ArecBalrin
ArecBalrin
About
- Username
- ArecBalrin
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@ArecBalrin "This debate has already been done and those on the other side of it from me chose double-standards. Killers have had 'dynamic' use of multiple mechanics working in tandem labelled as 'exploits' which justified intervention from the devs and the threat of bans. The exact same standards do not apply to survivors when they loop or body-block; they get different ones."
Because looping and body blocking are not exploits. If a survivor body blocks the killer, the killer can just hit them. If a killer body blocks a survivor, there is literally nothing they can do. If done in a corner, the survivor is effectively trapped in the game forever unless they DC. The fact that each side has different mechanics is why this is treated differently.
As for looping, you even said yourself the devs labeled infinites as EXPLOITING and then changed it so it doesn't exist. And yes there is a huge difference between an infinite and a finite loop. How you think they are the same is baffling honestly.
It just sounds like you are a pissed off killer main that only sees the changes to killers as negative and ones to survivors as positive. The fact you have this grudge against looping, which is the basis of the game even from the beginning, is hilarious actually. Like explain to me what you would want survivors to do? Explain to me how you would make it so that you can't waste a killers time by running in a circle. You can't, not unless you outright remove pallets and windows. Oh you would change the collision boxes? All that does is shorten the loops, it doesn't get rid of it.
Also there is nothing "misrepresented" about the game's post release development. Changes have been made on BOTH sides to balance the game. You bring up hatch closing, well the original mechanic wasn't good enough. It was too oppressive, probably because it just meant FREE KILL for killers. And it was, to say anything else is just biased. So the devs went and came up with EGC, which is arguably a more fair solution (though one that still favors killers). DS changes took a while too, and the end result is one that made it way WAY better for killers (which if you still have a problem with DS then I really have nothing else to say to you).
"Free unearned escapes" like really dude? REALLY?? You need to 4k that bad every game? You can close the hatch, so to say survivors still take the game hostage is just a lie. They sort of can when there are more than 1 of them and they just refuse to do gens, but again that's just a flaw in the design. Eventually that will get fixed too I'm sure.
Fact is, you don't actually understand this game if you thinking looping is an exploit.
You're ducking and diving.
Body-blocking is arguably not an exploit because the killer can do something about it; it doesn't matter what that something is, they can do it. By the same standards, survivors have had body-blocking by the killer in regards hook-interactions labelled and dealt with as a malicious exploit. The standards being applied to different sides, are different. It was explained at the time and repeatedly ever since how these things are directly equivalent, but the devs stand by their double-standards, as do survivors.
The devs applied the reasoning that a killer can hold the game hostage. This is not what they were doing though when face-camping at a hook though; it had the same viable counter as normal camping, yet was included in the explanation given for how they were(inconsistently) defining exploits that could incur punishments. Now that EGC exists, the killer can't actually hold the game hostage indefinitely whilst the clock is ticking, yet the streamer Vinc3Vega reported someone for exactly this last month, using his own back-channel rather than the in-game system. He seemed very certain it was the case and has an excellent working relationship with BHVR.
I did not say the devs labelled infinites as exploits: they were being told for weeks and kept making excuses to do nothing. They eventually did because they were forced to; it was absurd. When they finally realised why looping itself around anything was a problem, they are obvlivious to the differences in collision and apparently willfully so. They had pulled up a picture on livestream of Meg and the Trapper, with the wire-frame for the collision-capsule revealed for comparison, even though they could have looked at the circumference values for an accurate telling; they tried to stay ambigious about it.
"You bring up hatch closing, well the original mechanic wasn't good enough. It was too oppressive, probably because it just meant FREE KILL for killers. And it was, to say anything else is just biased."
And I leave you with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589471#Comment_589471
Yeah but you also forget that the reason some people hardly touch gens might be because the killer has been right up their behind the entire time, or they have been making saves when others wouldn't dare go near a hooked survivor.
No one is saying that in order for Adrenaline to work you must touch a gen, everyone has a role in a match, it would be stupid to expect every single survivor to work on gens. That isn't their only objective. Which brings me to my final point... some of those people who aren't working on gens usually keep the killer occupied and usually die before the perk can even work.
Ok, hold the thought that you had in your head while typing this post. The thought is: 'the survivor can sometimes be too pre-occupied doing something important to meet the ridiculous bar that is being set'.
Now take it and apply it to the killer. Suddenly, it becomes obvious what is so wrong with all of the discussions that have been happening about NOED on top of lots of other things regarding how unfair the game is towards killers.
-
@ScottJund said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589713#Comment_589713
Did this mad lad just compare body blocking to an exploit
Don't give me opinions I don't have and haven't expressed just because you can't deal with the ones I have.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@ArecBalrin "Looping was an exploit that the devs weren't even aware of"
No it's not an exploit. It's a dynamic. In other words, it's the result of multiple mechanics working in tandem. In this case, pallets/windows and character movement speeds. Collision factors in too. But it is not an exploit.
What the devs did was tweak the mechanics in order to balance the dynamic of looping. Previously, you could loop forever. Then devs made changes so that looping would be finite. Then they made further changes to make pallets and windows fair to both sides. Next we are getting changes to make the stronger loops weaker but provide more of them, resulting in even more balanced gameplay for either side.
You make it sound like survivors said "jump" and the devs said "how high?". That's not at all the case. Players DISCOVERED the dynamic of looping. It was deemed too strong, but unless you want to completely change core mechanics it will always be an inherent part of the game. Therefore the most reasonable solution is to change the mechanics until that dynamic is fixed.
I went to school and studied game design dude. What you think of as "survivors made this happen" is completely false. Survivors merely discovered how the mechanics interact with each other, then the devs made changes to make it better for both sides. If they really REALLY catered to survivors as you claim, they would have left infinites as they are. They would have left pallet vacuums and fast vaults as they are. But they aren't doing that.
You also don't speak for the devs. Whatever imaginary scenario you came up with in your head of what they do behind the scenes or how they make decisions is just plain wrong. But whatever, believe in some fantasy if you really want to.
This debate has already been done and those on the other side of it from me chose double-standards. Killers have had 'dynamic' use of multiple mechanics working in tandem labelled as 'exploits' which justified intervention from the devs and the threat of bans. The exact same standards do not apply to survivors when they loop or body-block; they get different ones.
The only difference between looping 'forever' and looping with a pallet-crutch is nothing, in practice. Looping forever only existed on-paper, or else someone somewhere would still be looping. The issue was not that it could last indefinitely, but that it could last the entire match: something which pallet-looping exactly replicates.
I've explained to you in summary what happened. I haven't made it 'sound like' anything. If you want more detail I can provide it, but my summurising has been accurate and not embellished in the slightest.
You are of course, still talking about a different subject to the one I pulled you up on: that of the misrepresentation of the game's post-release development. It can not at all be characterised as playstyles existing now simply because players learned them; survivors actively lobbied for the one never-changing playstyle which they prefer and the devs have for the most part given them everything they asked for. Not only that, but they gave them it usually in the specific form that they asked for.
The closest killers have ever got to getting this is when hatch-closing was introduced, but the devs couldn't give us it like that: they only put it in the live-build alongside removing the whole point why we had been requesting it in the first place. Now survivors are getting free unearned escapes and still hold games hostage.
-
@No_Mither_No_Problem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589693#Comment_589693
The theme and goal of this thread are very clear.
The theme is bloodpoints. The goal is creating more opportunities for bloodpoint gains.
In what way could that be made more apparent?
Well this is like someone being asked why they like money and instead of talking about what they can buy with it, they just emphasise money as the goal in of itself.
Why do bloodpoints need to change? Nothing is said. What do all the suggestions have in common beyond increasing bloodpoints? Nothing is said. Why are the category switches being suggested, what is the overall purpose? Nothing is said.
People complaining about the grind doesn't mean increasing general BP gain is a solution; the complaints are varied and are discussed, not all are valid or sincere. There is a history of certain players(let's call them 'S.vors') requesting BP rewards and even emblem-point recognition for actions which are not directly relevant to what they did.
One unwanted consequence experienced by other players(call them 'K.lers') is they have to endure the point-farming that always results, and the behaviour it encourages. So there is a vested interest in 'K.lers' checking that such changes are justified by square-edged reasoning.
-
The problem with making big lists of specific changes is that there's nothing to be discussed. What's the theme? What's the over-arching goal? If there is none, then there's no reason to change anything. If there is, then why isn't that the topic being discussed?
-
@MySpaceBarsBroken said:
Theres no counterplay for nurse.
You just make moves and pray that she makes a mistake. It's entirely in the killers control.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589495#Comment_589495
That doesn't negate the fact it was discovered that you can waste a killer's time by basically running in a circle. Infinites are just the precursor to the current loops. All the devs did was removed the ability to do it forever, and tweaked it over time to make it more balanced. It was inherent to the game's design, just very very unbalanced at first.
The devs could have completely done away with looping and tried to create some new dynamic, but that would require new mechanics which means changing the core design of the game. Rather than do that, they just changed what was there until we get to where we are today. And it's still being worked on, as we are in the process of getting new map layouts where there are weaker but more plentiful loops.
If you want to change the subject to mere running in a loop, fine, but you're no longer discussing whether the game has changed purely because players know things now that they didn't know then; you're actively avoiding how the game has changed in design and mechanics and the role which one section of the player-base had in that.
Looping was an exploit that the devs weren't even aware of; they didn't even know there was a difference in the collision-boxes of survivors and killers, or at least acted as if that were the case. Even when pallet-looping was introduced through the pallet buffs, they had no idea what it was and were misled by survivors playing dumb and arguing that killers should counter it by 'breaking the pallet'. This led to Bloodlust being introduced to mitigate pallet-looping, which it of course doesn't do at all; the devs believed pallet-looping to be survivors running around a pallet that was already down.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589244#Comment_589244
Really? So why was pallet vaccum such an issue? Why looping is such an issue? Or infinites? Saying that game mechanics are survivors' problems is a little bit shortsighted.
Not sure what you're getting at. It's entirely valid to say survivors created those problems because they have a single playstyle that they favour above any alternative and have successfully pressured the devs to orient the game towards it.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589326#Comment_589326
But see, that's just players figuring out the dynamic. When the game first came out, these dynamics didn't really exist because players didn't understand the game. Now we do, and as such those dynamics evolved naturally from just understanding the game better. No one steered the game to do anything, you have to think of it as looping existed in the game since the beginning but it wasn't discovered until player skill got to a certain point.
Like, electricity has existed since the beginning of the universe, just humans didn't discover it until the 19th/20th century and now we have computers and stuff because we understand how electricity actually works and can take advantage of it for our benefit. In theory we could have been using it thousands of years ago, but we didn't have the necessary understanding to do so. Not the best example, but it adds to my point.
This is patently not true.
Survivors used infinite-loops and when the devs acknowledged they were game-breaking and needed removing, survivors were then intensively lobbying for pallets to be made fool-proof. The changes made to pallets enabled looping as we now know it; prior to those changes the risk that a killer would lunge through a falling pallet was too-high for them to be reliable for anything other than creating temporary distance so a survivor could escape a chase. This did not exist because it was undiscovered; it exists because there was a mechanical change made to pallets due to feedback from survivors who has been taking advantage of a bug that gave them full Boldness points and realised mis-using them to grief the killer was more fun than using them to win chases.
It's the same story with almost every feature that defines this game as it is now.
-
@Gardenia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589244#Comment_589244
Still don't agree, just because Survivors lobbied for something doesn't mean its all the Survivors. There are devs with minds and common sense who made this game if they wanted to do something they would, map design is not a survivors fault, hook bleed out times and mechanics are not a Survivors problem. A killer having a sucky power with 110% Ms is not a Survivors problem
Then you are picking different standards when it suits you. We are not even slightly in agreement.
-
@Gardenia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589206#Comment_589206
Which is exactly why I said it's a game design problem, which thanks for agreeing with me. Those people are just playing the game as Survivor just as players who are killer are just playing nurse. So yes the game design isn't very good. I agree swf, is OP as well but just because you have an OP killer going against OP swf Survivor, that doesn't mean any of it is balanced.
So yes, the game design needs an overhaul and nurse needs to be tuned down.
Well there we have a problem: survivors do not as a whole want that. They want to have their cake and eat it, they want Nurse nerfed but everything else to stay the same. The game is in the state it is because they have persistently lobbied for it to be so and for the most part have been given everything they have ever asked for.
Game design problems ARE survivor problems.
-
@Zertix said:
"Ok, when do killers get the freedom to choose their playstyle then?"
Since day 1 you have the freedom to choose your playstyle. It is up to you to decide if you want to camp, tunnel, or spread the pressure.
Every single thing you just mentioned is a catch-22, a dillemma presented by situations of which the only choice is how you are reacting, each with solid consequences for getting it wrong.
Since day-one, killers have tried diversifying to make the reactive playstyle we're rail-roaded towards more interesting and every single time we have succeeded, rather than take their own advice and 'just adapt', survivors whined to the devs and had the game changed.
-
No one is sure, but some people will pretend to be certain and refer to what the devs say, oblivious that what the devs have actually said can't all be true as some of it cancels out other bits.
The devs say the online lobby(the one we see) is only opened when four survivors are found to be matched. If this were the case, every lobby would have four survivors joining it shortly after it opened, but that isn't happening.
-
I know tunneling can be both a legitimate strategy and a tool of toxicity, but is it really necessary to tunnel just 1 person right out the gate and make their playtime shorter then the time spent waiting to find a match.
The option is not always clear.
Since release, the game has been changed to substantially lengthen chases, at the request of survivors. They have many more means now of keeping chases going, whilst the options for killers to shorten chases has barely changed at all. The base time to repair a generator has increased from 70 to 80 seconds, with Ruin adding what I would estimate to be 20 extra seconds to each generator. This was more than cancelled-out by time in each hook phase being increased from 45 to 60 seconds.
What these all add up to is more time-pressure on the killers, whilst survivors have more chances to fail and still win. The currency for killers is time and for survivors it's their known resources: items, remaining chances to be rescued from a hook, map features etc, divided by their remaining objectives. Time is not much of a factor for survivors, but it is for killers.
Killers face catch-22 decisions all the time and there's little reason to end a chase unless there is a very clear chance that a new one against someone else will start immediately and end quickly. Survivors have always loved to say 'just chase someone else' but they never want to talk about the specifics of making that decision.
-
@Gardenia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589181#Comment_589181
But that doesn't mean everything killers suggest are 100% feasible. There have been bs suggestions by killers who frankly throw the idea of balance out the window.
Yes I know, because it's killers who criticise other killers that matter; survivors exclude themselves from any meaningful discussion by opting for rock-bottom standards like 'not a survivor problem mate' and going straight to the devs to demand changes(which they often get) rather than debating.
When it comes to the Nurse, survivors want to apply the standards that killers agree on: that each game feature is as strong as it's utmost potential, not it's de facto use, that all things should be measured at the top-level of play. These are standards which say the Nurse might need to be changed, but also so does SWF, looping, 2nd-chance perks and the low skill-ceiling for most killers. Survivors want those standards for the Nurse, but not for anything else.
They want survivor-consensus standards for all that, which say: the vast majority of players aren't playing at that level, something over-powered on-paper isn't being used to that effect, the devs must balance for all players rather than at the ceiling. Apply those standards to the Nurse, those very low-low standards and it turns out the Nurse needs massive buffs because most people playing her are in low ranks and she has consistently the worst performance record.
So if anyone thinks double-standards are justifiable, it's about time they justified them. If not, then they'd better pick one set of standards and stick to them: either the game design needs overhauling so that it is actually fair to all killers, or the Nurse is fine because she is mostly played sub-optimally and we carry on as we currently are, with a game balanced around the low efforts of most players.
-
Why cherry-pick NOED?
If you are arguing that killers should see adequate rewards for their investment and practice(something which they don't currently get due to the low skill-ceiling of most killers), then you can't simply make this about NOED and ignore everything else.
To argue for this standard, you have to support massive buffs to killers, across the board. I don't think that's your purpose here; focusing on NOED is what gives that away. You want to superficially use the issue of skill and the consensus killers have on it, to push for something that is entirely for the benefit of survivors.
Do you actually think we can't see right through this? Do you think killer-mains are just survivor-mains, who just happen to have picked killer instead? We're not that gullible, shallow or craven.
-
@Gardenia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589174#Comment_589174
And? That's not a Survivors problem, just a game design problem.
And this is the point where we're in a downward-spiral; it's one rule for survivors and a totally different set of standards for killers. Killers have an overwhelming justification for opposing anything and everything that survivors suggest because of this.
-
I don't mind taking hits for my teammates but half of the time it's not worth giving up the healthy state if your teammate is gonna get down/hooked moments after you do so.
I agree with the OP, but can't resist some whataboutery: killers have been complaining about the unreliable system for detecting when we're in a chase since day-one and it still hasn't been fixed. I'm not even sure if it's been acknowledged.
If the devs are quick to fix this issue for survivors(yet again) but not to fix this issue for killers(yet again), is it worth killers even trying to engage?
-
@Zertix said:
Yes the game offers different playstyles and the nurse does not allow you to pick one. And no, I don’t mindlessly loop a killer, pallet loop, stun, and t-bag and I don’t know you can “mindlessly loop a killer”. Despite what some killers here try to convince themselves, looping does take skill and involves using your brain. My playstyle changes depending on the circumstances of the match which again, the nurse does not allow me this freedom. Not to mention that “stealth” is not the most effective/efficient playstyle.
Ok, when do killers get the freedom to choose their playstyle then? We've been forced to be reactive to everything survivors do for 3 years now.
-
@Seltas0208 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/589122#Comment_589122
Yeah I'm sorry about my wording being off but I'm glad people get what I mean. Now that you mention wglf I think that should have another effect other than "muh bloodpoint grind".
Maybe it needs adjusting, but one reason why it is not 1:1 with BBQ is because it doesn't give an aura-read like BBQ does, but this(I think) is clearly because survivors can already see the hook aura by default when someone is hooked; they don't need any more information. Any additional benefit to WGLF would no longer make it equivalent to BBQ, but superior. Instead any change to the perk would need an equivalent change in survivors base kit.
It's a similar situation to Brutal Strength: it was popular for a while because it sped-up breaking pallets so much. Then the default break speed got buffed; which wasn't a nerf to BS at all, but by comparison now makes BS less desirable because of the buff to base killer kit. If survivors were to lose hook-aura from their base kit and it to be added to WGLF, it would push WGLF closer to being 1:1 alike with BBQ, but would be seen by survivors as a nerf to their base kit but not a buff to WGLF. The perk becomes more desirable, but has not really been buffed.
-
I think the framing is wrong here.
Some perks are clearly meant to be counter-parts, but are only comparable in that they can be compared: but any comparison shows their differences more than their similarities.
Take for instance BBQ and WGLF; they are direct counter-parts, intended to boost the point-gains of players who are playing in a certain way. Are they 1:1 alike though? Of course not; WGLF does not prove an aura-read because survivors already have that relevant aura-read in their base kit: they can always see where the active hook is. Survivors with WGLF are also competing with other survivors for that unhook.
BBQ by contrast incentivises the killer to leave the hook, especially early on so they are more likely to get everyone hooked at least once. If WGLF was designed to be exactly like BBQ, it would defeat the purpose of it lining-up with the playstyle that BBQ encourages the killer towards: the killer leaving the hook allows a safer rescue, which is being incentivised by WGLF.
NOED and Adrenaline by the same measure are not 1:1 alike and can't be if they are to have a mutually-synergising purpose. NOED is a 'rubber-banding' perk; it allows a killer who is behind to catch-up suddenly. Adrenaline is a 'snow-balling' perk; it allows survivors who are just a little bit ahead to suddenly widen the gap. Like BBQ and WGLF, they function as encouraging playstyles from each side that line-up together, as long as both are mindful of them.
-
@MySpaceBarsBroken said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/585994#Comment_585994
Abused is such a dirty word. Easy to upvote!
Are you sure the survivors didnt just make good use of the extra time, and killers complained that it was abuse? Lmao. How can you even abuse a few extra seconds on a hook......
Survivors abused infinite time for phase one on the hook. In the PTB, a survivor would not progress to phase 2 over time, but could only get to phase 2 by making successive failed attempts to self-unhook or by being hooked a second time.
In previous threads I have incorrectly stated that this applied only when the killer was close to the hook. I am correcting that error now so people are aware. The PTB patch notes are here: https://deadbydaylight.gamepedia.com/Patch_Notes_1.2.1#Public_Test_Build_Nov_2016
The issue remained however that survivors gamed the system. In one scenario, they had no intention of ever rescuing the person on the hook, who had the catch-22 of deciding to wait for what happens only to not ever be rescued or to try self-unhooking but ended up going to phase 2 with a similar result. They of course would not do this if the killer was near for the obvious reason; sensible people do not Kobe and expect the killer to 'respect the percent', which was 5% in that PTB. There was however a 25% chance on each attempt to go to stage 2 instead of there being a fixed limit of 3 on attempts.
The other scenario concerned hook-swarming. In the usual system, if survivors swarm the hook and run the killer around near it, they were risking the hooked person going to phase 2 because they were not leading the killer away. As long as a killer doesn't see anyone else waiting to make the rescue, it's often better to trade the person on the hook for the person they are chasing. When you can see other survivors there though, you have no reason to leave the hook. You can have two survivors permanently occupying the killer just by being visible, whilst the third person is doing gens and the forth guy is on the hook watching everyone else play the game.
The one thing it definitely proved was that survivors concerns about the experience of the person stuck on the hook were bunkum: they were consistently disregarding of them in practice.
-
A reminder everyone that the hook phases have already had a substantial increase before. In patch 1.5.0 the base repair time of a generator was increased from 70 to 80 seconds, but the same patch decreased the time on a lot of other survivor interactions like cleansing totems and disarming bear traps. It seemed logical to anyone who reads the patch-notes rather than skims them.
For people who do skim them though(survivors), it was outrageous that gens now took longer to complete. The devs responded by increasing the time for each hook phase from 45 to 60 seconds to compensate for the gen progression change, in patch 1.5.3.
No matter what they get though, survivors are never happy. Killers have to respond to whatever changes and the response is usually bad for survivors, who then demand yet another unjustified change to compensate for it. The devs must stop listening to them, seeing as we can't ever seem to get them to listen to killers.
-
The solution to disconnections is to make the game fun and fair for everyone. The majority of players do not want that.
-
@OpenYoureyes said:
Why people even bother giving feedbacks...
BHVR doesn't care about surv mains.
Killer mains will just flood the thread with "everything is fine except nerf surv more".
Really, why bother?
This is an utter inversion of reality in regards to the history of the game. Survivors once tried making a point by documenting all the nerfs they had, using very spurious rules that allowed them to include things which were indirect, bug-fixes or other changes. Killers did the same, using the same survivor-created rules and their list dwarfed the survivor one by so much that the creator of the survivor list quickly ceased updating it.
Killers have never had a single request granted that was notably and expressly posted anywhere with common support among killers. The closest we came was hatch-closing, which the devs would not implement without making other changes that made hatch-closing irrelevant. Get that? They would only grant our request, if the end-result was no better for us.
Survivors meanwhile have lobbied consistently for changes that were noted, had wide-support among survivors, only to then complain when those exact changes happened but changed the game in ways they didn't expect or like. The introduction of SWF was the first, biggest and most game-breaking. The devs claim it was always planned(as of October last year), but they should give us access to livestream #6 again so we can compare their words then with their words now.
-
Killer has it generally very easy in low ranks, so the problem is you will develop bad-habits before the difficulty-curve shoots upwards.
-
@NeonAlien said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/587087#Comment_587087
But the ECG timer is not meant to pressure survivors. It's there to prevent hatch standoffs and holding games hostage. It's there to make survivors leave eventually, not to overly stress them.
The RBT timer is there to pressure and waste time, but not necessarily to kill. I think the timer is in a good place. Much shorter and it takes away any freedom of choice. It would be find box asap or die.
And having the timer go down while in a chase would be really cheesy. Pig's just gotta chase until your head goes Pop. That's not only lame, it also has 0 counterplay.
I've spoken before about how the EGC doesn't do either of those things, due to the appalling design choices to allow survivors to 99% the doors and also for hatch-closing to automatically power them. If ceasing stand-offs and game-hostaging were even part of the intent, the timer would not slow when a survivor is dying or on the hook(enabling surviors to continue delaying the end of the game) without there being equivalent circumstances where the timer moves faster. EGC as designed exists purely to superficially grant the request made by killers to close the hatch, but with the other hand completely removing the point of the request in the first place. It's designed entirely around helping and entertaining survivors, hence the tiertery issue of the EGC effect making it difficult for killers to make out scratch-marks, which the devs later had to alter: had they been looking at this 'innovation' from the killer's perspective at any point, these issues would have been obvious.
The RBT as designed merely stalls a survivor who has been caught. There is however no relevance between this and the fact that a generator being finished starts the clock; that's a relic from the original and abandoned design-intent for it.
Having the timer go down in a chase would stop rewarding survivors for the only playstyle they want to engage in; they'd have to actually avoid the killer and hide, as they should. It's the constant giving-in to this singular playstyle of loop-de-loop, 2nd-chances and basically 'duelling' the killer that has made this game a mess, which survivors then have the nerve to actually complain about. They have many good reasons to complain: they're just the wrong people to be doing it.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/587117#Comment_587117
So...no source?
Unfortunately no. Your request is reasonable; I don't expect anyone to just take my word for it. I do wish others would make an effort to remember when the devs make those rare, explicit statements though; I could search for hours for where and when they said it and find nothing.
-
@Nea_Death_Experience said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/582142#Comment_582142
OP is trying to promote a less toxic play style. You can't say that it is very fun to sit there and look at a survivor on the hook or have to tunnel to win/ get kills. There is a bigger issue here than you are looking at. We need to take one step forward here.
If we can get rid of play styles and things that ######### on survivors (call me survivor bias but I play both sides so I know) because survivors are 80% of each game. When the game has a proper flow and a stream lined dynamic it would be easier to look at killer weaknesses. Even if they just did this for a PTB or a mass player test. Your limited ideals and inability to look on the other side of the fence means this is probably not the post for you to participate in because here is for change and positivity.
They game should be fun on all fronts. Survivors hate being camped and tunneled and it sucks that killers feel they have to do it. Take that away and we can find a problem and fix the underlying issue rather than keep the toxicity and choke 80% of the players per game.
Thanks for your feedback.
Survivors are not 80% of the game. There are two sides and they are one; they are 50% of the game. The one player who is killer, is the remaining 50%.
All your platitudes and talking-points are in bad-faith.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/587087#Comment_587087
"The issue is the devs gave a rare but clear design-intent statement for the Pig and then once again U-turned on it. The point of her ability was that it was supposesd to turn survivors against each other"
Source?
The devs could answer faster and more precisely than I. Wouldn't it be nice if they did so for once?
-
The issue is not that the Billy-boxes can get the RBT off the first time, however the odds work.
The issue is the devs gave a rare but clear design-intent statement for the Pig and then once again U-turned on it. The point of her ability was that it was supposesd to turn survivors against each other: the RBT is activated by a gen being completed. This is an event which should be certainly perilous for a survivor trapped in one, but it isn't. The devs gave it an overly-generous timer and then had it so that timer paused in a chase, but it's not clear if it's the same chase we know of or a different measure to the one that constantly ceases for killers when a survivor is just feet away or still in LoS.
Even after that U-turn, they nerfed it so it now won't go off unless it has already been activated. They did a similar thing with the hilariously-long timer for EGC, which also slows when it conveniences the survivor.
-
There is a theme, a theme running through this thread. A theme that runs through every single thread like it. What a thread is that is a thread like this is, when the state of the game is pretty much distillled into it's end-state according to but one side of the two.
Inevitably, invariably, described is a game that is wholly in the control of the side which has very little actual control and is merely responding to circumstance.
Circumstance which comes about entirely from the wants of the side that has near total control.
We get to this because they do not know what they want, they complain when they get what they asked for and thus is why they must be listened to no further.
-
@PickCollins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/580756#Comment_580756
That's not the issue. The issue is that you get a speed boost and an instant down and the trigger for that was you LOSING.
I remember a swath of killer mains coming out saying decisive strike was a truckload of horseshit bc it rewarded Surviviors for LOSING.
I remember a swath of killer mains coming out and saying Mettle of man was a truckload of bullshit bc it rewarded Surviviors for LOSING.
But when Noed does the same thing? Radio. Silence. You lost your secondary AND primary objective while the Surviviors only lost their secondary. You did less than the Surviviors if NOED triggers, which means you didn't earn the benefits the perk gives you.
It's like I said a while ago "anyone here that defends Noed is honestly gonna tell me that if so much as 1 dull totem slips through the cracks then the killer deserves a speed boost and instadown even if the Surviviors did the Generators? ######### that, that's as much of a crutch as old decisive strike"
NOED is not equivalent to all the game-breaking 2nd-chance perks survivors have.
They are activated by survivor fail-states that are unambigious and are entirely avoidable: in fact the more 2nd-chance options survivors can stack up, the more avoidable each of them become.
The killer by contrast can not stop four people determined to do the generators. They have the numbers advantage; they can be in multiple places at once, doing multiple things at once. The killer can't. Survivors insist though on not only having the number advantage, but the 1v1 advantage too; so a killer has to work much harder and always has the catch-22 of ending a chase or commiting, the potential benefits of either being dependent entirely on survivor mistakes.
NOED offers only a chance-based insurance card, if the survivors focus the gens at the expense of totems. Then the killer has to pick the correct exit gate to check first and on most maps, it's not even possible for a killer to check both before one is opened. To go from zero to 4k because of NOED requires the survivors to be complete and utter tools. The killer has only a 50/50 chance of finding one person by default because of the split-decision with the gates, it's less if they actually bother hiding and waiting before attempting to open it.
-
OP, you don't get to insist on low standards for yourself but ask for higher standards from others. There is no way to respond to your suggestion and the supporting arguments for it without engaging on the terms you play them on, which consist of taking 'the survivors rule-book for killers' and arguing it should be built-in to the game to mitigate things that you don't like.
A reminder; survivors were furious that the emblem system on the PTB did not reward them for their preferred playstyle of taking the killer on an aggravating merry-go-round. They had it changed so they would get a share of the completely irrelevant categories like Light-bringer, even when they had barely touched a gen, just so they could keep pipping for annoying the killer. Killers have recieved nothing even remotely equivalent to this; it reeks of naked favouritism and double-standards.
Arguing that killers who do things you don't like should also artificially get less bloodpoints, given what's already happened over the last three years, when does this end?
-
@brokedownpalace said:
Imagine legitimately defending this completely unnecessary mechanic. Yikes.
Not agreeing with one thing does not imply support for its exact opposite.
-
@thedevalex said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/577369#Comment_577369
They actually have explained how their matchmaking works. If you haven't found players in a certain amount of time it expands the search for more ranks, further away players, etc
You have a very low bar for what you consider an explanation to be.
-
@Judgement said:
I'm amazed that so many people are telling us to rebind keys to make it better.
In case you (the defenders of butting mashing) hadn't realised, you're literally defending bad game design that hinders people with physical disabilities. It should be on the devs to change their game and make it more accessible to disabled persons, rather than making the responsibility fall on the players' shoulders.
Besides which, what makes you think that spamming a mousewheel scroll is better than mashing a key? Joint problems / arthritis don't care whether you're tapping something or rolling it, it's still gonna hurt and hinder.
It's BHVR Interactive's responsibility to make their game accessible, and they can start by removing button-mashing.
Where were you when people with sensitive eyes were being routinely blinded IRL for 20 months? The devs actively ignored warnings and survivors did not voluntarily stop using flashlights as a precaution. Sorry to take the accusatory tone; but you invited that standard. I'm happy to disregard it and keep to talking about the merits and cons of the OP's proposal, as long as you are.
Holding down buttons on the mouse and keyboard is also a cause of RSI, hence the popularity of low-actuation mechanical keyboards. Why single-out the button-tapping over holding down the 'W' key or M1?
If there are possible alternatives, I'm open to that, but why does this read as survivors wanting to avoid something that exists for a reason?
-
@MySpaceBarsBroken said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/581584#Comment_581584
Are you aware that as a killer, you can adjust yourself to block one side of the pallet before you begin your animation? So wherever that survivor is hiding you just make sure to block that side of the pallet.
The killer is moved during the animation to where the survivor is. Only the direction they're facing is locked. For blocking the interaction to always work, it's the survivor who would have to be 'dragged' from where they are. A survivor can really only be picked up in an unfavourable position because they didn't move out of it first whilst the killer's melee was on cooldown.
Then you have to consider the pallet stun-range; the killer can be moving away after a pick-up and the stun range is large enough that a survivor can fit between the killer and the pallet and the killer gets hit. This is because the devs did not fully-revert the pallet buffs of Patch 1.1.1- they only got rid of the vacuum and the to-the-other-side transition. They left the broken stun range and time-window alone.
-
No.
Without the struggle in phase 2, a survivor who half-heartedly gives-up is then able to choose to inconvenience the killer by not dying immediately, then they're still able to change their mind if they happen to be rescued. This costs them nothing, whilst a killer always has to second-guess themselves about what all the survivors are doing.
On phase 1, the choice is patience: do you wait patiently for whatever happens or choose to take control by making attempts to escape that in probability, mean going to phase 2? The decision is about whether you are giving-up on the other survivors or not.
On phase 2, the choice is agency: you're hanging on for a few bloodpoints, to buy time for the others and/or defy the killer. The inconvenience of having to keep pressing a key pays for the killer having to keep tabs on you, which is a very small bar to meet. You can not be exercising agency if nothing is being asked of you to the point where you could walk away from the keyboard and come back to the same result.
Carpal-tunnel is not a trivial RSI, but key re-mapping still allows you to avoid it. Even if that wasn't the case, it's not a reason to make a change to gameplay. The devs only even bothered changing the white effect used for flashlight blinding last October, twenty months after the Unreal engine update had caused it to emit a dangerously-blinding light through higher-end monitors.
-
@kakakaka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/581609#Comment_581609
bloodlust does help with looping maybe not so much with excessively safe loops but you're not supposed to stay on 1 survivor for that and as there are safe spots for survivors there are also dangerous spots for survivors to be, still you saying that "pallet looping should have never been introduced" is 100% just you venting your frustration in the wrong thread, i honestly do not care if you feel that way it's completely your opinion which i am not going to get into a debate about.
i asked you in my response to you to list which come back mechanics survivors have in this scenario and you didn't list any so what am i supposed to believe here? i understood that you were saying that killers should equally have something if survivors do get that comeback mechanic but i did reply what i think about it and i am discussing about a comeback mechanic for survivors so you saying that even killers should have one is something for another thread, in this thread i am talking about a comeback mechanic for survivors anything else is not relevant, also i did write a maybe with a question mark after i kind of described what sort of impression you gave me, dont take it to heart.
Ok, this is where you're calling upon 'the survivor rule-book for killers'. Who says the killer shouldn't be staying on someone at 'excessively safe loops'? The fact is those 'excessively safe loops' should not exist; this was made very clear in the beginning by the devs and if they've gone back on the principle that a survivor should never feel safe, please point out when and where.
Now, where in this thread have I said(and you are quoting me) 'pallet-looping should never have been introduced'? I do happen to think pallet-looping is game-breaking and needs removing, but I have not said as such in this thread: it has nothing to do with the point I am making. Why have you brought that up?
I'm not submitting to your request for examples because I do not believe it is sincere: it's basic knowledge about the features of the game and seeing as you've repeatedly misrepresented what I've said and you still are, I'm not about to hand you more non sequiters to chase after.
-
OP, why do you assume this has something to do with the killer-players themselves? They could simply be responding to a change in how survivors are playing.
Whilst I always say the survivor-meta is never-changing, it does still adapt towards it's own purpose: things must change in order for them to stay the same. So survivors drop MoM, some are adopting Object of Obsession and of course they are now all 99%-ing the exit gates because that's just how badly-designed EGC is.
Ruin and NOED are mutually-conflicting perks, but given how EGC in both the cases where it activates is an absolute pain for killers, it's kind of understandable that some might be building to mitigate against both.
-
It's not the game making you feel that way. It's the survivors.
You realise this when you play as a solo survivor; the killer doesn't even need to be targeting you and can be playing very sporting in fact, but it will be the other survivors who determine whether you actually enjoy the match.
Nothing forces them to be this way, they do it because they want to and the slightest nudge in terms of points for doing things might set them off, but they'll keep doing it long after the points have been maxed.
-
I didn't say Bloodlust doesn't make chases easier, I don't know why you're responding as if that is what I said. The first thing you mentioned after bringing up Bloodlust was 'infinite looping', which I'm not entirely sure from the words that followed that you understood what is meant by 'infinite looping'.
Bloodlust was introduced to deal with pallet-looping, but the devs didn't even know what pallet-looping was. It should never have been introduced. It makes chases awful for newer survivor players, but does nothing against actual looping; especially actual infinite loops.
Also please don't give me opinions I don't have. I am not against a comeback mechanic, but pointing out that they already exist and that you showed no concern for how your suggestion would affect killers or included any equivalent mechanic for them. Most of your post does this, gives me views I don't have an haven't expressed, so I'm not going to straighten out each instance of it, because there's no way of knowing you won't infer false-beliefs from that too.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/581494#Comment_581494
I don't recall pallets actually being an issue. If you were in a pallet, you would have gotten stunned anyway, whether the stun is queued or not. The only difference is that one required absolutely perfect timing which I would argue shouldn't be the case, though this is personal preference. I'm of the belief that if you messed up and carelessly picked them up in a pallet without knowing that the area is clear first, that was your mistake.
The bigger issue when that was tested was flashlights. This was back when instablinds were still a think. Someone could sprint over, just barely get the blind angle and save them almost every time. Without instablinds, that's much harder to do. You need nearly perfect timing and you have to be in position for longer. Sprinting in at the last second and timing the blind correctly takes a huge amount of skill these days.
Jeeze Peanits, think through.
Scenario: you down a survivor at a pallet, you can see another survivor nearby.
Option 1: You pick up the dying survivor and it's virtually gauranteed the pallet will be used on you. For the cost of a single pallet(which have now been repurposed for this task anyway), the survivors get yet another 2nd-chance to add to all of the rest.
Option 2: You move towards the other survivor to chase them away, then go back. The survivor has followed, so you chase them again. All this time, the dying survivor is recovering. The option then becomes a split-decision whether to chase the other person entirely, allowing the dying survivor to be healed or to keep going back-and-forth. Either way, the killer is being stalled and has no real choice in the matter.
People say stuff like 'well, it was up to the killer what they did', but it's a catch-22 and the game is full of them, but only for killers. It's one thing to have to choose between the least-worst option(like survivors have to when a killer camps a hook), but entirely something else when the only choices on offer are a kick in the nuts or a punch in the mouth.
-
Bloodlust does not do that.
Survivors already have plentiful 'rubber-banding' options and 2nd-chances.
Where is your counter-factual suggestion for killers where we get an equivalent way of making a comback when 3 generators pop 90 seconds after the match begins?
-
Okay for starters flashlight saves are so easy to do rarely do they fail once you know what you're doing which is all the time, plus they're annoying as all hell to deal with and waste so much time + are uncounterable without lightborn.
Note that only the survivors are given the choice. They get to decide whether to save the pallet or save someone else(which is a no-brainer, because chances to survive on the hook are much less than the number of pallets by default).
The killer has to decide to pick someone up, knowing it's pointless because they'll be free a moment later, or leave them on the floor and chase the person waiting to make the stun-save. There's not even the option of trying to evade as is the case with the flashlight.
Just way you want free-stuff at the killer's expense, it saves time.
-
@Jake_Parks_prince said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/576786#Comment_576786
Okay salty killer main who blames survivors for everything
Well yes, of course they're to blame for a great deal that is wrong with the game. Killers can't be blamed, because we're not listened to: we had virtually no hand in how the game has developed since release.
I was once of the view that no one can be blamed for what they use in order to win in the game, that it was entirely on the devs to make sure the game was fun and fair for everyone. This changed when it become clear after six months or so that the survivors could not benefit from the status of bystanders; their feedback was actively steering and misdirecting the devs. This is how a broken feature like Bloodlust got introduced, on the justification that it would 'help against pallet-looping'.
The devs didn't actually know what pallet-looping was though. They thought it was a survivor looping around a pallet that had already been dropped. This was because for months survivors had responded to complaints about the brokeness of pallet-looping from killers with "just break the pallet", indicating to the devs that this was not about looping around a pallet before dropping it. The devs could not understand why killers wouldn't just "break the pallet".
Bloodlust needs removing from the game because it's only good against low rank solo survivors and does nothing against experienced/boosted survivors in higher ranks and the devs need to stop listening to them.
-
@prayer_survivor said:
Now is impossible to go back. Dozens of perks must be removed from killers
This is unfortunately likely to be correct. Many of the features introduced nominally for killers to use are actually done to make the game more like how survivors want it, or at least how they say they want it until they see the results. BBQ was obviously introduced because survivors wanted something done about hook-camping, but the devs had already tried punishing killers and it broke the PTB, so an incentive was all they had left.
Survivors complained about this, a feature put in to give them ultimately more chances to un-hook and be un-hooked and which meant more of the chases which was their preferred playstyle above and beyond stealth options.
When the Nurse was introduced, her flag-ship ability that everyone talks about is being able to blink even through obstructions, cutting-off looping. Less is said about two of her teachable perks: Stridor and Nurse's Calling, both perks which are specifically useful if you were just chasing someone but lost them, covering for Nurse's major weakness. The devs said at the time that Nurse was meant to make survivors less-reliant on looping, particularly infinites, but no explanation was given for why Stridor and NC were needed beyond them matching the theme for the Nurse.
The devs have tried giving survivors mitigations; more recently they can hide in lockers to block aura-reading as well as a perk for it. But survivors are either not making best-use of them or the designs are just too flawed.
-
@ABannedCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/578270#Comment_578270
Very informative post. I enjoyed reading it. I saw you replying in a different thread in the same phylosophical manner. Do you always do that?
No, but it's often interesting or funny to take something that's not serious and then apply total seriousness to it, more so I reckon than to take something that is definitely serious and make a joke out of it.
I'm self-reflective and realise I have boring opinions too. The mistake made by MegaWaffle in their responses to me was to believe I was stating my 'opinion' when I was applying ideas by the philosopher Georg Hegel to actions in DbD that are intended on one level to humiliate someone else but on another are really about recognition. Here's a Youtuber doing the same thing in a 20 minute-long video on anime for an April Fools joke, in great and hilarious detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8MbwOfS6kA