ArecBalrin
ArecBalrin
About
- Username
- ArecBalrin
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@fly_172 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598933#Comment_598933
Only 60%? I appreciate the skepticism lol. The problem with narrowing down discussion topics on forums like this is that it removes the flexibility of a persons opinions and views. For example, do I think NOED should be nerfed? No. The fact that is has such clear cut counters and can be destroyed before even being used should tell you it’s not OP. Therefore, I main killer because bla bla bla. Conversely, I don’t run NOED, I think it gives me too much of an advantage if I played poorly that match. Therefore I’m a survivor main bla bla bla. When you force narratives on to people, like the 4K killer has been forced on to us, it removes the possibility of them holding other beliefs and changing opinions. So, you admitted that there were a few outliers of killers that are unreasonable, that’s all I’m saying. We’re almost on the same page. The reason why it has to be brought up, even though it’s not as big an issue, is because demanding things of others without at least acknowledging something wrong on your end doesn’t help us improve a situation. Only worsen it.
We are not even remotely close to being on the same page. I think people who say 'killers think they deserve to 4k' are telling a lie, knowingly or not. Despite reading and re-reading, I have no idea what you think on this.
But if you can't adopt a clear position on an unambigious question of truth, you aren't interested in the truth.
-
@fly_172 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598893#Comment_598893
I actually don’t like talking about killer toxicity, it happens less than survivor toxicity and is more understandable. That being said, recognizing that it exists is important, but aside from the pure fact that it happens sometimes I don’t like speaking about it because it’s not as big an issue.
Ok, I'm now 60% sure I'm talking to a chat-bot.
-
@fly_172 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598887#Comment_598887
I have no problem saying that I’ve never ran into a killer that directly stated “I should 4K every game”. Just like I’ve never ran into a survivor that stated “I should escape every game”. The almost was used for the two pallets and one window example that Rakim brought up, since he stated that he used it as an exaggeration. If you want to use the 4K example then you can go back to how I agree that no one has ever said that. I play more killer than survivor. I’ve played since it first came out on console and get to red rank almost every season. Killers have been beaten to a pulp by this game but its made improvements. Holding a grudge, as tempting as it is for us, can only hold us back. Feel free to go in on those who blatantly tell you killers have no reason to complain tho.
I'm not talking about someone directly stating or using the literal same words: I'm talking about 'killers deserve to 4k' being projected onto killers in different guises, as if it were a view that has ever been expressed by more than a handful of non-notable people over 3 years.
If we compare, then survivors haven't literally said by the same standard 'I should escape every game', but they have in fact argued it to that effect and do so almost every single day. When ever the issue of hook-camping is brought up, their response to being reminded that the counter is do the gens the let the hooked person die is: but what about the guy on the hook?
This counter has a 75% win-rate on-paper, the chance of not being the guy who dies on the hook. That isn't good enough, so what is? They literally do want every single survivor to escape every game; a non-perfect win is never a win. This is where I think the meme about 'killers think they deserve 4k' comes from: it's survivors projecting their own basic AF mindset.
-
@fly_172 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598867#Comment_598867
But I can tho. I know someone who mains billy at rank 10 and up because “no other killer is viable above that level”, and wants all killers to be at least as strong as billy or more (I play on console btw, that’s why nurse wasn’t involved in the argument). I’ve been told that nurse should have her add-ons buffed and that we should go to mori’s being used instantaneously without hooking people. Do they represent all killers? No way, they sure don’t represent me. But they exist. That doesn’t mean we should focus on them, but it does mean we need to dismiss a holier than thou opinion of ourselves when it comes to talking with other people, especially when they want to better everyone’s lives legitimately, not through unfair balance “fixes”. I’ve gotten into arguments defending killers before, I know what you mean about these false narratives, but devoting all our time to destroying those without building up better models won’t help us.
Oh god, stop it. This doesn't even attempt to address the point.
You can stop pretending now. This isn't a thread about reducing toxicity; it's about pushing a dishonest narrative.
-
@fly_172 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598860#Comment_598860
There are plenty of trolls on here I agree, but I also run into people like that irl, not through a random game chat but through individuals I’m friends with and have discussions about these things with. However, allowing those flame-raisers we talk about here to represent the whole group leads to the same mentality of “camper/tunneler” that I know we both have grown tired of over the years. There are people that play survivor who genuinely care about killer balance, not to mention the people who play both sides like me. If someone reaches out a hand, we can’t smack it down because someone else slapped us with theirs.
Do you have any examples of killers saying they 'deserve to 4k' or not? Not a week goes by without killers being beaten with this stick and it's an absolute lie.
You said everything in RakimSockem's post was 'not false when it came to survivor-memes' and that 'almost every statement he made is from a discussion post on this forum'. I note the shifty qualifier; 'almost'. This was though your response to me and I had specifically singled-out the zombie-trope of 'killers measure everything by 4k' and it's variations which duplicate the meaning.
To me, that whole thing read as not only perpetuating a lie, but lying about the lie.
-
@fly_172 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598609#Comment_598609
I get the frustration, I really do. I’ve had to block people before because they would continually message me for days spouting their arrogance. But we see more of the survivor toxicity because we have more exposure. Nothing that @RakimSockem said was false when it came to “survivor memes”, as evidenced by the fact that almost every statement he made is from a discussion posted on this very forum. They may not represent everyone, in fact I highly doubt it, but they are still seen. I understand why survivors can tick you off but fighting fire with fire here only burns the whole place down. You want survivors to be less toxic? You have to do the same, and be willing to recognize when you do so. Jerks will be jerks and none of us are gonna become these beacons of morality but the other side won’t stop til we stop too. It’s a cycle, and if we want to break it we have to be the change. Otherwise, we’ll all feel annoyed at every other match we play, which just isn’t healthy.
The same goes for you. If you assert that 'killers think they deserve 4k' is an accurate representation of anything a killer has expressed, point to some examples.
If you don't give the slightest care for basic truth, then any pretense to being anti-toxic is just that: a pretense, with no substance.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598609#Comment_598609
And this is literally what I mean. I make a post expressing things that have been said by both sides of the issue (and yes, the things I listed have been said if you read through the forums) and somehow my post has survivor bias and is all lies that survivor mains made up????
Case in point why we can't agree on anything here
I have been hearing 'killers think they deserve to 4k' for almost three years now and there has only ever been one case where someone who was a killer saying anything like that. That was a troll who was banned on the Steam forum.
Every single other case of it is a survivor-main claiming killers say they deserve 4k, 'all the time'. They never produce an actual example though.
The fact they keep that meme alive is what instantly dispels any notion that they are capable of being honest or fair.
-
@ScottJund said:
I'm sorry if you don't think Nurse addons need a nerf you're a little crazy.
*laughs in 2017
-
This is taking liberties.
Of course someone, somewhere is. There just doesn't seem to be much discussion happening in plain sight where the basis for someone's argument is that survivors never get nerfed.
I'd say that survivors never get nerfed until the intended consequences of it have become meaningless due to other changes. Killer buffs work the same way.
-
@Marcus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/598653#Comment_598653
Nurse isn't reliant on add-ons, ######### ?
If you had told a Nurse-main in 2017 that survivors would be calling addons OP two years later, they would ask "Well that changes did they get to cause that?". The answer would be: nothing, the addons haven't been changed at all since she was released.
This would sound like crazy-stupid-nonsense to a 2017 Nurse-main; they knew addons screwed up their muscle-memory. They made blinking harder to do. Trying to use extra blinks to compensate for missing is absurd because survivors would just evade it like they did the ones that already missed. In 2017.
There is only one explanation left: survivors are just not as good at the game as they were in 2017. I wonder why.
-
The OP is right and literally all the survivors can come out with is their memes.
'Even killer-mains say it'
'Nurse ignores all mechanics survivors can use'
'But her addons' /Laughs in 2017
'The devs say they gonna do it like this'
The devs of course do not at all have a long-history of saying but doing different things. Tell a Nurse-main in 2017 that survivors would one day be calling her addons OP even though they haven't changed and they will instantly know it's because survivors themselves are the only factor that's changed; they are worse at the game than ever before.
Survivors consider only the playstyle and mechanics they prefer to be 'all mechanics', until they all used up, then they will suddenly start using the rest they deny exist and quite effectively. Finally, anyone who has to tell you they are a killer-main is not a killer-main.
-
@RakimSockem said:
To be honest, all you have to do is read through the forums to see that toxicity will probably always be ingrained in this game.
On one side, you have your "I'm not responsible for your fun, my job is to kill you" people who apparently have no sympathy/empathy or sense of sportsmanship. If they're not getting 4ks, then killers aren't strong enough. Take looping out of the game (I burst out laughing when I saw that post). There should only be 2 pallets and 1 window per map (I'm exaggerating, but I bet there's someone in this forum who has said something crazy like that). SWF is broken.
On the other side, you have people who want to nerf BBQ (it's really not that hard to counter guys). If I don't escape every game, I'm upset. Pre-nerfed MoM was perfectly fine (I was indifferent to it and it didn't bother me but I understood the frustration with it), And just general lack of sympathy/empathy for GENUINE killer concerns.
So any time a survivor main brings up an issue they have, the post gets flooded by killer mains (which seems to be most of this forum?) saying "get over it. get good. you probably just suck. etc"
AND
Any time a killer main comes through with an issue, the survivor mains comes through with the same thing.
It seems that very few people here actually play both sides and attempt to see things from both perspectives, and tbh I don't think people in here even make an ATTEMPT to see something from other perspectives.
Survivors literally invented treating the other side as non-persons and inventing opinions that killers supposedly have and say is part of that. The fact you spout those survivor-memes about what killers supposedly say undermines any claim to fair-mindedness.
Killers responding with the same low-standards are usually critical of those standards, but they're the standards survivors set and maintain. The penny still won't drop no matter how many times it gets explained though.
Killers will stop telling the truth about survivors when survivors stop telling lies about us.
-
@CoffengMin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/597511#Comment_597511
what uber buffs?
Well I did give you the patch number, it wouldn't have taken long to see for yourself. The forum software currently freaks out when I try including a link.
The relevant changes were:
- Adjusted pallet overlap with a slasher (on drop down) to teleport the slasher away from survivor instead of the same side
- Adjusted pallet stun to apply at the beginning of the pallet drop instead of the end
This also included two unlisted changes, what was dubbed 'the pallet-vacuum' has now been removed due to survivors no longer having the animation for transitioning them to the other side of the pallet as they drop it, but the increased stun-range of the pallet remains. Prior to this patch, pallet did not stun from round corners, but afterwards the range was clearly equivalent to the range of killers basic melee.
That made sense because the whole reason these changes to pallets happened is because survivors were complaining about killers lunging through pallets and hitting them before the pallet had finished dropping. It was also completely unfair given the context of why killers had developed this strategy.
-
@yandere777 said:
But i don't see blinks being removed since its needed for achievements, not to mention ps4
Don't bet on it: when they originally nerfed her, they made it so you needed extra-blink addons to do what was already one of the hardest feat-based achievements; chaining 3 blinks and grabbing someone off a generator.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/597502#Comment_597502
Here's a fun list of killer perks that meet the same requirement of no skill and your stupid logic.
- A Nurse's Calling
- Agitation
- Bamboozle
- BBQ&Chili
- Bitter Murmur
- Bloodhound
- Bloodwarden
- Brutal Strength
- Corrupt Intervention
- Coulrophobia
- Deerstalker
- Discordance
- Distressing
- Dying light
- Enduring
- Fire up
- Franklin's Demise
- Furtive chase
- Hex:Devour Hope
- Hex:Haunted Grounds
- Hex:NoED
- Hex:Huntress Lullaby
- Hex:Ruin
- Hex:The Third Seal
- Insidious
- Iron Grasp
- Knock out
- Lightborn
- Monitor & Abuse
- Monstrous Shrine
- Overcharge
- Overwhelming Presence
- Pop goes the weasel
- Predator
- Remember Me
- Save The Best For Last
- Shadowborn
- Sloppy Butcher
- Spirit fury
- Stridor
- Surveillance
- Thanatophobia
- Thrilling Tremors
- Unnerving Presence
- Unrelenting
It's not their logic though? It's that logic which they're criticising: that employed whenever someone says one specific perk they don't like is an issue because it 'takes no skill'.
It evolved from survivors adopting an argument made by killers which they only half-listened to(possibly worse than them not listening at all): that many 2nd-chance perks survivors have are either inevitable over the course of the game and the killer can't mitigate them, or in order to do so the killer has to make a catch-22 decision.
It's not that they literally take 'no skill', but that you can compare them to other perks in terms of an absolute: did X perk prevent or delay me from getting hit, caught or hooked? Speed perks like Sprint-Burst and Lithe have some ambiguity to them, as do stealth and information perks; but 2nd-chance perks are absolutes: they absolutely reverse unambigious fail-states on the survivor. When they are downed, now they are not downed. When they are hit, now they are un-hit. When picked up, they can gaurantee a near-total reversal. This makes them by default superior to almost all the ambigious alternatives. They amount to free-lunches.
The devs have tried making 2nd-chance more situational to balance them, but those are situations which happen practically every game, can happen at any point in the game so are still generally useful and can still be stacked.
-
@CoffengMin said:
i think that just putting back the pallet stun/interrupt while blinking would be pretty decent of a nerf , not legion level but adds a bit of counterplay
This would be reasonable if also the uber-buffs to pallets from patch 1.1.1 were also completely reverted.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/597464#Comment_597464
Oh I read the entire thing, but I also made an entire comment that I didn't feel like repeating (a third time tbh) that addresses why your logic is faulty and oversimplified which I will quote here so you don't have to go looking for it.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/597357#Comment_597357
Yeah, you still didn't read the post you replied to.
-
@PrincessPoop said:
Adding a totem counter would be the perfect way to balance NOED imo.
Survivors already have one significant advantage over the killer: the killer is paying for decisions in time, the survivors pay in terms of their resources divided by their main objectives remaining. The killer's resource is an uncertain quantity, the survivors is completely knowable. Totems as a secondary objective are a necessary uncertainty for balance.
Everyone knows there are five, everyone knows when an active totem is cleansed because of the noise, but only SWF communicating know when dull totems are cleansed. There's a conversation to be had about closing the information-gap between SWF and solos but the devs have been in no hurry to actually do it. If it ever involved a totem counter, NOED would have to be changed to make it pointless, so why bother?
Why would NOED have to be changed?
Because a totem counter would have the same effect on behaviour as Ruin does: people stop what they're doing and go hunting for totems. When Ruin triggers it though, it generally signals that the killer is not running NOED: the killer has bet on winning before the end-game by making it less likely it happens. Ruin is a pro snow-balling perk.
Once Ruin is found, the totem hunt usually stops and everyone is back on generators, but every dull totem they found along the way is cleansed for points in case the killer wins. What does a totem counter do in that circumstance? It tells people there's still totems and they're less likely to stop hunting unless they go a while without finding it.
Currently part of NOED's benefit is that it benefits killers who aren't even using it: just the risk that the killer might have it is enough to trigger a totem hunt. If a killer doesn't run Ruin, depending on the killer this is an obvious warning sign that they're using NOED. So in response to a totem counter being introduced, RUIN can be swapped for a non-Hex perk seeing as it's more likely to be found now and so can NOED. The same result over a large portion of the game is being facilitated by the counter encouraging survivors to look for dull totems.
NOED would have to be changed so that it was no longer a risk related to totems, because the totem counter is provoking hunts for totems in order to mitigate NOED. Right now, cleansing dull totems is an absolute counter-play to NOED at the risk of giving the killer a lot more time to win, but NOED still has it's legacy counter-play from before it was a Hex: the killer can't guard both exits at once, so leave by the one they're not at. If a survivor isn't even trying to hide and they go straight for a gate, it's only a 50/50 chance of being the first one the killer goes to and finds them at.
Better to just not have a totem counter in the UI.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/597409#Comment_597409
"Not getting caught" is not a counter to getting camped. There isn't enough stealth in the world to NOT get caught the entire game.
Thanks for not reading.
-
If I was going to argue in bad-faith, I'd argue that Kindred is a huge benefit for survivors to have which they don't need to earn and takes no skill, even without putting it in the basekit.
Instead, the point I'll make is that this benefits survivors more that they do not all have it by default.
The killer is uncertain that a save will be attempted. They know it's likely, but they don't know by who, they don't know if the main purpose is to farm, lengthen the game or SWF-related(strategic VS genuine altruism) and they don't know what perks will be in effect.
Every player wants to reduce uncertainty for themselves and increase it for the other side. You want Kindred as basekit; the killer wants to know if you have Kindred, which if it was basekit they now definitely do know every survivor has it.
DS was majorly buffed in what very unimaginative people still think was a nerf. Previous iterations of DS has one thing in common: the Obsession probably has DS and if they do, the first time they get picked up is the best time for them to use it. Anyone could have DS, but the Obsession likely had the most perks that would cause them to be the Obsession. Now anyone can have DS, but it's triggered in a specific circumstance that is designed to coerce the killer's behaviour: picking someone up after they've been unhooked is heavily penalised. Every survivor benefits from the uncertainty though because they don't know who has DS, meaning even survivors without it could be left alone after they've been rescued.
So what of Kindred? The big issue is not so much that they can see me(a killer with stealth can just hide out of range), but each other. It's the person on the hook who has Kindred equipped because it encourages other survivors to save them by letting them all know if anyone else is going to try. They all know who is closest, who is being chased by a killer that has left the hook and where etc.
If Kindred worked a different way, like if anyone was hooked rather than just the person using it; they're mainly using it to see if they can make a rescue without someone beating them to it. This is the same as if it were basekit; it's not the person on the hook looking to be rescued by using Kindred now to influence the behaviour of other players. The killer no longer has uncertainty about this though; they know every survivor is eye-balling and challenging each other to get there first if they are at a similar distance.
This could be the one scenario where having BBQ reveal auras tells the killer to stay put; they're coming to me. Not knowing if Kindred is being used means it probably isn't, meaning leaving the hook is the best way to find another survivor. Knowing that it's always being used changes this.
-
Hook-camping has a counter. It has always had this counter. Survivors just refuse to employ it, despite it having an on-paper win-rate of 75%, which is their basic chance of not being the person who dies on the hook in each match.
Nothing in this 'experiment' suggests the survivors even attempted to focus on the gens, although the OP equipped perks to mitigate against it. Both of those perks though share the same counter-play at the end of the game: not being found or caught in between gates powering and escaping. This can be maximised by everyone staying together and going to the same exit, so no one getting caught at the other exit can possibly get caught, hooked and trigger Blood Warden. On most maps, not even the Huntress can guard both exits no matter where they spawn.
Hypothetically, trade Blood Warden for Whispers; now the killer has a much earlier warning of which gate at least one survivor is at, but they will lose the others as they go to hook without Blood Warden to stop them leaving. So swap out one of the to-the-basement perks instead for Whispers so you have Blood Warden and NOED. Whispers isn't a specifically end-game perk, but it is rather less useful the more survivors there are; it's harder to track any individual one if they split-up unless they're all going somewhere predictable, like an exit. What if they don't go for the exits though?
You're actually now split between guarding two exits and the NOED totem, with three survivors. You only need to leave any of them beyond sight for 20 seconds, with a survivor hiding near and it's over.
Even if the killer manages to win, they have played the game with two end-game perks, which is two-fewer. If they win before they activate, it can be argued that survivors played very poorly(one common killer frustration is that whatever the result, it never feels like we earned it as so much depended on survivor-fail). If the killer wins in the end-game, assisted by those perks; it's again dependent on survivors being careless.
-
@CoffengMin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/597366#Comment_597366
i hide in lockers all the time and i see many ppl doing the same , nobody wants the killer to chase someone straight after a hook or know which gens are being worked on , stop with the excuses for camping , an unhook is always free unless you camp
I'll keep everything you just said in mind the next time someone questions me on my sincere belief that survivors have become worse at the game and this explains virtually all of the more recent concerns they've generated concerning balance.
-
@CoffengMin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/597350#Comment_597350
well knowing how many counters it has they should know better than to camp dont you think? cause there really is no point in it if a gen is 40m close
Erm no, if the killer can't rule out counters then they must assume the worst-case counter is being used: they're all too close to risk leaving the hook. It's a free-rescue and the killer won't find anyone far from the hook, because they're likely all at the hook.
Considering survivors have persistently favoured a playstyle based on making chases longer rather than making a serious effort to hide, the only strategic reason for survivors to hide their auras is if it is the final-hook so no rescue can be attempted. That's the time to not be giving the killer a new target to head straight for.
Hiding their aura when it is possible for a rescue on phase 1 or 2 of the hook is only an optimal decision if they are SWF and it's the weakest player who knows one of the stronger players will stay visible to attract the killer, or they're solo and playing selfishly.
-
@Seanzu said:
I think the main concern is, people who suggest more stealth do nothing but regurgitate the "Just hide" line, and never actually give any example of how it'll help, or any ideas towards it besides some odd ideas like "add more bushes", "add more line of sight blockers", "and just hide when you hear the heartbeat"???
guess what... line of sight blockers are loops, btw.
You don't cite a specific person or post and I'm not going to make assumptions.
However, when I suggest stealth it's because I know what the next response is going to be: 'but it's boring' or in effect that. If someone keeps coming across a scenario where looping is not working(Nurse etc), pointing out that stealth is an option that exists completely neutralises the demands that are often attached to complaints about looping not working. People can not say 'Nurse ignores all mechanics' as if looping, windows and pallets count as 'all mechanics'. People who say this are themselves ignoring all mechanics, except the ones they have tunnel-vision for.
Then the discussion moves on to whether more generally stealth is viable, which of course it generally isn't: but what started the topic was not a general thing but a specific scenario and even looping survivors do resort to stealth sometimes. The frequent abuse of the limited killer PoV(borked since the Unreal engine update, which the devs said was an unintentional bug but they had no plans to ever fix it) is a stealth strategy; they're trying to get hide from the killer right next to them.
If I was being unfair, I'd suggest that Karl's earlier speculation about why killers bring up stealth was a case of projection: instead of 'killers wanting more stealth emphasis because they want easier and faster chases', what this reveals is survivors don't like a choice that locks them in but always more 2nd-chances. When looping, pallets, windows and get-out-of-jail-free perks are exhausted, they then use something which they claim isn't viable in any other context: stealth, usually to great-effect.
I'm not going to be unfair though, because I don't know if that's true for anyone or survivors generally. I do think that survivors don't know what they want, which precludes me assuming they want that.
-
@Tzeentchling9 said:
The devs said in the stream they have no intention of changing Freddy anytime soon.
Really? I heard something much less definitive, as usual. Here is the recap: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/77678/live-q-a-recap-july-25-2019#latest
The very first question regarding his teleport starting on cooldown gets in the response that they will monitor it and make changes as needed. On the specific question of whether they are going to nerf anything, nothing is planned but it is re-affirmed that they're monitoring first. They gave no time-scale for this.
There will be nerfs. Freddy seems to be designed for exactly this purpose; to be nerfed but to minimise backlash from killers because there is no clear picture of what is supposed to be special about the character now. You nerf bear-traps and Trapper-mains are awoken. You nerf hatchets and Huntress-mains stop singing and start screaming.
Freddy now has two active abilities(projection and traps) and two passives(sleep and stealth), all of which have addons to distinguish them. Nerf any one of them because of feedback from survivors and the devs can just say it's not the 'main power' and should be considered next to any minor fluff buffs to the other three.
Everyone is going to have something about him that is their favourite feature, meaning if it's not their favourite feature getting the hammer, they aren't too fussed unless they are losers like me who get angry about stuff on principle.
-
So it begins: the devs will pay close attention to survivor feedback on the new Freddy. IF this same complaint keeps getting repeated regarding his ability to proxy-camp a hook, further restrictions on him being able to teleport will probably be considered.
This is despite words McLean gave me on his stream when I raised the issue of Freddy's incredible generality and lack of speciality. He told me I should consider his teleport to be his main ability; all else is tertiary, despite the fact that Freddy has addons for each of his abilities, not just the supposed 'main' one, which also becomes less useful as the match progresses.
When this has been nerfed, they'll just pretend one of his other abilities is in fact his 'main' power and always has been. Without a solid mechanical theme, such changes can be made on the basis that they're minor because all of his abilities are special, so therefore none of them are. Freddy seems designed purely to evade backlash from killers whenever he gets tweaked from now on.
We should never have let them get away so easily with preventing Trapper being able to set under a hook. Having let the precedent be set, there's no stopping it.
-
@Karl_Childers said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/596947#Comment_596947
Freddy rework wasn’t just a survivor thing, come on man. You telling me killer mains didn’t constantly ask for a rework and complain that he was F tier? Yeah, they just reworked him cause of survivors though lol
Legion rework was a united mission, the only people who didn’t want Legion changes were killers who used the exploit. Too bad. Most killers wanted Legion changed.
The thought that killers would prefer a stealth based game of hide and seek is laughable, both sides would say it’s boring. We know damn well what killers really want is to just be able to get downs faster and easier. This is just being camouflaged in a “there should be more stealth” argument.
Here is a list of what stances I take on each of the things you said.
Is the Freddy rework just a survivor thing? No,
Did killers ask for a rework of Freddy? Yes.
The question missing though is; did killers also ask for something other than a rework? Yes, some just wanted straight buffs and others wanted quid pro quo buffs, not an overhaul. Why pick a rework over buffs? Because survivors said playing against Freddy wasn't fun.
No one was asked either what a reworked Freddy should be like; survivors didn't care because they just didn't want to play against Freddy and the devs don't listen to killers, so of course this kind of feedback wasn't sought.
Were the only people who didn't want Legion changes people who used the exploit? No and if that was an exploit rather than use of addons for exactly what they're supposed to do, it could have been changed without totally reworking Legion, which happened in the same patch. Plenty of addons that share the same purpose do stack; this case was singled-out not based on any design-principle but for the sake of an arbitrary design-goal. The problem with chasing goals rather than sticking to consistent principles is that they create clashes and naked unfairness, leaving people wondering 'why was X changed but not Y when it works the same way as X?'.
Would killers prefer a stealth-based game? It already is a stealth-based game, it's just now killers have more stealth options than survivors do, which is funny because in asymmetrical games it is usually the weaker side that relies on stealth. That at least is consistent, as killers are the weaker side.
What you meant though is: should players be forced to play a certain way that they don't want to? The answer again though is: that is already the case, it's just that it's mostly the case for killers and where survivors have been restricted is through the devs responding to their own numerous requests for changes.
I think there should be a diversity of playstyles and not just a straight choice between stealth or chase-lengthening either or somewhere in-between. This has not been possible because the vast majority of survivor feedback(the feedback the devs focus on) calls for proscriptions on the killers, to which killers can only respond by being proscriptive in-game.
Your characterisations about others say more about you.
-
Old-Freddy
Aesthetic - Z minus: Not a critique on Jackie Earl-Harley, but bad-writing in the reboot botched what could have been a new take on the character. If you can't on some level root for a villain, they're a boring villain. Robert Englund is still the definitive Freddy and he's not the one we got.
Thematic - B minus: Seeing someone being picked up off the floor by something invisible is both comedic and spooky; more one than the other depending on context. It's iconic to Nightmare on Elm Street that others can see only part of what's going on. However, it's otherwise been a completely missed opportunity regarding the effects and powers he could have had and his mori almost looks like it's bugged.
Mechanics - D minus: Freddy being helpless in reactive situations where the delay on his active power coming into effect costs him a lot, means Freddy shares a weakness of a lot of killers but it's compounded. In this regard, his power was merely the power to sort-of buff himself into a vanilla M1 killer: the epitome of rubbish and it was a self-buff. The debuff aspect affecting the survivors and his total invisibility to unaffected survivors were the only saving-graces.
New-Freddy
Aesthetic - Z minus: The same as Old-Freddy. No one who actually thinks about how this version of the character was written would want to 'become Freddy'. There is a reason why Wes Craven dropped certain aspects of the character for the version he wrote.
Thematic - D minus: Freddy emerges from a generator, with a big warning, which might be fake but then can't immediately be repeated so there's no longer an immediate threat. He summons bloody reaching arms from the ground, which slow but never hold. It would be better if this was more like something that actually happens in nightmares; when you sense something chasing you but you can't properly run, either unable to see why or you're sinking into the ground. He drags people into the dream with physical-contact; an inversion of what gets done to him in the films and one of the few theme-features that is consistent with the source, though Old-Freddy could do it with locker searches. If they couldn't pick any memorable themes or iconic moments from the films to replicate, then actually researching nightmares might have been a good idea because nothing here seems like a common feature of nightmares.
Mechanics - Total F: He's now a specialist in nothing. He has lots of abilities: two active and two passive, all of which have addons. This is a design where it seems obvious the devs are hedging their bets: that they're going to see how he is played now, what killers try to customise him for the most, then later orientate him towards that as long as survivors are happy. He was reworked because they found him frustrating to play against.
There are issues with making any design jack-of-all-trades but that would need it's own thread.
-
Oh look, a troll posting a drive-by argument that isn't even an argument, but a post resembling every ill-informed take on NOED for 3 years now.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Well, looping is all that survivors have left since the devs keep making changes to prevent stealth play styles. For example, there are a wide variety of tracking perks that killers have to negate stealth, scratch marks encourage looping as opposed to stealth, and they keep brightening up survivor cosmetics to prevent camouflage stealth.
So ya, if they get rid of looping, say by removing pallets/vaults, then there would be no point in playing survivor anymore because they would always get sacrificed.
Survivors asked constantly for changes that made it this way, ignoring all the warnings and citing the catch-all phrase 'but the alternative is BORING', or it was frustrating and would make them quit the game etc. Funny how when killers said the same thing about all the changes being made, the devs just ignored us.
Survivors though do not get to claim the status of bystanders who are disappointed with how narrow-focused the game has become: they repeatedly requested that, without realising despite it frequently being explained to them how it was the case.
-
Is it slowly dawning on everyone that the devs must stop listening to certain people?
They ask for things without knowing it, complain when they get it and ignore all warnings or objections informed by reason; they do not know what they want.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/597002#Comment_597002
Wow. It's obvious you have no clue how things actually work. If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic sport, you'd be Michael Phelps.
I'm just not even going to bother anymore. Your bias is so bad.
You don't get to make that accusation when you unironically stated this: "That's why they are hesitate to change stuff willy nilly and only push out changes they are confident would have a positive result."
-
Holy smoke, he's still using the 'people learn the game mechanics' narrative.
Whatever could be exploited on day-one was being exploited on day-one, it did not take long and awareness of this stuff was being spread by streamers just as fast as the game itself was. This goes for both sides, but survivors were worse and had much more to exploit.
The devs are clueless about how this game is played; it's why back then they claimed infinites 'took skill', not that they didn't understand like any sensible or humble person would do when talking about a topic they're unfamiliar with, they said it 'took skill'.
They then didn't know what pallet-looping was, leading them to introduce Bloodlust, which does nothing against pallet-looping. That was all because survivors were pretending to not know either even as they were using it, but filled the Steam forums and Reddit with misinformation suggesting that killers 'just break the pallet'. This gave the devs the impression that pallet-looping was when a survivor ran around a pallet that was already downed and the devs also couldn't understand why killers didn't just 'break the pallet'.
Even now, they duck on obvious gameplay questions because if they had to talk in specifics, they'd be picked-apart on how boomer-tier they are on it.
-
Survivors don't find playing against Freddy fun = Rework.
Survivors don't find playing against Legion fun = Rework.
Survivors don't find a stealthy playstyle fun = More and longer chases.
Killers don't find playing against SWF fun = Nothing.
Killers don't find playing against stackable 2nd-chance perks fun = Nothing.
Killers don't find more and longer chases fun = more and longer chases.
-
@Rydog As you've been told: no way of phrasing a question to the devs would help if they had no intention of giving an honest answer, especially regarding statistics where there is an asymmetry in the information I have compared with the devs.
It depends entirely on being able to trust them and the response I got showed taking them on-faith was a mistake.
I've explained this and you're just showing you still haven't listened.
-
@Rydog Why are you bothering me with this? What relevance does it have? I explained the very clear differences between our questions, but all you've done is practically ignore me.
I should do the same.
-
@Dehitay said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/595078#Comment_595078
They never said that using voice programs was cheating in that stream. They just admitted that voice communication would destroy the balance of the game and give survivors too much of an advantage so they didn't want it in the game.
This is of course factually-correct. That makes it more hilarious and absurd.
-
Okay, I realise how I've misread the first point now and will have a think on it.
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/595057#Comment_595057
@ArecBalrin Dominant option in this case is an option that is ALWAYS the best. Or in otherwords. If I can guarantee a down in roughly the same amount of time no matter what you do then I will take that guaranteed down no matter what.
It's like playing rock paper scissors but I automatically win if you play anything other than paper. In that case scissors is my dominant strategy, since I will win no matter what you throw out.
And in chess. Once you reach a "Mate in X" situation the mindgames are over and the game is just seeing how long the opponent can delay the inevitable. There is simply no benefit to tricking the other player so no mindgame can occur.
That is different from a PREFERABLE option. Which is usually the best but sometimes not the best. So long as you can exploit that "sometimes", and your opponent knows this, a mindgame is possible.
Take my example of going to a window vs a pallet. Depending on the Killer I am it's possible to get to exactly one of those locations. Possibly with a red glow mindgame depending on the exact location.
However I need to do it quickly enough and I need to get to the right one in order to not lose a lot of distance and get the hit quickly.
If the Survivor goes for the Pallet then that Pallet is lost, if he goes for the Window nothing is lost.
Thus going for the window is preferable.
Would you go for the Window or the Pallet?
What if you were the Killer?
That is a mindgame.
I'm sorry but this has become more confusing for me now.
In your opening-post, the first prerequisite for a mindgame is:
"There is no dominant option for either side. That is to say, the Killer can't guarantee a hit and the Survivor can't guarantee a long loop. In this case they will take the dominant option regardless of what the other side does."
This conflicts with what you say in your post, which rather than accepting the dominant option as in play when there is no gaurantee of a 'win' in the form of a killer landing a hit or survivor making a long-loop, these things themselves are dominant options because they are always the best.
This has taken the presence of a dominant option from being an exclusive prerequisite to an inclusive one.
-
@yikesgoodjob said:
NOED is a crutch perk. Do survivors have crutch perks? Yes. But ... aren’t killers inherently stronger? Aren’t good killers SUPPOSED to 4k? That’s what you’re told when discussing Nurse, Spirit, etc. In that case, survivor perks are a crutch for disadvantaged players to try and level the playing field.
So, why are killers, already in an advantageous position, rewarded for not completing their objective before survivors do? They’ve (survivors) managed to outplay the boss. So reward said boss with, in many cases, a sure kill?
“Cleanse totems nub,” yadda yadda. Earn your kill. That’s all. Token system is a start.
How do people actually define the words they use? What is a 'crutch' supposed to mean in this context? I have a clear definition, which is consistent: a crutch in DbD is any option where there is no reason not to use it, to the point that it would be really detrimental if it were gone.
Obvious ones are justifiable: killers doing melee is a crutch, even if those like Billy and Trapper have alternatives, it's not reasonable to expect them to rely on those abilities exclusively. Survivors have pallets, which were justifiable until they got uber-buffed into foolproofedness a few months after launch and made pallet-looping a thing.
NOED is not a crutch. It's a heavily rubber-banding perk with no general purpose and poor synergy even with other perks that share a rubber-banding purpose like Blood Warden, focused entirely on the last moments of the game. Bitter Murmur is better now it has more general use throughout whilst still synergising with NOED, but NOED itself is useful only at the end and only if there is an available totem.
NOED is massively counter-productive when ever any snow-balling perk is used for killers, especially other Hex perks, but especially the most popular: Ruin. You will see almost no killer hedging their bets by taking Ruin and NOED together. Ruin means one less available totem, it prompts survivors to go seeking totems from the start and if it does its job it also means NOED is a wasted perk-slot rather than an insurance card. This more than anything makes NOED not a crutch: it's an option with a very clear reason not to use it. It's always better for a killer to bet on winning with Ruin than clutching with NOED.
-
@Peanits said:
Third party programs are only at risk if they are not authorized by us. We have stated in the past that voice chat is okay to use. As a result, voice chat is not cheating.
But assuming it was, how would we enforce this? How can you prove that people aren't communicating with their phones, or by playing in the same room as one another? You would end up in a mess of finger pointing and there is absolutely no way to prove it. We would be banning people purely on speculation, and that is not something we want to do.
Livestream #6?
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/594653#Comment_594653
I've always wondered what people like you consider a "real mindgame" to look like.
It's close to what you explain in your OP. I can quickly say that Peanits example using rock-paper-scissors is something which I categorically dismiss as not being a mind-game: both sides have equal information, particularly on the first round against each other. Both are getting the same information with each iterative round, though often the one paying attention to it the most likely has an advantage. Research on psychological determinism suggests no one is capable of picking truly at random; their choices are unconsciously known a long time before they are consciously aware of them.
Anyway, the first major sticking-point for me when regarding your case is the very first numbered-point: that a mindgame prerequisite is that there is no dominant option when odds are in play. I will cite high-level Poker as an obvious case where mindgames are happening which are prompted precisely because of dominant options. Every player has different options that are dominant and there is an advantage to finding out who has what options and that is a mindgame.
-
@Chaotic_Riddle said:
People are allowed to play the way they want and do what they want. If you don’t like it, then just play SWF, if not, then don’t complain. People bought the game to play it the way they want to.
It is possible to believe people should play how they want and also think bizarre decisions they made can be commented on and questioned.
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
TLDR: Guessing is an inherent property of mindgames and is not a counterargument to something being a mindgame.
I have always said DbD has no actual mindgames; what people were calling 'mindgames' was simply 'playing the odds'. I didn't outright object to other calling it 'mindgames', I just thought they would be hopelessly lost if they ever had to play an actual mindgame.
Your post is the first time I've read a proper argument and it's actually making me reconsider.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/593218#Comment_593218
You have no evidence other than what you made up dude. Unless you work at BHVR you have no way to know their motivations.
I've actually studied game design, so I know what principles they are following. They created a game with certain mechanics, those mechanics interact to form dynamics, and then they tweak the game to make those dynamics more interesting and balanced. Dynamics are the natural evolution of a game's design. And yes, I could be wrong, but they DO NOT just change stuff because they feel like it or because they favor one side or the other, that is for sure. Because no developer does that. Not unless they want to purposely destroy their own product.
Until you acknowledge that your whole "double standard" bull ######### is just that, then yes there can be no agreement between us because you fail to see the bigger picture and can't accept when something on your side is legitimately and undisputably broken.
Well I just don't think there is a bar of evidence that can be met that would change your mind.
You having studied game-design doesn't mean anything, except that you should be held to higher standards, not lower.
-
I noticed right away where I went wrong at the start of my post, but I ain't touching that edit button.
-
@sluc16Member I don't think that killers 'like' it as such, it's just that survivors have on average got two new 2nd-chance perks a year; it always sounds hypocritical to hear them call NOED a '2nd-chance perk' as justification for further changes that they want.
I don't regard NOED to be a 2nd-chance perk because I have a specific definition for what I consider a 2nd-chance to be. It does however share another category with survivors 2nd-chance perks: that of a rubber-band feature.
A rubber-band in terms of game design originates from racing games where the difficulty was moderated by applying a 'rubber-band' to AI drivers; they were restricted in how far ahead they could get ahead of you, allowing you a real chance of winning until a certain point imposed from the top-down by the game designers. In the context of most games, it can be considered to have the opposite function of a snow-balling feature. A capture-point game where the points are faster to be captured the closer one side is to winning is one that is promoting snow-balling for faster-paced matches.
The problem is survivors 2nd-chances can be both rubber-bands and snow-balls: if survivors do well these perks help them and if they are behind they can turn the tables just as effectively as NOED can, but with less risk and investment. Killers complain about those 2nd-chance perks, but individually most of them are not that bad; the issue is they are so stackable and high in synergy, with each one equipped reducing the risk that all will be needed.
-
The real puzzle for me is: once a survivor has used a key, is it now removed from the game? No one seems to have bothered checking, because it seems that if each RBT has a specific key, you know that if someone has got one off their head at one box, the key for another RBT can not be in that box.
-
@OMagic_ManO said:
Just gonna correct you, the Devs said that the Pig's boxes are not RNG dependent so you can go to the same box and take off the trap, there are 'keys' in each box.
Pretty sure you still lose STBFL stacks, since it's still a attack.
Can't believe I wasted money on buying her a skin.
This is still RNG; it's just pre-seeded RNG. It's much more RNG than a Trapper putting a trap down and a survivor probalistically stepping in it; it still depends on a quasi-randomised value.
-
For a moment I thought your post was just going to be "...you must BECOME NOED"