can get asked like 'was that part of the plan?'. To avoid embarassment, goal-setters then make the goals really vague, so they make it easier to dodge awkward questions. This does not however mean the problems they're dealing with are that complicated(and even if they are complicated, that's no reason to make them worse): they are so because they made them that way. When measure by standards, goal-based decisions are often riddled with double-standards: different rules for different things, because the stanards are subservient to the desired goals.
It's even worse when the goals are vague. We're left having to speculate the purpose of things like Ruin and BBQ, based on what they do. The devs don't really talk about stuff beyond what the perks do. We guess BBQ is meant to give the killer an incentive to leave a hook and try to get everyone as early as possible rather than focusing on one person. We guess Ruin is meant to give survivors an optional secondary-objective, which is a frequent request even now, as if Ruin doesn't count.
When a standard is set, we don't need information that's specific about the goal of every individual feature in the game in order to understand it: we can apply the standards and discuss whether a feature is consistent with them. If no player should be affected by a detrimental status-effect permanently for the whole match, unless it's caused by a core feature or applied by themselves(like No Mither), we can objectively decide when a feature breaks that rule.
If the devs have standards in their design though, they aren't sharing them. Players are left arguing with each other then with the pattern being familiar: one side is accused of having biased goals, the other is accused of having no standards.
I am a killer-partisan because I think goals should be subservient to standards.
-
@gantes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/601666#Comment_601666
I mean, what OP is implying is pretty false. Things definitely don't need to change in any game to be perceived as too powerful over time. That's just not the nature of games like DBD.
I'm not implying anything and my experience thus far is that people say I am implying something when they want to treat me like I said something which I didn't. This remains the case here.
-
@Seanzu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/601058#Comment_601058
Therefore the nurse should be nuked into the ground because i'd bet 5% of the nurses matches are over in 4 minutes.
infact, based on how strong the nurse is, all killers should be nerfed because all killers have the ability to end matches very quickly if the killer is good enough,
lmao. I'll say it again because I've said it before, I'm glad the devs ignore the forums for suggestions you guys are wild af and would ruin the game.
Why single-out the Nurse? These standards are already ruthlessly-applied to killers. It's about time survivors got them rather than 'but not everyone plays optimally nor should be expected to'.
-
@Seanzu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/601055#Comment_601055
yes, we should definitely balance the game around 5% of matches?? lol
I don't know what percentage, but it should be at the top, for the reasons that are obvious.
-
@KillermainBTWm8 said:
People ignore the fact that they will only be doing a slight change and it will mainly be an add-on rework. Personally if more than 5 killers were viable against good survivors then I would say entirely rework Nurse it's a ######### designed killer that should never work the way she does. But until more killers are viable she can stay where she is imo.
'People ignore the fact'.
The 'fact' has yet to happen. The only true facts on-hand is the history of the game's development since launch and that suggests concerns are entirely warranted.
-
@Seanzu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/599897#Comment_599897
You're hilarious bud, like imagine pretending all SWFs are 4-Man, and imagine pretending survivors have 44 perks per game.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/572/ISQ72YP369JA.jpg
A whopping 5% of matches are with a 4-man squads, maybe it's time you look at how you play instead of creating fictitious scenarios where you're always the victim and just play better.
There are LITERALLY 100s of killers who rinse the absolute balls off of almost every 4-man they play against because they really aren't that strong.
They don't all need to be 4-man and they don't all need to be that good either. It just has to be possible that they are because that is what where the most accurate picture of the state of the game can be taken: at the top-end of play.
-
@Gardenia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/601014#Comment_601014
Keyword: Punished.
No offense, but some of these ideas you all have had to "balance" swf are not balance just penalties. Limiting the gameplay for them instead of adding an alternative.
As someone who seems to lobby for killer, I would've assumed you would request something for Killers or actually wait until the next patch to see what else they do to maps and perks they may give in the upcoming chapter to help. Or maybe even have discussed the upcoming rank Rework for the killers.
Just to reiterate, the suggestions are penalties for the most part not balance changes. It would just make playing with friends as Survivor greatly unfun.
It just seems you play killer majority of the time rather than both sides. And it seems alot of people forget, the devs don't want people to view this game as Survivors vs. Killer.
They want players to view this game as a complete thing.
I don't lobby for killer; that would imply that I believe the devs listen to killers. I have yet to see a shred of evidence they do. I also play both sides, I just don't feel the need to proclaim it like it's important: only very superficial people think it is. There is however much over-lap, still a great number of people with an overwhelming preference for one side over another. The devs pretend to ignore this, but their actions say otherwise; they are as survivor-partisan as I am killer-partisan.
Killers are constantly being punished, so it's quite hard to tell the difference you're trying to impress on me. Killers see all nerfs as punishments. Survivors are lucky enough they can somehow see even buffs as punishments and no one comments on how ridiculous it is.
I do not make specific suggestions for game changes unironically or with any intent that they be actually implemented; only ever as part of an argument, to make a point. This is because such suggestions are always filtered through the group-think and hypocrisy that influences every change that gets implemented. There's a reason why killers are so keen on every change we see going into a PTB but survivors want new toys straight away: they know the devs won't let them down, but killers know anything offered to us has a catch and we want to find out what it is before it goes live if we can.
With hatch-closing for example, the devs waited until after the PTB for it to then pull the 'oh we're going to make it so it powers the gates automatically', completely defeating the purpose of why killers had been requesting it. It was also the only request killers had notably and expressly made which had come close to the live version without being compromised. At least before it was compromised.
-
@yandere777 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/601008#Comment_601008
I heard somewhere omega blink was range so my bad on that. I did mean the range increasing add-ons, ataxic respiration and catatonic boy's treasure.
For when you talk about short blinks, the issue is that the range add-ons i mentioned increase the range (as intended) but as a side effect of ONLY increasing range and not increasing the max charge time it also increases the distance you get with short blinks and makes them faster because a normal short blink, I'm talking tapping the blink button and barely charging it, will be faster because the range of that short blink was increased too. Sorry if i made no sense or not that much sense.
Not sure if you like youtuber info but in one of ohtofu's videos he talks about this. I can tell you it if you want and I'll give you the timestamp too.
Please do. It does make sense now when you said 'three times the distance' because I believe(70% sure) that the charging is not linear but logarithmic: the longer it charges, the less the increase in distance is, with distance-increase being front-loaded onto the first half-second of the charge. This would be why those addons can throw the Nurse surprisingly far on miliseconds of charge-time.
However, the Nurse must choose: they can't have 5 blinks and double-stacked ranged addons. It's clear that if you know the Nurse is running Ataxic and Cata, the best bet is to run in a straight line and change direction only if they charge for longer.
-
@Gardenia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/601009#Comment_601009
I never said or want to make a special exception for Survivors? I just said that Nurse is just first, not that swf shouldn't be balanced..so where did you get that from?
"Noone should be punished on the assumption every swf is a depip squad".
This is incompatible with the idea that all sides should be measured on the basis of their maximum known potential.
The Nurse must not be touched, until there is a clear consensus that balance should be based on top-play for everyone and that consensus must include the devs and they must say so unequivocally. No more double-standards.
-
@Gardenia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600934#Comment_600934
Then you agree with me when I say balance should happen around the potential of top play. I said in multiple posts this exact thing but you kept telling me about double standards. I even said that coordination, map design, and more are the variables which are problems in SWF? So why were you trying to argue with me?
Yeah, I agree with that and have done for 3 years ago; you didn't come up with it. The problem is that you want to make a special exception for survivors, which means you don't even agree with yourself.
-
@yandere777 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600884#Comment_600884
I'm gonna go and do some devil's advocate here, i think. Oh and sorry if you already know this, just stating the problem with the add-ons. Nurses "omega blink" is only such an issue because the two range add-ons increase her range (obviously) but dont do anything to her charge speed and blink speed. This means she has the same charge speed with like triple the distance (don't know the exact numbers but the range increase is insane) and the same blink speed but it'll go faster for short blinks because the blink speed is stretched and shrunk with these wonky ranges all for the price of a green and yellow addon. And you should know that charge speed and blink speed add ons are a thing so this means for 2 add ons she is effectively running 4-6 add ons with zero downsides because blink accuracy is working just as well as bubbas famous chili purple add on. I have no issue with 5 blink nurse because it is never going anywhere due to it being a requirement for an achievement. The main and only issue is omega blink due to it doing more than intended.
I am having trouble following this because you don't name the addons and I can't tell if you are using 'range' to refer to the number of blink charges; there are addons that affect both and no range addon increases her travel distance by 300%, the highest being Ataxic Respiration. We won't know the real values until the devs make them available.
I have come to understand that when people talk about 'omegablink' they are talking about Nurse with 5 blink charges. This requires Campbell's Last Breath for 2 extra blinks plus one other extra blink addon, all of which reduce range except for Fragile Wheeze, but having 5 blinks precludes any range-enhancing addons.
Regarding short-blinks; it is not always the case that they go fast. When a Nurse does a fast short-blink(the classic short-blink), it is because of a short charge time that is preceded by her inhale sound telegraphing it. Any longer than a split-second though and the Nurse will over-shoot unless she does the new short-blink by aiming towards a spot on the ground. This is because the travel-time of blinks is not determined by the distance but by how long she charged the blink for.
The devs made the change that enabled new short-blinks in 1.9, to make it easier for survivors to evade blinks by making the visual telegraphs more obvious. It resulted in Nurse's making the audio tells less obvious by doing long-charged short-blinks that fool survivors because they're not looking at where the Nurse is going but anticipating her moving further due to still listening for the audio cue.
Having to change the Nurse's addons because the devs didn't clearly communicate to survivors what they wanted them to do, because the devs made changes to blink to help survivors, is utterly asinine. The simple solution is to revert these changes so survivors can depend on anticipating audio cues rather than reacting to visual ones.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600266#Comment_600266
The so-called "counter" isn't a valid counter either.
When the killer hooks someone, a survivor is naturally going to attempt to go save that person which means that at best, two people are on gens and one person is going in for a save. This is of course assuming you have a 4 man squad with perfect communication and coordination which is more often NOT the case. In a game with less than that, there could be more than one person going for that save due to lack of communication.
Anyway back to the point, the first person has to get to the hook, find out the killer is still there and camping, try to distract them and pull them away for a second person to go in and get the save. So now only 1 person is on a gen. NOW, once that second person realizes that the killer isn't going to follow the first person and is committing to being boring, only then can the survivors make the decision to "just do gens". By this time, the person on hook is almsot dead, and one of the survivors who attempted to be a distraction probably took a hit and is injured. THAT'S the reality of what camping does to a game and that's why so many killers camp, because they KNOW it gives them an easy advantage.
It's a counter that demonstrably works and your argument against it is a contrived scenario where survivors have zero awareness and move at a treacle-pace. It's so absurd that it has so many seconds out of 160(80 per hook-phase) pass, such that the person on the hook is 'almost dead'.
It almost does read like a slasher horror-movie in that it depends on characters being inexplicably stupid to create tension.
-
@deadbyhitbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600842#Comment_600842
You should be impressed by the Freddy rework. It brought a ######### tier killer to mid to high tier. Not an easy task. Secondly, Montos tip about vaulting behind them works on braindead killers who don't catch on to what survivors do. Watch any killer with a brain play Legion, and you will never see a survivor run behind them while they vault and make them fall for it consistently. There was no chase counter play. Any good player with experience can tell you this.
If I should be impressed because of one specific thing, I at least except it to be something tangible rather than abstract, like the 'tiers' that people seem strangely obsessed with. I have my own standards for to judge Freddy by and it's by my own that I'm not impressed.
You let me know how I identify a 'Legion player with a brain' and I'll watch the video, but if your definition of that is a tautological 'doesn't get fooled by this', then it's a bad-faith argument to begin with.
In his later videos, Monto came to the conclusion that because of the counter-play survivors were doing less than a day after he was released, there was no reason not to run mixtape addons plus reduced cooldowns and tunnel people. The devs had designed the Frenzy power with gaping flaws that were too easy for the survivors to use.
So did they fix this by making the power itself viable for the intended purpose or going after multiple survivors? Not really, they instead just interfered with the counter-play dynamic after survivors said they 'had no counter-play'. This seems to be a familiar pattern. The fact they said it with every single other killer that was nerfed doesn't ring any alarms.
The new standard go-to copy-paste justification by the devs seems to have started here: he was frustrating to play. Not over-powered, not un-counterable; it was frustration, something which has no metric that can be tested and conflicts with claims of data-driven decisions being taken.
-
@gantes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600914#Comment_600914
OK I'll bite
tell me how to """balance""" SWF without making the game even more miserable for solo survivors in an easy way. I'll wait.
It has to be a fix as easy as tweaking a killer btw.
And it can't make the solo survivor experience worse.
That's a whole discussion that can't happen until everyone agrees it should be on a level playing-field. That has been my problem for 3 years.
First everyone(especially the devs) has to drop the BS that survivors should be measured along the standard of 'most don't play optimally though or are even capable of it'. If killers are going to be judged on their power at the maximum known potential, the so should survivors.
The conversation can not even begin until this is the consensus. No more fudging.
-
You draw dividing lines when it suits you Gardenia.
Can't balance individual survivors swiftly because of the dynamic between them. Killer can be balanced in multiple knee-jerk ways though, because there is of course no dynamic between the killer and the four other players in the game.
-
@Gardenia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600866#Comment_600866
You say pick one, but this is a multiplayer game swf is not just the culmination of ones individual skill, it's a mixture of map design, team coordination and more.
Especially since this is asymmetrical, it would be more difficult to balance around that.
Yes, balance should be determined by the highest skill level so things aren't broken. But in team play it's harder to do so due to coordination.
So balancing nurse first is a start, this isn't saying swf shouldn't be balanced as well. But this does not negate the fact nurse needs to be rebalanced.
Balancing an individual killer who at the highest level of play breaks the game, is the easiest to do at the moment because it's one individual character.
This just completely evades the issue; you do not at any point explain why because this is an asymmetrical multiplayer game, why such starkly different standards are justified.
What makes SWF so powerful is coordination, but by the power of double-standards: coordination now becomes the reason why survivors should not be measured by the top-play.
-
@Ember_Hunter said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600876#Comment_600876
People hated the 5 blinks basically. Nurse basekit is already very powerful, so addons made people think she was OP, so that's why it is only addons.
Yes, I've heard this said repeatedly. What is the actual basis for people saying it though beyond band-wagoning? Literally the only reason that is consistent among most people is 'other people are saying it'. Oh, so it must be true?
Addons have not changed since Nurse was released. So nothing about them has been changed to cause them to become the focus of complaints about the Nurse. This is a new thing. What else has been changed which might affect her addons in such a way then? Nothing; no one has pointed out anything that could affect her addons in any way that's relevant. Nurse has always had 'omegablink', but only recently has it become a talking-point.
-
I see no reason at all to single-out the Nurse's addons.
-
@Gardenia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600858#Comment_600858
Balancing around the highest potential of a character is how you balance things so they don't become broken, if you don't then you have broken killers like Nurse and Hardcore broken Survivors when in Optimal SWF's.
I don't understand how that's different standards.
It's different standards because because you manage to maintain two mutually-incompatable propositions
- Balance should be determined at the known ceiling, which is top-play
- No one should be punished on the assumption that they are capable of top-play
Pick one.
-
How about a compromise?
The cone of attack on lunges gets reduced, but survivors lose pallets being able to hit round corners too with their absurd range.
-
@Gardenia said:
Nurse needed to be changed, the game is changing, maps are changing, to make the game balanced for both killer and Survivors. And Nurse herself is a killer that completely messed with the balance. Yes there are hardcore swf, but it's easier to work on nurse first than tackle swf.
Noone should also be punished based on the assumption every swf is a depip squad.
Nurse and Hardcore swf are just like the maps, a game design issue. And all 3 are being worked on currently.
This is applying different standards to killers and survivors.
If no one should be 'punished on the assumption every SWF is a depip squad', then killers should not be punished on the assumption that every Nurse is an omegablink-equipped clarivoyant with sprinkles.
Claims that the Nurse no longer requires more than an ordinary level of practice have yet to be substantiated and have plenty of evidence in contradiction.
-
@deadbyhitbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600747#Comment_600747
I believe they mentioned something about Legion in the stream. I can't recall what it was, but I remember they did. The devs showed what they can do with Freddy, and it is quite impressive. I believe they will do good on Legion once his time comes.
I am not impressed by the Freddy rework, so probably not the best example. Or Wraith. Or Trapper. Or Myers. Or Huntress. Or Billy I have more positive things to say about Doctor, Hag and Spirit, but with caveats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oy7ZmFrsIE
Regarding Legion, I have looked on Youtube as @Talmeer suggested and the top video for 'dead by daylight playing against legion' is from 8 months ago, 318k views, by Monto. He directly challenges the idea that Legion is 'not under-powered', and he's sure Legion is(and probably still does after the changes). In his tutorial he uses what were standard meta perks for survivors at that time: BT, BL, SC and Adrenaline.
His 3 pointers:
- Do not stick together
- If he hits you and goes away, mend
- When he jumps over pallets, don't run, just jump back. Does not work on windows
I remember this from when Legion was released. More than half the time that third one works, because Legion's view is locked forwards until the animation finishes. If they attack to early, it's queued and they attack straight ahead of them as soon as they are off the pallet. If they attack late you could be too far back over the pallet for them to hit; they have to turn round first. The time-window for Legion to do this is very small and they land off the pallet slightly further than survivors do.
On actual windows it doesn't work because the interaction-zone for them is much smaller; Legion will be blocking it. Much of this was discussed by killers when Legion was released, but survivor-mains don't make a habit of going into killer threads to just listen.
Monto's video isn't just trying to demonstrate 'look at how I won'; winning really doesn't mean anything in a scenario that's meant to show specific facets of gameplay and the emergent dynamics of them. For weird people who do think the actual escape-kills matter, well anybody could just cherry-pick the examples where that did happen, but it's not very informative about specifics. I excuse him his e-peen swinging about his LEGACY SURVIVOR because he demonstrates and explains what he's talking about, he understands it.
I'm watching his later videos now to see if he changed his mind about Legion and if so, why.
-
There are pros and cons.
As others point out: survivors can ostracise each other over perk choices. SWF groups of 2 or 3 have a habit of already doing this to solo survivors and this would give them another reason to.
The benefits of closing the information-gap between solo and SWF might also not be clear-cut in this case. A premade group is relaxed about each others perks because they're friends, unless they are try-hards that get their fun from griefing killers. Then they need people min-maxing or doing certain roles. You can not replicate that dynamic with solos; they'll just leave if they feel strongly enough about someone else's perks.
Currently players can ask each other in the lobby and no one has to answer. I never see anyone asking though. Pressing a button that reveals your perks and addons to others might prompt them to share theirs; the choice is still yours and it's more likely people will engage with that feature than type in the chat. It would also signal to survivors who are prepared to cooperate that you are a cooperative person.
It used to be that survivors not knowing they can trust each other was part of the game dynamic, but now maybe it is a liability to the health of the game.
-
@deadbyhitbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600737#Comment_600737
I understand people are upset over Legions changes, but I feel like gutting him sets him up and allows the devs more room to make whatever tweaks or changes they need to. He will be a good killer, he just needs some decent number improvements.
I see, and should we expect to see such improvements soon? Or should we expect them in accordance with the devs established record on improving killers?
They're much faster with the nerfs.
-
@deadbyhitbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600628#Comment_600628
Missed a hit, whoops guess I'll just swing 55 more times until I hit him
Vaulted a window? Guess I'll just vault way faster.
Dropped a pallet? Guess I'll just vault the pallet and hit him.
The point is, pre patch Legion had 0 counter play. There is literally no defending him.
Can you accept on principle though that something being problematic doesn't make any solution a net improvement?
-
@gantes said:
As people have said multiple times, the only healthy way of dealing with SWF is giving solo survivors more info to work with and buffing killers accordingly.
Even though it's been a painfully slow process, the devs already said they're looking on ways to do that.
They're not going to buff killers if they are allowed to keep holding survivors to different standards.
-
@gantes said:
No balance decision in this game has ever been made around the highest level of play, and that's the problem.
Nurse being nerfed IS based around the highest level of play, so it's fine.
What is your standard to call killers weak? Sure, if you compare them to Nurse, GF and Plague are weak. But they're not weak on their own rights, and not weak when compared to the average killer in this game. They're both solidly mid tier, which is as high as any M1 no mobility killer can get in this game, but that's another, completely different problem. It's a game design problem. Plague was never a contender to break into the elite division above mid rank in this game. She never will as long as she can't use Corrupt Intervention in more matches than not. Call her boring, but calling her low tier is dishonest.
We should be thankful that FINALLY we get some resemblance of high level balancing in this game. Freddy's nerfs from back then wouldn't fly nowadays, especially because a killer like Freddy wouldn't get released. And I hope they learned from Legion as well. Both those iterations have no place in this game.
They're tackling the outliers now. Chainsaw bros add-ons, Nurse, Doctor... I'm positively surprised, and we should celebrate that we're getting actual balance for once.
And quite frankly, considering how much the devs make balance changes on a whim without taking our opinions into consideration, the fact that they listened to THE COMMUNITY, not only survivor mains, about the Nurse shows that she's out of line.
It's not fine if only killers are judged around top-play(the standards killers have called for since day-one) but survivors are held to different standards: that of 'not all players play optimally, most players are in low-ranks, people will leave the game if you forced them to play optimally etc'.
-
The time to change Nurse's addons were when she first got nerfed; it was the fact they stayed exactly the same that gave it away that the uber-nerfing was a knee-jerk reaction by the devs.
If I were particularly ungenerous, I'd say instead of knee-jerk it was planned: that the devs maybe thought it would be hilarious how Kavanagh's Last Breath would work when the default charges were reduced to 2, requiring it and other very rare perks to have extra-blink addons just for basic function to be maintained.
Disclaimer: I do not actually think this. But if it were the case and they thought it was acceptable to leave addons in that state, then I'd expect equally-absurd addons in a rework of them.
Plaid Flannel: Blinking now has no charge time, but the distance is random and ignores your vertical aiming.
Bad Man's Last Breath: You now have infinite blink-range but with 10 seconds of fatgue and can no longer no-clip through objects.
Campbell's Last Breath: You have 60 charges which do not replenish for the whole match. The blink-range is halved.
-
@DocOctober said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600627#Comment_600627
If I'd accept all those silly requests for "play against x, with conditions y and record it to prove z" I'd be playing this game to prove my points 24/7.
And I guess you misunderstood me, I'm not denying that Add-on Nurse is too strong, she is. Her Add-ons need changes, I'm on board with that, I even said it myself often enough.
However, my argument is that base-kit Nurse should be left alone as she is neither OP nor broken without her Add-ons.
It's a distraction and they're trying to get us to defend positions we haven't even expressed. It's classic baiting: you're provoked with blatantly outrageous claims, your position is portrayed as something different to how you expressed it but you answer because their rebuttal of it is the same as their previous replies.
Then rather than argue with specific facts and reason, they've come out with this nonsensical 'fite me, i'll take u on m8' as if playing some KYF games mean anything.
Reading back through the thread; they've taken nothing on-board. My OP is meant to address every typical point of argument that has been used recently in arguing for Nurse nerfs, yet they just ignore it and think all it takes is to repeat those same talking-points.
Thaznar seems to be currently taking an enforced break, I hope they're using it to read more carefully without having the temptation to immediately start typing a reply. The 'short version' misrepresentation of my OP would not have been written if they had.
I do not believe 'Nurse is fine'. I do not believe 'because of a bug Nurse was weakest killer'. I do not believe 'nerfing Nurse is not needed'. All Thaznar needed to do to understand what my views were, was actually read them in the OP.
However, survivors do fail to adapt, it's just in this case there was actually some justification for it and they might not have been able to even if they realised the significance of the 1.9 changes, as I aknowledge in my post right at the end.
That survivors do not know what they want(and the devs must stop listening to them) is another matter which I do not bring up in my OP. However, the inability of people to sustain their attention long enough to actually read what amounts to just two A4 sheets of text can reasonably argued for excluding anything they have to say from feedback.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/600432#Comment_600432
Short version: "Nurse is fine", "Nurse because of a bug was the weakest killer", "Nerfing Nurse is not needed", "Survivors failed to adapt and do not know what they want and on top of that are bad players."
This completely misrepresents my views.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
I can answer your question easily - because having more than 2 blinks compensate for the lack of skill and make the Nurse the most broken killer in the game with no counterplay on the survivor side. With multiple blinks she is not being punished for bad blinks and still can score a hit in the end - if that is your idea of balance I do not know what to say. Also Nurse has never been the weakest killer in the game - she is only weak if you start to play her later to become OP and broken. She also out of all the killers from the roster has more than 70% win rate in high ranks which has been confirmed by the devs and their stats. Are you really so ignorant thinking survivors failed to adapt in 3 years? Nurse is not quantum physics you know - all the advice how to play against her are good in theory but in practice she is broken. If you want feel free to show your wisdom in KYF - I will gladly arrange a match - you and your team vs. pro Nurse player and we will see how well you have adapted. I'm curious how many games out of lets say 10 you and your team will win.
Ok, thanks for not reading. I'm not interested in these rock-bottom standards of discussion which ignore facts and resort to bumper-sticker slogans instead of reasoned argument.
You're repeating the narrative that I addressed in the OP. You're pretending the situation immediately following her nerfing never happened. You're putting words in my mouth. It has not been 3 years since January 2018.
You're part of the problem. Go away.
-
@MegsAreEvil said:
Killers are the only hard biased side in the forum. They only cry. You never see any ideas that take the whole game balance into consideration. sorry, buts thats a sad fact.
Killers are the only ones who have discussions which take a holistic approach to game-balance. You'll find it's survivors almost exclusively who frame balance in terms of 'specific X feature neets specific Y change' without regard to the knock-on impacts of it.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598930#Comment_598930
Also when it comes to hook camping (which is completely unrelated but let's go there for a second), the argument isn't "everyone has to live so hook camping is toxic/bad/stupid"
The argument is, "this killer is a dick and is sucking the fun out of the game. The person on the hook doesn't get to do anything. The people not on the hook are left with the choice of gen rushing (which killers claim they hate but encourage us to do at the same time???). It's boring and lacks skill. That's it."
My friends and I don't mind dying against a killer that just simply outplays us and kills us. We say gg and move on. It's annoying when you run into a killer that puts you on a hook and won't chase anyone else that comes by.
Ok, but you're basically summing up how every killer feels when going against SWF on coms, but nothing changes. No one cares but the killers who have to put up with it. Why should we then be concerned about survivors when they're on a hook?
Survivors still have a counter to this, which if used consistently would discourage killers from doing it unless they were opting to throw the game for the sake of killing one survivor. A 75% win-rate just isn't good enough for them. This makes it evidently clear: survivors DO think they deserve to all escape no matter what and their invention of the 'killers think deserve 4k' meme is an obvious projection of that.
That 'killers think they deserve to 4k' is only one thing that you said, but you still said it and you know damn well that it's a friggin lie. No one who spreads that BS is a fair-minded or honest person, so claims to want to reduce toxicity are also a fraud because you're perfectly happy to spread a central plank of survivor-toxicity: that of projecting their faults onto killers constantly.
-
@deadbyhitbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/599300#Comment_599300
Sorry, I forgot it's okay to have a killer who ignores all chase mechanics in a game that is about the chase. Silly me.
It's about the case because for 3 years survivors have persistently made it about the chase and resisted every single effort to get them to diversify.
They ask for things without thinking, they complain when they get what they asked for, they don't know what they want and the devs must stop listening to them.
-
@MonsterInMyMind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/599290#Comment_599290
They decided that because who whined about it on the ptb? yeah okay
Both sides have simpletons, it's easy to cherry-pick examples of ALL-CAPS simpletons saying stupid stuff. This is not the same as notable discussion participants persistently arguing a case for something.
It's absurdly careless to argue for nerfs to something without any regard to what changes could look like, which is why survivors specify the stuff they want to happen to stuff. Killers tend not to because the experience is that incremental changes with no guiding principle do not solve what are fundamental issues of fairness with the game. Is the game fairer now MoM has been changed? Not in the slightest: once someone finds a use for MoM, it will function basically as before.
The change to MoM and the change to DS are sides of the same coin: MoM's change is aimed at influencing survivors behaviour, but DS's change was for influencing killers behaviour. Look at how different the reactions are: survivors drop MoM completely but not DS, whilst killers are forced into making yet another catch-22 decision when someone gets off the hook.
-
@deadbyhitbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/597801#Comment_597801
How dare they touch the base of a killer who breaks every chase mechanic in the game!
Except the ones survivors are fine with using when all their resources for their preferred playstyle are exhausted and what they used to do before pallet-looping was introduced(not every survivor used infinites back then) along with 6+ stackable 2nd-chance perks.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/599187#Comment_599187
Clearly you weren't reading nor interested in the point I was trying to make. I literally took [screengrabs] from these threads to showcase that one party does the very thing they try to stigmatize the other side with.... "You cried over this and so you got it."
MoM got a heavy nerf that left it pretty much untouchable, and yet I never saw players claiming the other side "won". That is the point I am making. How one side is so biased that because a killer who is mechanically broken is being "revised", to the point where people are making this into some kind of competition.
I'm not even getting into Nurse specifics which is what you obviously want to happen. I've already said my piece on that topic. What becomes cheap is the same thing being said by the same group of people. This, when we don't even know what exactly they have planned to do.
Basically you've misunderstood what killers are saying and think that survivors can make the same argument back.
Survivors ask for specific things and get specific things; there is a direct link with their feedback and what happens to the game and it's causal. It is not equivalent to look at changes that survivors don't like and then cherry-pick complaints about it beforehand and assume there's a correlation let alone a causal relationship.
Who asked for MoM to be specifically changed to gain tokens on protection-events? Doesn't sound like anything a killer would suggest. The devs alone decided that with no regard to killers feedback on MoM.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/599124#Comment_599124
Actually yeah, they were all in caps. You can look them up.
The point is not what was in them. The point is that they were about the same thing. A broken mechanic. Nurse is broken so why not fix her.
Your point was an expression of values then, which is low survivor standards. The all-caps text was meaningless to anyone interested in actual content, which should be the basis for discussion, not cheap symbolism.
The Nurse is broken if you apply the standards for game-balance that killers advocate for: that every feature of the game should be valued at it's maximum known potential, which is at the top-level of play.
The Nurse categorically can not be broken if you apply the standards advocated by survivors regarding themselves: not everyone plays optimally, you have to account for most players and not just the best players. If you apply these standards to the Nurse, then you have to consider most people playing Nurse, who are at low ranks, where the Nurse is consistently the worst-performing killer.
The issue I and many others have is that this is a double-standard: the Nurse must not be touched a minute before the question of what standards should apply universally is addressed, by the devs themselves and set in stone.
-
@CoffengMin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/599142#Comment_599142
you dont get it do you , the only way to not get hit trough them was to drop it early af, if you do that the pallet is completely useless and gives you no benefit in a chase , you gain no points , no distance , waste it , and die. that and hitboxes being anything but well done made those pallets kill more survivors than any killer ever had
Yes, the only way to gaurantee you would not get hit through them was to drop them early: going back to how they were used before survivors decided to use them for grief/farm. Guess what? Pallets worked for their intended purpose just fine before survivors started abusing them. Surviors could have adapted, they didn't want to though and instead went crying to the devs. If killers did the same, we'd just get ignored.
The devs must start doing the same for survivors.
-
@CoffengMin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/599118#Comment_599118
trust me they were not fair in any way the amount of times i got killed by those pallets was incredible even when dropped it early, pallets now are fairer , you can still get hit trough it but you cant mindlesly swing at them and get a hit
They weren't fair, because of the number of times you lost the stand-off?
Survivors always had options which they refused to try. Killers simply kept having options they were trying taken away, because survivors are allergic to fairness.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
Here we go again.
Is this thread necessary?
Remember when killers cried over something that was broken? I do.
The double standard is real.
Some nice pictures of context-free text you have there, all in caps. Sure beats actually listening to what discussions actually happened.
-
@CoffengMin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598595#Comment_598595
this is no uber buff imo, pallets back then were more like a free hit most times
No, they were fair. Who ever had the better timing won these stand-offs.
These stand-offs only happened in the first place because survivors stopped using the pallets for what they were meant for and started using them to farm points with and grief the killer. They were not meant to wait at a pallet for the killer to close the distance before attempting to drop it and land a stun; pallets were meant to be when the killer had already closed the distance in the chase, the pallet would force the killer to break it or go around, using up time which the survivor then had to lose the killer.
Killers complained about this abuse of the pallets, which the devs ignored and survivors responded with 'git gud' and 'just adapt'. Killers did adapt: we would bait a pallet drop to miss with the hokey-cokey. Survivors would often disconnect for missing repeatedly and they wanted that to stop. Then killers started lunging through pallets and survivors carpet-bombed the Steam forum with salt.
So killers had adapted, which is what survivors told them to do. It's a classic dialectic with a pendulum swinging one way and then back to the other. Survivors didn't adapt though, even though they had the clear option at the time of going back to using pallets as before. They instead would make sure that not an hour went by without a complaint thread about killers hitting them through pallets being made.
That led to pallets being made essentially foolproof in patch 1.1.1 on August 30th 2016. Funny how the devs never do killers favours like this.
-
@Groxiverde said:
Nerfing the most powerful killer in the game is not "survivors winning" its balancing the game
This is true, just as long as words don't mean anything.
-
Because if someone is against something, that means they must be in favour of the exact opposite, of course.
-
@fly_172 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598951#Comment_598951
Then let me summarize it for you, if that helps. I think toxicity exists on both sides, and I think entitlement exists on both sides. I think that survivors are more toxic than killers due to exposure and mentality. That being said, if I’m gonna specifically address the 4K problem, I do believe there are some killers who feel entitled to 4k’s unreasonably. I think they are rare, and they do not represent the whole. However, even though more problems lie within the survivor side, I think it is integral to acknowledge that some select killers are unreasonable. In this way, we can build common ground with survivors to bridge the gap between us. By denying all claims and attacking those trying to help, we remove our ability to work together. If you want survivors to be less toxic, we have to recognize this fact. Otherwise, instead of being seen as a defender of killers like you are trying to do, you will be seen as evidence of an “unreasonable, toxic killer who can’t see reason” (that’s a synopsis pulled from a message I received over a year ago). If we cannot recognize any fault with our side, then the other side will do the same. If you still don’t want to believe that, that’s okay, we’ve been pushed around so long I don’t blame you. But it will never fix the problem, and as such we’ll have to get frustrated over these issues much more than we should over and over.
This is where we have a problem then and it's similar to an issue I have with those who say things like 'I play both sides' and 'as a killer-main'.
When I say that the 'killers think they deserve to 4k' meme is an absolute lie, I'm saying it's an absolute lie, but this does not mean no killer ever said that: it means that survivors are lying in their characterisation of killers like this. This is what I meant in my first post which you responded to, but you responded with 'nothing Rakim said regarding survivor memes was untrue', which directly contradicts with what I hold to be an absolute factual truth. Anyone who disputes it but then does not support the counter-factual claim; that 'killers think they deserve to 4k' has some justification at all, is not on my side and is not truthful.
If it's a choice between saying what is true and saying what is 'constructive', then toxicity is utterly vital. The divide between different players has to exist, it has to be adversarial and at least one side has to not compromise on matters of fact or honesty as that is the only true moderating influence. I know things are healthy when survivors are complaining that this forum is 'a killer echo-chamber'.
-
@BeanieBoyBob said:
Seriously though, Killers do get listened to. We got MoM nerfed into orbit (thank goodness) - DS reworked (again, it was BS), and will likely get Insta-heals and Keys changed once the devs finally agree to remove/alter how the Ebony Mori offering works.
The game is always changing, and Pallet Loops as we know them will hopefully decrease in numbers (spawn points) or be completely demolished. Both Killers and Survivors need to be ready to adapt to these new planned changes sooner rather than later and I have an inkling that Nurse was giving them a few headaches in the design process.
Hoping I'm right on this one.
Who the hell expressly and notable asked for the specific change that was made to MoM?
Who expressly and notably asked for the specific change that was made to DS?
This is the thing: the survivors lobby for specific changes and more often than not, they get exactly what they asked for. The devs alone decided on what changes happened to MoM and DS, certainly not taking killers views into account, only survivors. It's weird that instead of a straight nerf, it was re-designed to influence killers behaviour, not survivors. There is every chance that MoM might re-emerge as a strong perk when someone discovers a good use of it, it just won't be quick because surviors react in knee-jerks and just dropped it when it was changed.
When killers think something needs nerfing, there are discussions but no consensus on what the change should be forms, because we tend to be focused on holistic concerns about the state of the entire game, which don't cough up easy answers. The devs don't engage either, so we're not prompted to discuss in terms of what can be delivered and on what time-scale. If the devs don't engage in this kind of discussion, eventually it will be lost and killers will become exactly like survivor-mains.
-
The purpose of that thread was to replicate one by survivors(now deleted), to justifiably mock them.
It intentionally included bug-fixes, indirect nerfs and buffs to survivors as 'killer nerfs', because that is the bar that was set specifically by the survivor list-maker.