ArecBalrin
ArecBalrin
About
- Username
- ArecBalrin
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Peanits said:
It is intentional, it's not an oversight. There are some that aren't as bright and colourful as others; the Brazilian Claudette shirt is an extreme example of the brighter ones, but there are plenty that are fairly dull which won't stand out too much.
You are not meant to blend into the environment. If the killer is looking at you, you have failed to hide from them. Stealth is about not being seen, not being seen and hoping the killer doesn't notice.
If only the system that detects when a killer is in a chase worked by the same principle.
-
What he said abiove and this always applies: anyone who thinks they are hot-stuff does not need to say it. If it's true, then they can depend on their ability to express a superior understanding that being an expert gives them, not bluff one.
-
@Nea_Death_Experience said:
@ArecBalrin So while you points are true and factual you have derailed the original point. Maybe it isnt fair for 4 survivors vs 1 killer and maybe there are balances there that need to be done. But this is not the premise I opened discussion for and this is not the point i am interpreting; if you would like to discuss killer balances.
Here is a post where I am trying to openly discuss loops and how I think they can be resolved:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/593014#Comment_593014
Here is a post where I am suggesting ways to balance the totems being wiped within 30 seconds:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/591866#Comment_591866
I am well acquainted with the powerless nature of killers and I am not trying to defeat your point. Simply you are not listening to what I am saying and refuse to look at it from this prospective; this is a survivor related post talking about the negative impacts in a survivor game. This is not the place to factor how under powered killer is.
Premise: it is not fun to be camped, tunneled, mori'd off hook etc. How can we fix this, make the community less toxic.
If you would like to offer positive renforcement to any of the ideas suggested, a killers prospective to an idea someone might have missed, elaborate on any points then please stick around.
If you have simply come to rant about how underpowered killer is then this is not the place for you and I have many other posts you can find your way to with similar ideals to yours.
Well when you start a topic that is completely irrelevent to killers, which means a topic where killers would not be affected by proposed changes were they to happen, then this would stand up.
That is not what this is. Right from the start, this thread should concern killers because camping, tunnelling, mori etc are some of the only options killers have left to edge an advantage. Survivors chose to make their main playstyle a merry-go-round of looping and repeatedly stackable 2nd-chances and it involved heavily restricting killers choices or coercing them with catch-22s.
You get the standards of debate which you invite, by setting an example. What you can't have is an echo-chamber where you can precisely define whether disagreement itself is even allowed. You do not get to suggest that killers should get less points for whatever reason and that as the purpose is to make life better for survivors that killers have no skin in the disussion unless they're positively in favour of making life better for survivors. Surviors got into that position, where the killer disregards their enjoyment for a reason.
-
They've given him too many abilities. Tried talking to McLean about it on his stream, but meh.
There are structural issues that are universal to all-purpose designs and Freddy has been re-made as an all-purpose killer. Anything designed with a general or all-purpose needs careful planning and a clear idea of what it is meant for ie; the Swiss-Army Knife is a design that has many iterations, many of which could be considered a joke because they're bloated with instruments that have no relevance to each other.
-
@Rydog said:
@ArecBalrin I do not think the developers would agree that they have a moral responsibility to answer questions. This is the crux of what I'm getting at -- you're trying to apply your worldview on this particular issue to a separate group of people that do not share this perspective, and that you could never reasonably expect to share this perspective, regardless of the grievances that we have with them and their game.
By picking the question, researching the question(they do not just by coincidence have answers like this there) and offering any answer, they accepted the question. There is a moral responsibility to then be truthful and utterly so, not looking for loopholes. They could have just not picked the question and it just would have been among hundreds of others they didn't pick.
I'm not forcing my world-view on anyone. When ever a world-view is sincerely held though, the consistency with which it's practiced is the standard that universally others judge each other by. Someone who picks and chooses their standards to suit them is how everybody recognises someone untrustworthy.
I'd judge the devs by their own standards, but they don't want to nail themselves to any.
-
@GrootDude said:
STBFL and sloppy work on chainsaws so the same rule should apply here.
This would be reassuring only if standards were consistent all across the board in DbD.
Worst-case scenario I'm fearing here is that Ambush will count when STBFL tokens are deducted on attacking the Obsession but won't when building tokens from anyone else.
I'm still in the dark about how the Obsession mechanics work in regards Dying Light specifically, when the Obsession is killed but is then changed to someone else by Decisive Strike.
-
@Rydog In a courtroom, anyone being asked questions is required to answer like that; they don't have a choice. They are not permitted to comment or speculate unless they are an expert witness(I am going by common law standards) and may only talk about the topic they are an expert on. All who testify are forbidden to make argument or ask questions other than for clarifcation to enable them to answer, which if they fail to do so can be grounds for one side to object or have the testimy disregarded, which is the only point relevant about the devs here. Even then it's not the representative of one side that gives the clarification, but the most senior bar-member taking part(the magistrate/barrister or judge), which in the context of the livestream would have been the devs themselves. They had a moral responsibility to clarify my question, shape it according to their own specific knowledge of the data and give a usable answer.
They did not, because they had no intention of doing so, however the question had been phrased. The devs were explicitly given the choice by me, because I lack the requisite understanding of their internal data-collating process to ask a closed-question that was relevant to it.
They were not answering every single question. They were being asked hundreds of questions in those days and could only answer about two-dozen on a livestream, giving about 30 seconds to a minute for most. Mine was the shortest answer they have ever given to any question, ever. They had to pick and choose. If they did not have a usable answer for me, why did they pick my question at all? Why did they then research the unhelpful answer they gave specifically when it was a waste of time? It's not like that was the first time they read it, then just so happened to have that figure on-hand.
-
@Nea_Death_Experience said:
@ArecBalrin you are twisting the same thing. 5 people play the game over 2 roles. There are 5 people. You cannot play with 3 survivors, if 1 DC's mid game the game is unbalanced.
You cannot blob 4 people to being 50% of a game. They are 50% of the role but there are still 4 people there 80% of the match. I can change the lingo if it helps you
Game now = match, and community now = game.
Reread my about comment with this change and it is still true. Playing like a dick, tunneling etc ruins the match for 4 people.
Please do not comment about double standards if you cannot understand this point. Killers VS Survivors is a 1 vs 4, think of everyone in this.
I can comment about double-standards, becuase the post you just made is a double-standard. Why is 3 survivors remaining when 1 disconnects unbalanced? The match started with 4 and somebody made a crummy decision, but you don't provide any argument for why it's unbalanced. It's not an inarguable statement of fact; it has a counter-factual and that is the possibility that the killer having to face 4 survivors might be unbalanced. We don't know though, because we both probably have very different ideas about what 'balance' even means, just like everyone else.
There are two sides to the game. When survivors cite their majority when taken as individuals, they're typically arguing that four wolves and a sheep voting on dinner is fair. When killers point out there are but two sides and one person makes up an entire non-optional side of the game, it's just pointing out a fact. When taken together as equivalent(because this is de facto how the game works: there can be less survivors, but never one less killer), it takes four survivors choosing to stop playing to have the same impact on the game's health as one killer making the same decision. Passengers can boycott the small stagecoach and it will be fine, but not if the horse does.
The double-standard plaguing this game is those who put the cart before the horse.
-
@Rydog said:
@ArecBalrin But it's not a wide-open question, it's a really specific question. You asked "As a ratio, how many survivors-to-killers are playing the game right now?" and they gave you, specifically, a ratio of how many survivors-to-killers are playing the game right now. They gave you the answer you were seeking. I can't fault that as a bad-faith exchange.
If someone showed you that question and that answer in a vacuum, with no other context in terms of whatever baggage and issues accompany this game and this developer and this player base, can you honestly tell me that you would conclude it isn't a fair and straightforward answer? What unsaid information were you hoping, specifically, to get out of it?
In the Q&A thread for Thursday's Twitch stream, I asked this: "Would you ever consider removing perk tiers, so that each perk only has one version? With 65 total survivor perks and 60 total killer perks, this would alleviate the most oppressive aspects of the grind, and actually make prestige a tempting decision, while still requiring players to put time into building up characters."
If this question is selected, I am anticipating them 1) answering the question posed in the first sentence, and 2) addressing the big-picture concern that led to my asking the question (which I have made very clear here). Without the context of that second part, I could rightly expect them to simply answer "No."
Once again, what I said about bad-faith arguments; it applies to you too.
Your argument here is that as long as the context is completely removed, the answer they gave is fine. This is despite me explaining the context and why it matters. The only way you can then go on to say 'but anyone who saw the question and saw the answer but had no content would think it was fine' is you are doing the same thing: you have no intention of looking at it on a level playing-field or acknowledging that I was working with an information-gap and the devs weren't. My answer on this specific topic and in this context, depended on trusting the devs no matter how the question was phrased.
Your example question required you to only know things which are publicly available; the only thing you don't know is the information you're specifically requesting. My question regarding a statistic would have required in-depth knowledge of what gameplay data they were already collecting and how they were collecting it in order for the question to be phrased in the same exactitude without presumptions.
Do YOU actually know what the answer they gave even means? Lots of people pretended to for months afterwards, even if their ideas were all different. The devs knew what they were doing by giving a useless answer.
-
@EldritchElise87 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/593093#Comment_593093
I mean they took a Killer that was known for being gen-rushed out of existence and made him one of the best gen-defenders in the game.
That remains to be seen, but it doesn't really answer my concern about why this needed a complete overhaul of the design rather than targeted changes.
-
@Rydog said:
@ArecBalrin I would call that a fair answer to the question as-asked. They did tell you the ratio, which was specifically what you inquired about. I mean, what context would you reasonably want to go with it? It wouldn't matter if, say, he were drawing from a player base of 30,000 or 300,000 -- the ratio is still 2.6:1.
I understand you probably wanted more data, but I can see how the question as-asked would lead to a straightforward and simple answer.
Did you miss what I said about bad-faith arguments?
If they are determined to not give a useful answer, but to seem like they have, then I am in a catch-22 when it comes to phrasing the question. I made the question in good-faith; giving them the utmost freedom in how they answered. It relied on me trusting them to be honest, but they weren't. There is no way the question could have been phrased if they always intended to give an unhelpful answer.
Had I assumed beforehand or known that they were going to do this, I wouldn't have asked the question at all because I know statistics well-enough to know nothing can verbally paint them into a corner. The more I restrict the terms of the answer I'm expecting, the more likely they are able to say 'we don't have any information on this specifically' or 'we don't understand the question' or 'this is how many killers and survivors are actually in matches over this period'.
They is no phrasing of the question 'as-asked' which would have produced a useful answer, because they were determined not to give it. If they had responded in good-faith, it would take a major botching of my phrasing to produce the same poor result.
-
@Rydog said:
@ArecBalrin What question did you ask them, and how did they answer it?
"As a ratio, how many survivors-to-killers are playing the game right now?"
BHVR: "2.6, for every 1 killer"
That was it. No detail was given, no clarifying technical information; which is a basic standard when producing any statistic with the intention of providing useable information. No reasonable person can possibly conclude what that figure actually represents.
I had worded my question carefully, to allow BHVR the broadest possible scope for answering, because there would be data-points and details which I knew I wouldn't be aware of. Including upfront clauses or any further specificity(other than what I did, to avoid ambiquity), would have possibly meant making the question unanswerable without a ridiculously long over-explanation by anyone on the panel who was statistically-numerate. I gave them absolute freedom in their answer, but they abused it.
You can maybe get a measure of what governs my attiude towards the devs since then and anyone else who chooses to make bad-faith arguments.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/593185#Comment_593185
Right and claiming imaginary double standards is SMH 🤦♂️
Just stop derailing and we can have a discussion, but I'm about done and don't think further discussion between us would produce any agreement on anything.
You're wedded to the nonsensical idea that survivors playstyles, like pallet-looping, were developed as a consequence of discovering how base game mechanics worked. There are mountains of evidence that can be pointed to that show the developers picked exploits that survivors were using and turned them into supported game features, with survivors actively lobbying the devs to do so(and they still do). Naming such examples just led you to pick one out and then suggest I was saying things that I wasn't.
You know exactly what you're doing and are in no position to accuse anyone else of trolling.
-
@TRB124 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/592718#Comment_592718
The audience (ie killers) have lobbied for survivors to get nerfs after nerfs and have produced the state of the game as it is now. (No insta blinds, no pallet vacuum, DS, BT, MoM nerfs, less overall pallets and in the future there will be less safe pallets on all the maps.
No one can say the devs have favoured one side. In fact every patch since last year have contained non stop survivor nerfs.
By just taking what I said and changing the words around, you're saying context doesn't matter. The game has a history and that history happened, with survivors in a distinct role that is not inter-changeable with killers. You have to try anyway because the case for it is long, detailed, boring, but unanswerable.
@Rydog said:
@ArecBalrin I don't want to come across like I'm trying to defend the developers; I'm not, and they do make a lot of really boneheaded mistakes, and often fall on their faces when it comes to addressing the game's real, serious problems. I hope we can at least agree on that.
Although I don't necessarily agree with all of the logic behind the Freddy rework, I think two years is a ridiculously unacceptable time frame to wait for such a huge overhaul. They're clearly bad at prioritizing. I still have to think that, like any sizable game development studio, they weigh development and balance decisions based on data and internal testing. They're not obligated in any way to share their internal data with us, or even to justify their decisions in any way they don't feel appropriate, but the fact that they screw so much up (and don't prioritize well) inevitably leads to a lot of our collective bad faith about the whole process.
I dunno what the answer is. I just want them to fix all the broken stuff about their game, like, yesterday, because three years is already an inappropriate grace period from a player perspective.
The devs themselves have previously used their data, selectively, to justify themselves; in terms of 'we have the data and you don't, so we know how to decide how things should work'. This excludes them from any justification they can come out with about witholding data, unless it is specifically personal data or commercially-sensitive, which gameplay telemetry isn't. It's propriatry of course, but once they're using the inability of players to see the data as a reason to dismiss specific player feedback, they have to explain how they can say that when they're the only ones deciding it's the case.
When my Q&A question was first picked, by even answering it at all they accepted the premise that asking specific questions about data is ok and will be answered; they just dishonestly gave a gibberish answer.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/593047#Comment_593047
BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBLE STANDARD.
You're the one saying there is then pointing to something that is blatantly broken as proof. No, it's not proof of any double standard. Face camping to body block unhook prompt is BROKEN, it's impossible to save. How is this so hard to comprehend. You have to be trolling at this point, I'm convinced.
And you say I'm deflecting when all you have done is try to justify a very clearly broken aspect of the game. Nurse is debatable. Body block unhook prompts is not. It's broken. BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN. That's why it was removed. And it's the same reason permanent hook sabo was removed. BROKEN. I'll say it again, there is no double standard. If something is clearly broken, it gets fixed. Doesn't matter if it's killer or survivor.
As much as I've tried to explain, you have tried just as hard to keep derailing. Your purpose in replying is not debate.
-
The devs are more likely to incorporate any exploit survivors use into a supported game feature than announce that it's bannable.
No, statistically that is true.
-
@Rydog said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/593098#Comment_593098
Freddy came out almost two years ago.
Also, balance adjustments are almost certainly based, predominantly, on internal data that we can't see. They don't just make giant changes based entirely on the whims of a few vocal people on a forum.
Game development does not happen the way you think it does.
Please don't make assumptions about what I think.
So what if Freddy came out two years ago? What have the devs learnt since then? They knee-jerk nerfed hatch-closing between PTB and live by making it so it powers the gates. They didn't bother with a PTB on important changes to how pallets and flashlights could be used to get a killer to drop a survivor, leading them to being forced into a knee-jerk U-turn. They knee-jerk adjusted the emblem awards for survivors during that PTB so it rewarded them irrelevent points for their favourite pastime of bullying the killer. And so on and so forth.
As for the supposed 'data-driven' and 'evidence-based' approach you just assume they're using: they've made so many gaffes relating to statistics, no one who has paid attention to them would trust them to know what telemetry they should be collecting, let alone that they are collecting it and interpreting it right. They can't measure player 'frustration' with data, but the Freddy rework is supposedly founded on that; it's the first thing they come out with to sell it to us. Are we also supposed to believe they weren't using data when they nerfed Freddy or before that but have since?
I tried asking them data-related questions once, they even picked my question relating to player population balance. Know what they did? Gave an unhelpfully nonsensical answer.
-
If we're talking in terms of scales, you've got to remember This Is Spinal Tap.
Why did the amp go up to 11? Because it made it louder than amps that only go up to 10. Why didn't it just have 10 but it's 10 is louder? Because this one goes up to 11.
Thus we have a problem and sometimes people trip over the truth but carry on as if nothing happened. The problem is that most killers only go up 6 as their top-setting; no matter how good you are you can't squeeze a 10 performance out of a killer that only goes to 6.
We do not know what the Nurse goes up to: she can only be measured against survivors. The structure of most survivor complaints about the Nurse is the same as most killers complaints about the survivors: there is nothing you can do against a good X, they control the game, it doesn't matter if most of X have poor performance because the few at the top are unbeatable.
This why we're not seeing nonsense about the Nurse in fact being too easy to play for the return on investment and the focus is hilariously on addons. Go tell that to a Nurse-main in 2017, where it was de facto the case that addons were a hinderance; the best Nurse's didn't use them because they spoilt muscle-memory. Nothing has changed since then regarding her addons or her base kit. The only thing that can explain now why her addons are supposedly OP is that survivors have become much worse at the game. Now you have a player who can manage 6 with the Nurse(a 10-setting killer) beating survivors(who are also 10-settings) and the reason is because survivor has become so easy they're not used to putting any effort in, even a 6-effort.
-
@Rydog said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/593052#Comment_593052
I mean, for you to believe that players can or do have such sway over design decisions, to the degree that you're implying, is unbelievably wrongheaded. Behaviour's designers do not sit in some smoke-filled room, fingers steepled, cackling about how they are going to screw over the killer players in the next patch.
Are you serious? Freddy was the worst killer in the game and he was nerfed within days of being released, because of feedback mainly coming from people who didn't even own the game but played on a free-weekend. This wasn't that long ago. I can list more but if you can't remember Freddy, you won't remember anything else either.
-
@AChaoticKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/592771#Comment_592771
his existing one was frustrating for both sides of the player base and it did nothing more than stop Freddy from getting hits. it was also way to easy to get out of dream world and the passive aura reading was just encouraging Freddys to tunnel. what could they change to make him better and more fun to play as or against when his hole kit is like this without completely changing him.
I understand the design was frustrating for survivors, but the frustration expressed by most killers concerned the fact that he was weak in a chase and specific clutch-moments for survivors; which is the same issue a lot of killers have. Those more general issues of course have not been addressed at all, only the ones specific to Freddy and in that sense, only the ones specific to survivors frustrations.
Killers no longer have to worry about not being able to hit a survivor while waiting for the debuff to apply; something the devs could have easily addressed by just allowing Freddy to hit anyway, as survivors can with pallets and flashlights. It didn't need a full character rework.
What did need a full rework is survivors no longer having to worry about their progress being stalled, not being able to see where Freddy is coming from as they now can from a huge distance of 16 metres(only twice the distance at which pallets can spawn together) and being visible to Freddy a lot of the time.
The only drawback for them with this rework is he now has viable chase utility, which still favours them because they prefer a playstyle of extended chases, stacked 2nd-chances and looping, which Freddy's original design was disruptive to because he worked best when stalling them. What is meant by 'frustrating' in terms of survivors is that their playstyle can still be used, but doesn't do them much good if gen progress is so slow. Now they don't have to worry about that and can play against Freddy as if he is just another killer.
This is why I really want an answer from the devs in the next stream. I last asked a question years ago and haven't since because they basically dodged giving a real answer(concerning population balance). My question now is about what this design is even about; is he meant to be a jack-of-all-trades or a specialist in something and if so, what?
I'm guessing he's now meant to be the former and the devs are relying on killer's to innovate what he is meant to be good at, but that's going to be hard with everything we do to innovate being nerfed or removed not long after.
-
@Rydog said:
God, my comment got thrown into an approval void after I edited it twice. That basically means it's gone forever.
TL;DR: @ArecBalrin you have a rampantly entitled worldview, I assure you that Behavior knows its players are not game designers. The buck stops with them. And, survivor/killer tribalism is so dumb. Get real, most people play both, and would like both to be an enjoyable experience.
Wanting fairness and being against double-standards = entitlement.
I'll wait for your post to get approved. Mine usually do about a week later. I no longer bother correcting spelling and grammar mistakes.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/592816#Comment_592816
LOL for real dude? Face camping makes it impossible FOR THE GUY ON THE HOOK to win. What now? Just because there is some counter tactic doesn't make the original tactic any less broken.
If you wanted to get hooks against perma-sabo run Iron Grasp and Agitation. You can see why this sort of thinking is a problem now, yes?
A 75% win-rate in any competitive game is not just good, it's dominating.
Not enough though, because one person has to be given-up. It's fine when that one person having a lousy time is the killer though, just don't dare let it be a survivor.
You've deflected enough and still haven't responded on the matter of the blatant double-standards. The survivors preferred playstyle did not come about because they developed it, through practice or experiment. It came about because they persistently lobbied for it at the expense of every alternative, including the killers being able to make diverse choices.
-
@ABannedCat said:
Does that mean that now when someone unhooks someone else infront of my face, I will no longer accidently hit the already hooked survivor? That sounds like a good quality of life change to me.
Not tested it yet, but I say a 60% chance that when I do, it will still 'hit' for the killer the way melee auto-target works so that you miss the person you meant to go for, but now without a 'hit' happening in the game.
Devs are gonna dev.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/590879#Comment_590879
Did you even read anything I wrote? Because I explained it quite clearly.
Face camping to body block a hook made unhooking IMPOSSIBLE.
Permanent sabo made hooking IMPOSSIBLE.
If you think one is okay, you must think the other is okay too or else you are a hyprocite.
Fact is, neither are okay because it's broken when a player can make an action impossible for their opponent. It doesn't matter if said action is the right tactical decision or not. The problem is that the option doesn't even exist.
Also you throw out the term "gish gallop" but I don't think you understand what it means, just like you don't understand what cognitive dissonance means either. You are just using buzzwords to avoid being seen as a hypocrite.
Face-camping didn't make winning impossible, in fact survivors had a counter which if they would bother using had a 75% win-rate on-paper.
Hook-sabo did prevent the killer from winning; killers had to force a de facto draw if they could not carry anyone to the basement, by performing the much harder task(than doing gens) of slugging everyone.
-
I don't understand the point of the rework, specifically why they decided on this new design rather than improving the existing one. I hope they answer my question about this in the next livestream.
He's gone from a 'specialist disruptor focused on rubber-banding' to a 'generalist map-pressure focused on snow-balling' and like all the recent 'meh' killers has a long cooldown on his main active ability.
If the devs think Billy is the ideal balanced killer, they're not making much effort to replicate it.
-
If you want to balance around communication, too much would have to change.
Balance instead around competing interests. Some people(even killers, to my frustration) say that survivors are a team and shouldn't complain about issues caused by poor-teamwork, because it's all on them and their failure to cooperate.
Back in year-one there was even talk by the devs of allowing a survivor on the hook to kick someone if they thought they were being farmed, preventing the unsafe 'rescue' and punishing the farmer for it with a short delay. That's an idea that needs revisiting: SWF have a habit of farming people outside of their group and griefing them.
Other features should force survivors into catch-22 situations where communication can actually be worse for them, because they are listening to the person they are having to betray. It's why hook-camping has been especially successful against SWF, because they have to listen to someone on VOIP saying "C'mon, just try. Someone lead the killer away and another run-in. You don't know he'll hard-camp."
There were plans of course to do just that. The killer after all has to make catch-22 decisions all the time, so it's only fair, which is also probably the reason it never happened.
-
@Rydog said:
The players can only work with what is in front of them. It is not the audience's fault that the game is saddled with these issues, or that toxic behavior is incentivized by some mechanics.
The 'audience'(IE; survivors) actively lobbied for all of the features that have produced the state of the game as it is now. Killers are blamess; we're not listened to.
-
There are often changes from PTB to the live-version.
Killers finally got one request granted, hatch-closing. It worked all on the PTB and finally the hatch mechanic was fair, so of course it had to be changed for the live-build so that it was back to being as brokenly unfair as before, it just takes up less time.
The entire point of requesting hatch-closing was removed, by making it so the gates automatically got powered. Was any similar rubber-band base feature included for the other EGC scenario where the survivors have done-well, giving the killer a slight chance? Of course not.
It's not so much that many things need doing and the devs can only do so much at once, but the skewed priorities of the order in which they are going through them at treacle-pace and the even more skewed implementation that makes sure there's always a sting-in-the-tail for killers.
-
The thread title is right about one thing: survivors do not know what to say, but that's because they do not know what they want.
They ask for things constantly, complain when they get them and the consequences are revealed(after killers have warned about them well in advance) and they think the solution is for the devs to listen to more of their solutions.
This is why the devs must stop listening to them.
-
@Nea_Death_Experience said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/587124#Comment_587124
@ArecBalrin you are confusing game and community. in a game there is 1 killer and 4 survivors so they are 80% of the game. If the killer is toxic it ruins 80% of the game.
You do not need to complain about toxic survivors. I am well versed in being teabagged and looped. I know it sucks.
They are half the game. Without them, there is no game. Matches can be played with one, two or three survivors gone, but not one-less killer.
The issue with going by individual players is the naked bias and double-standards it enables, which is well-evidenced here.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/590043#Comment_590043
If it's okay that unhooks are made impossible via the killer body blocking the hook prompt, then by that logic it would be okay that hooks are made impossible by survivors via permanent hook sabo. I'm not inventing any opinions for you; either you think permanent hook sabo is okay or you don't, and if you don't then you're a hypocrite. Those are your options here.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/590054#Comment_590054
Again you don't speak for the devs, and you don't understand how game development works.
Fact is, permanent hook sabo is just unfair to the killer. They tested stuff and tried to come up with the right solution before they implement it, because implementing the WRONG solution means they just have to do the work over again.
It's pretty obvious at this point you are just killer baised and ANYTHING the devs do is only at the behest of survivors. It's just not true, you are living in a fantasy world. You are defending something about the game that is just flat out broken, nothing more nothing less. If you want to defend a hook, then you need to actively do it. You can't just stand there and make it impossible. Whether making the save is the right move or not is irrelevant.
Please tell me what hook-sabo and old face-camping have in common in terms of design principle or mechanical implementation? This just looks like you continuing to gish gallop and derail.
-
@darktrix said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589819#Comment_589819
The perk is already not useful half the time. Meaning unless you are injured and in a chase, the perk used up a slot for nothing, which happens quite a lot in my games - especially if no one even gets all the gens done. Killers like you just hate on it because it's a good survivor perk that does something useful when it does come into play. You already got to self care and DS - guess you all figure it is time to try and knock adrenaline down to being a disadvantage instead of a perk.
And stop crying 'free escape' - they obviously did a lot to trigger the perk, it's not 'free'. That's just sounding ignorant.
The trigger for Adrenaline is the gates being powered. The trigger for Adrenaline is not the person who has it equipped necessarily having done anything to contribute.
The perk not being useful at certain times is not an argument that it is balanced; you can't make that argument in isolation and ignore the context that it exists in. Several perks in the game for both sides are not useful even most of the time but have situational uses and their strength in those situations reflects it.
I don't agree with the OP's proposal but his assessment of Adrenaline is accurate: much of it's excessive utility comes from the fact that it is able to over-lap multiple times with many other features the survivors have as options for 2nd-chances, snow-balls and rubber-bands. It has too much synergy, as is the case with many 2nd-chances the survivors have.
-
@CronaWins said:
I play both sides (more often killer) with over 2k hours in the game.
Adrenaline doesn't need to be touched.
It doesn't work like that. Those making arguments from experience and expertise are generally held to higher-standards than others, not lower; you have a much more difficult bar to reach than 'take my word for it because I got 2k hours'.
Come up with a better argument.
-
@xChrisx said:
Nurse need a tremendous nerf
No, she needs huge buffs: most players are in low-ranks and Nurse has the worst performance in low-ranks consistently.
The only way nerfs for Nurse can even conceivably ever be on the table is if:
- A consensus forms that the game should not be designed and balanced around most players, but at the top-level, where Nurse dominates.
- That this applies to the whole game, not just killer selectively; the same standards apply across the board, including survivors.
- All the implications of that are followed-through with consistently.
This means huge buffs for most killers, re-designs of base game features and survivors finally being forced to change their playstyle away from extended chases, killer-stalling and killer-griefing.
Survivors have been against all of this for 3 years. They're quite comfortable with double-standards and unfairness.
-
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/531/D33IOB5U7EHF.png Sorry if the image is a little small. I don't know what else to say here
What standards are we applying?
If we're applying survivor-standards; the Nurse needs to be in the top and Trapper needs heavy nerfs.
I agree partially with @LordGlint in regards to the chart not giving detail, but I guess the purpose is to generate discussion about that and whether characters should be moved around.
If we apply fair standards(killer-standards), then what seems clear from the chart is how it represents the need for a higher skill-ceiling on most killers: they should all be harder to play, but there should be a proper return on the investment.
This would help low-rank survivors that are struggling(against low-effort killers that have it easier by default) but give killers back some control of the matches at higher-ranks.
-
@NMCKE said:
Just to be clear, I don't want to nerf No One Escapes Death, I just want it to activate differently, and have a more fun mechanic (while staying a strong perk). I'm saying this because I don't want people assuming I'm wanting a nerf - I just want what's best for the game just like everyone else here. I feel like No One Escapes Death is an unhealthy perk for the game overall, and it needs a rework.
I know the developers have a bad history with reworking stuff such as The Legion, but if they took my rework idea, No One Escapes Death will be a great perk in my opinion.Also, there could be perks in later chapters that create Hex totems during the Trial.
I still have no idea why you cherry-picked NOED.
-
I want to note that just because I disagree with the OP does not mean I think the dishonest arguments being made in this thread are valid.
Adrenaline has problems and survivors can not defend it as it currently is, at least not on a level playing-field, which is why we're having to read things like 'but whatabout X perk for killers then?'.
-
Reading back my last post, I'm really not happy with it but will leave it up.
I do however regard Myers' perks as originally designed to be equivalent in how they interfere with each other to how Meg's Adrenaline and SB are now: one cancels-out the other, but both don't cancel-out each other. You can use SB all-match and not be worried towards the end of it jeopardising Adrenaline, but Adrenaline will block SB. Myers' perks as they originally were on his release served the same purpose in regards to dealing with grouped-up survivors, even if they hindered each other outside of that.
My position is consistent if it remains unchanged: I was opposed to all of the changes to Myers' perks at the time and my issue with Meg having her perks made totally co-detrimental just gives me another reason to think they were wrong. The devs should not have made Myers' perks less thematic and more de-synergised.
-
A survivor-thread; where survivors gather to complain about things killers never said, things that never happened and to pretend the state of the game is the exact opposite of what it really is.
When are survivors finally going to allow their meta to be changed?
-
@newavitar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/590087#Comment_590087
That's actually completely incorrect.
Myers.
Dying light:, kill the obsession for a massive progress slowdown.
STBFL: Keep the obsession alive but don't hit them
PLYF: Chase the obsession, keep them alive, don't hit anyone.
I am aware of this but now explaining my position becomes more complicated, but it's still unchanged. I do not regard Myers' unique perks as originally designed or as they are now to be irredeemably co-detrimental.
In a nutshell: you're asking me to look at Myers' perks in terms of how they are de facto used and the passive-conflict created by how they are used, rather than thematic consistency and active-conflicts. For clarity: I regard your proposal as introducing an active-conflict between Adrenaline and SB because they would block each other both ways. Currently, Adrenaline blocks SB by triggering Exhaustion but not the other way round; Adrenaline activates even with Exhaustion up. Why this matters is probably the reason why the devs made Adrenaline immune to Exhaustion in the first place: it is already situational to the point where it can not act as a stand-in replacement for another Exhaustion perk. Myers' perks belong in the passive category because all three can be used together and any conflict only goes in one direction, but if you use all three your direction of choice should be killing the Obsession ASAP and the two perks you are aiming to lose assist with that. Getting one person removed very early on usually gaurantees a 4k.
Now the TL;DR bit.
STBFL was changed since Myers was released, in my view all of the changes have been progressively worse and unjustifiable.
STBFL as it was originally: "As long as your Obsession is alive, the cooldown of missed attacks is decreased by 14/18/20 %. The cooldown of successful attacks is decreased by 25/29/33 %."
It made it easier to kill survivors, but that includes your Obsession. It was regarded as a strong mitigation to hook-swarming that was popular at the time. All of Myers perks enabled the swift killing of the Obsession and if that was made not-possible due to collective survivor behaviour, the build would make Myers(or any killer) much more dangerous to collective survivors. Dying Light provides a deterrant against survivors actively jeopardising the Obsession in order to give themselves an easier time against a killer no longer benefitting from the other perks.
The changes to STBFL nudged towards the line for me, but do not cross it as your proposal for Adrenaline does.
These are not unique perks which are conflicting, but presenting different opportunities according to how the match unfolds and who Myers manages to kill, which is rarely within a killer's direct control. If survivors are not being daft, PWYF is not something to be farmed for tokens but part of the decision-making of changing who your target is if it's a choice between the Obsession/Laurie or someone more vulnerable.
If we go by the changes to STBFL as it is now, we must also consider the co-mutual changes in the Laurie perks, namely DS which has the function of changing who the obsession is. I actually can't find any reference for whether DS still makes someone the Obsession if the original one has already been killed and if so, if it affects how Myers' perks work.
-
You are fuelled by unexpected energy when on the verge of escape.
No.
Fairly straighforward reason for my objection. Exhaustion is one of Meg's own perks, as is Sprint-Burst.
Meg has like most characters a thematic basis for her perks; she is an athlete and her perks are based on her fitness and agility. There is an achievement for using all of her unique/teachable perks in a match and escaping.
Looking at all of the unique perks for each character, some have better synergy together than others, yet not one of them actively conflict or cancel-out another: https://deadbydaylight.gamepedia.com/Perks
If this proposed change were to happen, it would be the first time this did happen: that a character's unique perks were actively co-detrimental. With Meg in particular, there is an issue of adding restrictions to perks which already have them. Sprint-Burst has no separate button to activate it: in order to conserve it the player must forgo running until it's needed. Adrenaline will cause exhaustion even if no healing or movement is done when it activates, hindering the use of Sprint-Burst.
So if this suggestion were used by the devs, it would no longer be possible to object when it was done to other characters and perks on the basis of how it destroys their theme or creates conflicts between their unique perks. I am a killer-partisan: I am of course thinking of the devastation that could be wrought on killers if it were possible to change their unique perks in the same way.
-
Also, they did not remove permanent hook-sabo because it was exploitable. They left it in that state for months and didn't respond to killer complaints with anything but dismissal. They took their time putting hook regeneration into a PTB and then delayed putting it in the live-build, using the excuse of survivors behaviour in that PTB(it was the same one where they had infinite first hook phase and self-sabotaged their own buff by griefing).
What made them do anything was survivors whining about being slugged and dying on the floor, but not before they introduced Bill who had the first perk to allow a survivor to pick themselves up without help, just to give killers a few more weeks of aggravation.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589967#Comment_589967
So you're mad they took away your ability to literally stand there and do nothing for a kill? That's literally all they did. If you really think that's a double standard then you have a very clear bias toward killer.
Here's another way to look at it... sabotage originally was permanent. Basically that means survivors could make it IMPOSSIBLE to get hook. They change it so hooks would respawn because it was exploitable. So if you think it's okay to make an unhook impossible, then it must be okay to make a hook impossible. If not you are a hypocrite.
Well done, you've now reached the point where you have to start inventing opinions for me rather than responding to what I've actually said.
The issue is not what, the issue is why; you already know this, but your purpose in replying is not debate.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/585418#Comment_585418
I would make one change, simply to prevent dumb plays. When you hook another survivor, DS is no longer active. It is supposed to be anti-tunneling, but many survivors use it as a free unhook since they know I cannot pick them up. Obviously, slugging would be preferable but 60 seconds of immunity is painful, you shouldn't be rewarded for dumb plays like that.
This would be an incredibly fair and reasonable change. That's exactly why it won't happen.
Survivors hide behind the BS of 'it's meant to be anti-tunnelling' but they don't really mean it.
The thing with the stun-time of DS is that the devs could have changed it when they nerfed Enduring. They should have because of their previous statements which set a standard for what the stun-time for DS should be and how Enduring interacts with it. Once Enduring no longer interacted with it, the justification for the 5 second stun-time disappeared. It wasn't changed because whilst the devs claimed to be asserting one standard, they have in effect been upholding another.
They could change it this week, or could have last week; any time recently. We're only waiting because they thought they could get away with it and still might if people stop discussing it.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589924#Comment_589924
There's nothing bad faith about it. It's physically impossible to make the save. With stuff like BT and DS, making the save isn't always the bad play. All the devs did was make it so the save was an option. There's nothing about that that makes it a double standard.
You don't need to make the save: the killer has given you free-reign on the generators. The counter to any form of hook-camping, even tunnelling, has a 75% win-rate because those are the odds of any single survivor being the first person hooked and camped. In any game a strategy with a 75% win-rate would need nerfing, it's not just winning but dominating. You of course already know all of this, but you're not debating, just derailing.
Survivors tend not to use the counter because of double-standards. The game and all discussion of it is rife with them. When the survivors are demanding the devs do something about tunnelling or camping, what matters is the unfairness towards that one individual who must be allowed to enjoy the match, to be rescued, who must be empowered so that they're not straight back on the hook afterwards even. They're far less concerned with killers as individuals but that's not the double-standard I'm talking about here, though it is a double-standard.
The double-standard is that whilst they talk about the experience of the individual when they want to take something from the killer, they suddenly start invoking their collective interests and the health of the whole game when protecting something they already have. The health of the whole game, when used as a justification, of course once again excludes the killer, which as one side represents at least half of the game.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589877#Comment_589877
That's not a counter because it's impossible to save the guy. Like the option doesn't even exist. How is this so hard to understand?
It's not hard to understand: it's just a nakedly bad-faith argument.
I could fill you in, but I think you are entirely aware of the 3 years of discussions that happened and you're goal here is not debate but distraction.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
"Getting frustrating now: yes they could. The counter to face-camping was the same as the counter to normal hook-camping. Survivors refused to do it, as usual."
No you couldn't counter it because you couldn't save the guy. SMH
Doing gens is not a counter when it's literally impossible to make a save.
"Also, EGC did not take long: they literally came up with it within a few weeks after the PTB for hatch-closing. They did not want to give killers what we had expressly and notably requested without a sting in the tail."
Do you understand what iterative design is? Of course not. EGC is the end result of a lot of design and testing, part of which was the hatch close PTB.
"You've derailed enough."
I'm not the one sitting here making ridiculous claims that the devs just do whatever survivors want, have some sort of imaginary double standard for killers, or complains about what are the core dynamics of the game.
The counter to face-camping was the exact same counter to hook-camping. This has been discussed for 3 years, you can not possibly have missed it unless you have gone out of your way to do so, in which case you are in no position to be throwing around accusations of bias.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
"By the same standards, survivors have had body-blocking by the killer in regards hook-interactions labelled and dealt with as a malicious exploit. "
Because survivors could literally not do anything about that. Hostage has nothing to do with this situation. Like you seriously think it's okay for a killer to just stand at a hook and make it impossible to save? Dude that's biased if I've ever seen it.
"yet the streamer Vinc3Vega reported someone for exactly this last month"
Does not make it an actual exploit. SMH again REALLY you use this as an argument?
"they were being told for weeks and kept making excuses to do nothing"
I highly doubt this was the case. It just proves how little you understand about game development. Solutions don't come overnight. Which is why both EGC and DS took so long. But then look at something like MOM. Changes in like 2 months. Tell me again how they say "how high" when survivors ask for stuff. I'll wait.
"And I leave you with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance"
You clearly don't understand what this actually means. If you don't think closing the hatch is a free kill then you are again just killer biased. Not to mention, you got the ability to close hatch it's just part of a bigger mechanic now. One that STILL favors killers.
Getting frustrating now: yes they could. The counter to face-camping was the same as the counter to normal hook-camping. Survivors refused to do it, as usual.
The devs had tried interfering with hook-camping but the brick-wall of reality hit them with the PTB for it. With face-camping they concocted a set of standards and then selectively-applied them, ignoring that face-camping was in it's overall effect on the match no different to hook-camping. Survivors could have just done the damn gens, as they were advised to by killers. You'll notice killers give survivors much more sincere and less self-serving advice than survivors do for us.
Also, EGC did not take long: they literally came up with it within a few weeks after the PTB for hatch-closing. They did not want to give killers what we had expressly and notably requested without a sting in the tail.
You've derailed enough. The game as it is now has not come about by players learning to develop the way it is played: it is played this way because one side persistently and successfully lobbied for it. If you need any specific clarification(rather than trying to gish gallop me), I can provide it.
-
@ScottJund said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589798#Comment_589798
They're not taken at their word "just because of it" they're taken at their word because they've won like 6000 Nurse games in a row.
That's just rephrasing the same thing I was criticising.
I expect someone who has won thousands of games with the Nurse to be able to articulate why they think anything about the Nurse. This is why some normal adults are dumber than a lot of normal children: the adults can't remember most of the days of their lives, so having more of them doesn't help them against kids who can.
An expert is listened to because they can give a superior explanation on their subject of expertise, not simply because they're an expert.
-
@ScottJund said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589763#Comment_589763
Okay and what about some of the best Nurse players in the game saying she also needs a nerf?
I don't get why people do this; make an appeal to authority and expect it means the point has extra value because of it? If 'blah-blah one of the best Nurse players' and 'whosit studied game design', that makes the person advancing the argument by adopting their position take on the same burden and they just can't.
People who claim expertise for themselves or from others are not just taken at their word because of it; they actually have a higher standard expected of them. I expect them to be able to present better arguments first of all.