ArecBalrin
ArecBalrin
About
- Username
- ArecBalrin
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@GrootDude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/579572#Comment_579572
Both sides complain and cry a lot.
This isn't fair; most of the killer complaints are about the survivor complaints.
If survivors stopped complaining, the forum would just be four Rick and Morty fans who play killer exclusively, highlighting the exact problems with the game using perfect equations, whilst using their spare hand to write a poem about it in ancient Greek.
-
Also, conventions having 'codes of conduct' for attendees, make it look like said conventions have a massive problem with inappropriate behaviour, even if they never have. Different thing, but the principle is the same.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/580123#Comment_580123
Gothic is not creepy at all. Why would you think it's scary?
A population gets scared of something they don't understand. Said population creates iconography to ward-off the scary things. The iconography gets transmitted through culture. Through a process of iteration, the iconography is now associated with the very scary things it was designed to keep away.
Scarecrows come to represent hunger, dreamcatchers start to represent nightmares as do spiders and their webs. Grotesques, gargoyles, spires, arched windows and steep rooftops- gothic iconography, make places look haunted.
-
Horror-themed, but not horror. Kind of like Beetlejuice or The Addams Family.
Though I do admit then when I see a Nea coming to unhook me, a little wee comes out.
-
Can we get some solid statistics about the population imbalance? Because this thread is full of people speaking with absolute certainty that this is the case and the reason for recent match-making issues.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/579008#Comment_579008
@ArecBalrin Let’s be honest though, many suggestions from Killer mains on Killer buffs are extraordinarily biased. We’ve only to scour a handful of pages on these forums to see suggested changes (if implemented) that would result in a player putting more energy into a fart than getting their 4k and 2 pips. Very few have the balls to make suggestions that take into account fairness for the survivors as well.
I’d support BHVR consulting more of the killer base more often, but i’d totally understand them taking a lot of feedback with a “grain of salt”, or dismissing a lot of suggestions entirely.
Well you don't give any examples, so I can't really comment on them. I would not generally though characterise feedback from killer-mains as biased or unreasonable. I don't even call survivors biased even though I disagree with almost everything they come out with. My issue is their low standards, not their preferences or personal traits.
My view is that despite 3 years of trying, no one can get the devs to listen to killers, so the only option that remains is to make them look back at every mistake that followed from survivors urging specific changes and realise: they must stop listening to survivors also. This doesn't mean they stop engaging and communicating; in fact they really do need to communicate more and make it clear what their intentions are for the overall game and the specifics. We don't get enough of that.
What BHVR can not do is suddenly start giving killers the same time and energy as they have done for survivors; that would be ignoring the 3 years of history that happened.
-
Here's the paradox.
If you appeal to a wider audience in anything, you are demanding less of them in terms of investment, so they are less invested. This can lead to an explosion of interest, but the audience is fickle: they will leave as easily as they arrived. You can see this in various beloved franchises that are being run into the ground lately, though I won't name them.
If you appeal to a niche, with a high bar for entry, they are less likely to look elsewhere once they have met that bar. They have a sunken-cost and an investment in the future success of the game. They will promote the game to people like themselves, the niche grows. The audience grows cystic however; it is actively hostile to newcomers and the game will reflect that, due to ill-sentiment that a beloved franchise is being invaded by people who 'just don't get it', as in the first case.
What many games try to do is have both at the same time: being easy to pick-up but difficult to master, that's the lighting-in-a-bottle they tend to strive for. It might also be an illusion and you can't in fact design a multi-player game that way; it's the player-base itself that provides much of the experience. We've got to want it, by popular consensus.
Regarding the grind, here's one really daft idea: let survivors use any perk that anyone else in the match has unlocked, for that match only. This means the meta-perks are quickly accessible to new players. For the killer-side, encourage new players to alternate between survivor and killer by having them get to use the perks the killer had equipped when they play a killer afterwards.
We still get the rewards of grinding because what we're earning is the certainty that we will have our favourite perks, but now being at the start of the curve no longer lacks footing.
-
Scratch that, I just realised the result will still a 1:4 ratio of killers-to-survivors.
Edit: Or not. I really need coffee.
-
We never get a straight answer to questions on population balance, the devs hide behind the ambiguity of it rather than work to clarify it.
It goes like this: where do you take the measurement? You can take it when people join games, but that of course is always 1:4 killers-to-survivors now as matches don't start if someone disconnects while loading.
You can measure it by how many are playing what role, right now, in matches. The problem is, it will always count the killer who has to stay the whole match, but would it count survivors who have escaped, died or quit? Measuring by 'time played as X' has the same problem; does waiting for a match count?
There's actually only one way to get a somewhat accurate estimate as far as I can think of it, which is to take a randomised sample of players, measure how many times they finish a match(whether by winning, losing or quitting) as each role and then extrapolate the sample to the whole active playerbase over the period. This has a margin of error, as all sampling does, but is the most accurate.
We do not know what the actual population balance looks like otherwise.
-
@miaasma said:
survivors are all entitled babies and killers are honourable martyrs, we get it, you can stop typing it now
Even as ridicule, that isn't accurate: I often criticise killers for acting like survivors and tell them to stop.
-
@Nea_Death_Experience said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/568217#Comment_568217
What other play style? Do gens and run from the killer? if you add more objectives the game just take longer. Tunneling and camping can easy get you a 4K so if you add more objectives the game just gets ######### for survivors.
I am not understanding what change you want here. You have just said no rather than develop ideas or discuss. Please elaborate.
In the first months following release, there were diverse playstyles in the game. Some were obviously using game-breaking exploits and had to be removed, but others remained because survivors pretended to be confused as to what was wrong with them and the devs played along. Dramatic changes were made to the game with very little reasoned discussion about them beforehand and no explanation afterwards.
The ability of players to customise how their characters work is the last bastion of choice that happens in the game and the fact the devs don't have total control over it due to not understanding how players will use the options they have is the only thing that makes the game somewhat fair.
They are very concerned with making killers fun to play against, but not so much fun to play as. I do not trust them to make sound decisions, with the minimal discusion they have with killer-players, if they had free-reign over simplified and less-customisable killers.
-
@miaasma said:
i didn't read that
don't tunnel off hook or slug the person you're tunneling for 60 seconds
if somebody runs at you or jumps into a locker shortly after being unhooked it's very obvious ds bait
ds is counterable very easily but i know it's easier to just blame survivors for everything and put in no personal effort towards anything
It's survivors that persistently lobby the devs for double-standards, not killers and not me.
-
Generally, it's not optimal to have NOED with Ruin.
Ruin is a snow-balling perk: longer matches tend to be more favourable to killers as survivors use up their resources; pallets, items, 2nd-chances, hook-lives and each other. Ruin is an optional objective that will usually take time to find if it's not found near the start, but it will force generator progress to be slower. The killer leverages this potential extra-time to snow-ball the match in their favour.
NOED is a rubber-banding perk: it's an insurance-card that may not even come into use. It's an optional objective, but unlike Ruin requires all the totems to be cleansed and is concealed until it's active: this is a secondary-use, as an implied threat. All killers end up benefitting from that even if they haven't equipped it; the possibility that they might have it is enough. If the survivors are not anticipating that threat and NOED activates, the killer has a chance to rubber-band the match and move from a position of losing back into possibly reversing the outcome.
They have poor synergy with other Hex perks, including each other. NOED because it's one less totem it can possibly spawn into for each Hex used. Ruin is an issue for Hex perks because it prompts survivors to go hunting for totems right from the start. If Ruin does work well in a match, it can mean that NOED never even gets a chance to be activated.
-
@deadbyhitbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/578792#Comment_578792
You realize not tunneling is a thing, right? Don't play like an ######### and you won't get punished.
This has been discussed before and survivors simply did not want to listen, as usual.
First let's deal with the main problem of design intent: the killer is robbed of both choice and a crucial mitigation against other options that survivors have or 2nd-chances, without which those 2nd-chances too are without a mitigation or counter-play. Even the robust case against hook-camping(which survivors don't make any more; they avoid pushing for higher standards across the board) accepted that killers had a valid reason to camp a hook after the generators were completed; there is no longer a cause to apply map-pressure that is worthwhile. DS by itself actually punishes the killer for NOT tunnelling or camping much earlier in the game, but waiting until the end when it's a no-brainer tactic, but combine with with any other 2nd-chance perk and it's game-breaking. The killer is not making a choice at all, but is being forced to lose one way or the other.
Killers could mitigate against this, by stacking up a build entirely for the end-game; but do survivors really want that to become the case when many of them already can't stand NOED?
Secondly is an issue that was raised not long after the DS change, which is that even if the killer doesn't tunnel, the survivor is 100% safe as long as a locker is close enough. They can stay go interfere with a chase already in progress and jump in a locker, so the killer goes to check it but has no choice in picking them up and getting struck.
It allows survivors to play like ######### just fine, but it's killer who is punished by default for not min-maxing, far from being an #########. This isn't a punishment by sound strategy either; it's imposed by design, whether the killer has done anything 'wrong' or not.
-
Two more reasons right there for why the devs must stop listening to survivors.
-
@drimmalor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/578550#Comment_578550
How recently? I've noticed it since I started playing him about a year and a half ago.
Also I forgot about the resetting traps (without a bag) being a pain, that'd be cool QoL too.
I don't think it was an intentional change; I can't find any mention of it in the patch notes. I can't find when they changed the setting animation either and my first thought was that this is when it happened.
It's infuriating that sometimes I go to pick up a trap only to step in it.
-
@drimmalor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/578496#Comment_578496
That last thing is one of the things I really want for Trapper - easily picking up closed traps. Half the time I walk past one and intend to pick it up but go too far, and spam spacebar while I slowly back up just to pick it up! Otherwise, I just want traps to not spam in random corners, maybe have them spawn closer to the center if they're still on the ground. It feels like a 3-day journey just to get those sometimes.
This did not actually used to be the case. It was only more recently that it became no longer the case to grab traps by hitting spacebar as you walk over them.
Requests were made ages ago too to be able to set a trap where it is laying without having to pick it up first, useful for when you are already carrying traps.
-
@Mandy said:
Quick answer - No you can't get banned for teabagging or hitting survivors on the hook.
In future we should say "It's not bannable, it's merely Hegel's dialectic on self-conciousness at work".
-
@MegaWaffle said:
The problem here is that you cannot, in any accurate capacity, clump everyone's behavior in such a way. You are absolutely right that there will be those whose motives fit perfectly into the category(s) you listed but many others do not.
Lets simply keep this to the game DBD, but I am the type of player who likes to never get caught. This isn't because I don't like getting chased or that I cannot use the tools given effectively (not saying this as a boast) I simply prefer the stealth gameplay and evading detection is fun for me. I have never found such a style to be subservient nor have I felt it belittled my skills and abilities.
If I am playing with a friend or have a daily to be chased I will often try and be found, maybe I'll even throw a few t-bags in to get the attention of the killer as doing so helps make you stand out. In fact if I notice the killer doesn't commit to the chase after I give a t-bag or gives up quickly I can even use this action as a means to falsely boost their perception of my skill. It can be strategic at times.
As a killer if I am hitting someone on the hook its almost always because I'm bored while waiting for them to finish the death animation. Often I tend to just spin in a circle in front of them. Now I can say with confidence that I have at one point or another done it for self satisfaction in the past as a sort of celebration for catching that one person who gave me a go around (but was cocky for it) and in that case yes, you got me. My point is that this is easily (in my case) a rare occurrence and the action (if taken at all) far more often falls in the list of reasons stated above.
There's not enough room here to comfortably write and read Hegel's entire master-slave dialectic in a post. But you describing your experience of the game is no contradiction to it.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, the use of stealth is a respect of the power it is being used against. In the stages of the dialectic beyond what I talked about earlier, the two sides having adopted the roles of master and slave in relation to each other have become co-dependent on each other for recognition. The master owes their position to the slave and the slave resents the master because this relationship is only a matter of survival. The main purpose of stealth in DbD is to not be caught and not being caught is about survival.
The problem for the master is they have only the slave to obtain validation from; but the slave in their role actually produces something and their relationship to the master is substituted by their relationship with their own labour. This is exactly the stage you are at.
I should also add that I am not using master/slave as analogies for killer/survivor; it's about the players themselves, who are self-concious beings, which is what Hegel is talking about in how he theorises on personal relations. Killers are often in the subservient role, hence why we generate so many complaints ourselves.
-
It seems really odd that he is both limited by the number of traps he can have overall AND the number of traps he can carry. The devs really did double-dip on giving him drawbacks.
-
@Slayer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/578432#Comment_578432
Single gen takes about 1:16 if you hit all the greats skillchecks.
Its more than "possible" to get 3-4 kills even under that time you mentioned above.
Survivors would have to be literally jumping into your arms to be hooked, one after the other or making majorly poor decisions.
The hook process is intentionally longer than the time it takes to do a generator, by a substantial margin. The last time the base generator progress speed was increased(from 70 to 80 seconds), each stage of the hook was increased by 15 seconds not long after(from 45 to 60). It takes a full two minutes for someone who isn't rescued to die on the hook.
Then add in the time for chases, which also keep increasing with no corrosponding increase in the base time for generators to be repaired and killers getting very little in terms of chase-shortening options. All we get is stuff for saving time, not making better use of time.
-
The problem with the 'what about the one survivor?' argument is that it places full-responsibility for that onto the killer and none onto the survivors themselves. They don't accept any suggestion that they are even responsible for the killer's enjoyment of the game, let alone that they keep creating the situations that makes hook-camping the best option for the killer.
A survivor has a 1 in 4 chance to be the first person hooked in each match. That means that 75% of the time, they are not that person. If survivors were consistently punishing hook-camping by getting the gens done and promptly leaving, they would have a 75% win-rate, which is far higher than the actual win-rate.
In any multi-player game, a 75% win-rate is not just good, but grounds for saying a strategy is broken and needs nerfing. That would be the case in DbD if the survivors bothered using it, save for the fact that the killer then has a choice whether to stay by the hook and lose the game or go apply map-pressure and give a decent window for a save.
-
@Elegant said:
Every character should have built in counterplay. This isn't an issue with new killers. It's an issue with older ones and the core design of the game. The devs were clueless when designing the game and are still working to fix the problems
'Built-in' means 'top-down', as in a designer has this idea that 'this character should have this ability, but also this drawback' regardless of whether the drawback has anything to do with the ability.
Wraith is very good at finding survivors, because they don't know when and where they should hide as he approaches. Billy makes loads of noise that keeps survivors on alert that he might be about to appear; a drawback that differentiates him from the Wraith but is entirely relevant to his ability; it's not tacked-on artificially. Billy's weakness is that he lacks Wraith's strength and vice-versa; Wraith can not cut-short a chase with a skill-shot.
Trapper though had problems from the start; there were lots of complaints about his addons because they had tiny advantages with huge artificial drawbacks, despite the fact he already had the natural drawback of traps being reliant on chance, as well as breakable. He had the worst addons in the game until the Nurse, but was then always a close-second.
No matter what power a killer is given, there is always a natural drawback unless intentional efforts are made by designers to stop it. The only reason to do this is so they can implement their own design solution and maintain control over the meta, which they shouldn't do. This appears to be entirely what went wrong with the Pig and Legion; characters with a strong theme but abilities that don't quite square with those themes. The reworked Freddy has the same problem: he doesn't appear to be specialised in anything.
-
Forced-counterplay is bad.
The devs realised this at one point when they started removing self-nerfs from some perks and addons; the balance to equipping something should be that the limited slot space is used up.
There can be exceptions, which is how Hex perks exist, but without some consistency and explanations it's all a recipe for the devs dictating how we play rather than giving us tools and letting us get on with it.
-
We actually do not know the state of balance in the game and have only a vague idea about what the devs consider balance to look like.
-
Both tea-bagging and hook-whacking are classic Hegelian Master-Slave dialectic.
I don't want to bring it up when people are like "Just don't let it bother you, why do you care? It can't harm you." in response to someone being angry about being taunted in the game. The fact that is their reaction suggests to me they haven't really put much thought into it and don't want to; talking about what a flatulent German philosopher had to say would be pointless.
In a nutshell, any time two self-concious beings meet for the first time, they are each oblivious towards the other being another self-conscious being with their own thoughts and feelings. They see each other as objects. Some people actually manage to maintain this state indefinitely: they're the people replying with "Just don't let it bother you"; it doesn't bother them because they rarely move beyond step-one when interacting with other people for the first time. The idea that someone is different to them is avoided, because it's frightening and that fear plays a big role in the steps that come after.
The process happens when one side in this game encounters the other too and it might explain how the game has changed. By hiding, the survivor is acknowledging that the killer is dangerous, the killer is the master and the survivor is in a subservient role. People instinctively resist that, no one likes being subservient. So survivors don't bother hiding, but will even get the killer's attention and try to aggravate them. It doesn't matter how the killer reacts though; the survivor is doing it for an intrinsic motivation, they would do it no matter what, because they don't want to be subservient.
Likewise, the killer hook-whacking is only read as 'yay, I got under their skin' for the sake of self-recognition, it's not an accurate reading of the killer's mind-state; they're hook-whacking for the same reason the survivor is tea-bagging: they intrinsically do not want to be subservient and they might think they're sending a message to the survivor on the hook, it's an act of self-aggrandising.
-
@Morfedel said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/578222#Comment_578222
No, you don't, you balance around the entire spectrum of the game. Because not everyone will ever get to red rank. Some people are great and others are terrible but still want to play.
So if you balance around the top ranks only, you are screwing over those who will never get to those ranks, and thats bad for business. In the end, video games are created by companies that are businesses, and want to make money, and, ergo, want to keep their entire player base, not just their top ranked ones.
So, you balance the game in such a way that you keep everyone as happy as you can; otherwise you risk losing a segment of your player base, and that's just bad for business.
And as a side note, want to guess what segment of the population is red rank? I don't have the numbers, but I'll bed the mid and low ranked players easily outnumber the high ranked ones; after all, its a constant complaint how long the wait times are at red rank. And you want Behaviour to alienated a significant population level? Not a clever way of doing business.
Balancing for the majority of players, who are in lower ranks, for business considerations: that's morally and artistically bankrupt.
When you balance for the top-ranks, you balance for everybody. Anybody who is not playing optimally can always improve, but there is less margin for that at the top-ranks where consistency matters more and also the most accurate picture of the state of the game can be taken.
If balance is done according to the noisy, messy chaos of lower-ranks, then no one can improve because no one knows what improvement actually looks like. We can watch top-rank streamers play and they seem to win no matter what they do, what meta they employ and it's impossible for lower-ranked players to copy them. This is because the game design completely misleads them about the fundamentals of the game. Lower-rank play misleads them about how strong killers are, it misleads them about hook-camping, it misleads them about the use of stealth Versus looping, even about when the right time is to get off the gen when the killer is approaching or when you can trust another survivor.
Balance for top-ranks though and it becomes clear what it takes to win and everyone can imitate it.
-
@Gardenia said:
In this game, the Killer is the power role actually.
How I view it, the Survivors can't kill you, only stun you briefly. They react to what you do, if you're a good killer applying appropriate pressure with a good strategy, yes they may flashlight you and do all they can but for the majority of the time.... they're running away from you.
I don't like the reasoning used in this argument. It pre-supposes it's own conclusion then works backwards to link up 'power-rol = possible actions'. The killer is declared the power-role simply because they kill and survivors don't.
If I were to argue that survivors must be the power-role because the killer is unable to do the generators and escape, it would be absurd, but it's the same standards of reasoning you've employed.
-
@miaasma said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/577628#Comment_577628
i'm convinced you're a troll at this point, but i'll bite: what collision-capsule are you talking about?
nothing i said in my previous post was incorrect, so i have no idea which basic facts i'm getting wrong because, like every other post you've made, it's chalk full of vague platitudes and entirely devoid of substance. i explained what looping is to you, which you then sidestepped. i know what the game was upon release (i know what the game was like in the alpha, even), despite not playing it at the time. i'm an example of somebody who can maintain an understanding of the game despite not having played it through its lifespan, and you are somebody who apparently has played through its lifespan and has still managed to maintain such a crooked understanding of it
being partisan means your point of view is distorted; it has nothing to do with whether or not you can compensate for it. i don't need to have played the game in order to remain informed about what it was like two or even three years ago, i just need to know how it functioned and how it's changed since then, and it's a fallacy to assume i'm incorrect just because i happened to not be playing this game in 2016, all the while not pointing out any specifics. the game, fundamentally, hasn't changed all that much, things have just been adjusted (in both minor and major ways) in order to account for the direction the game has gone in as people learned how to play it. adapting has nothing to do with it; people dictate the meta by understanding what works, and the game is balanced around it. this is true of every game, not just dead by daylight. it has always been a game of killer finds survivor - killer chases survivor - survivor uses whatever mechanics are necessary in order to avoid going down. did the devs originally intend for survivors to use every pallet to its fullest potential before dropping them and wasting the killer's time? no, but survivors figured out that this was the smartest way to play and did that for them. if looping was an exploit, it would have been removed a long time ago, but now you have the devs using the term in live streams
the mental acrobatics you'd need to perform in order to maintain your position on this game is staggering honestly, but the "looping is an exploit" crowd has always been astonishing
If you are able to maintain that you do not know what I am talking about(regarding teh collision-capsule and other things) because you were not present when these issues were prevalent in the game and discussions of at the time, whilst simultaneously dismissing anything that I said: that's a mutually-exclusive set stances. You believe several impossible things that can't co-exist; you can't be persuaded by anything externally.
I resist bias by being partisan; you're the opposite in that you project things onto others whilst carefully avoiding any accidental introspection. Everyones views are distorted, even yours(especially even); I'm just the guy who acknowledges it and works within those limitations.
All I need to do to maintain my positions is to be consistent. Those I argue against can only maintain theirs by your method: where nothing means anything and consistency is just bias.
-
In an asymmetrical game with two sides, one side is generally 'the power role' and the other is 'the one with the numbers'.
In Left4Dead versus-mode, the immune Survivors are the power role and the Infected are the numbers. Balance is maintained by each team taking it in turns and the Infected get multiple chances to respawn.
In Evolve, the Monster is the power-role and the Hunters are the numbers. Balance is done by allowing Hunters multiple chances to respawn and the Monster gets progressively stronger, reflecting their intended advantages.
In this game, Survivors are both. The Killer role only exists because they couldn't program an AI to do it.
-
@miaasma said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/577564#Comment_577564
i fully understand what being a killer partisan is; i'd call you biased, but since you yourself have admitted that you can't be biased if you willingly acknowledge said bias, partisan makes far more sense
both serve the same purpose, however, in underlining that you are unable to approach discussions regarding balance with any, well, balanced perspective, and pretending that calling looping an exploit adheres to some definition-based consistency instead of it just being empirically nonsensical as the devs entirely intend for it to remain in the game betrays that partisan and its impact on whatever you contribute in any of these threads. looping is being resourceful; survivors have limited resources with which to keep distance from a killer who is actively chasing them, and looping is what lets them use these resources as efficiently as possible. it rose out of the chase mechanics that this game was founded on, and the game has been balanced around it from the beginning; the worst infinites are gone, bloodlust has been added, and pallet counts have been drastically reduced. all signs point towards it not being an exploit, and continuing to insist that it is, in 2019, is a combination of your own inability to see its strategic merit, on top of understanding how to counter it, and an unwillingness to acknowledge that the people who made the game intend for it to exist
saying that your nurse takes are bad isn't abusive, it's a statement, which i then followed with an explanation as to why they are bad. if i were only here to insult you, i wouldn't bother going in-depth explaining mechanics to somebody who has purportedly been playing this game for several years, but i'm certainly not going to pretend like what you're saying is reasonable at all, and i don't have to. your views on the nurse are completely nuts to me, and i'm going to tell you as much, but i'll do you the courtesy of explaining why i think this. there's no need to play the victim and pretend that i didn't elaborate on why your opinions on the nurse are bad
Looping is an exploit because it makes use of a difference in the collision-capsule that the devs were never even aware of and failed to answer simple questions about in a livestream which is one of those removed from the archive. The devs have previously defined an exploit by the use of a collision-capsule in a way that was not intended; when they determined face-camping to be an exploit. They nor anyone else could explain why the standard applied to killers but not survivors: neither for looping or for body-blocking. The devs later altered the standard to mean using the capsule to hold the game hostage, something which face-camping also wasn't doing.
Their inability to keep to consistent standards has been a concern of mine and they have responded by simply removing the record of it so they can't be reliably questioned. Their first defence of looping was that 'it took great skill' among other statements that made it clear they weren't entirely sure what it even was. The same was true when pallet-looping replaced infinites and survivors were playing dumb by saying 'just break the pallet'. There is no such 'in-depth' explanation of the game mechanics from you; you don't even care to get basic facts right first, but they would take a whole new thread to rebut(such as the nonsense that pallet numbers have 'drastically reduced'). The chase mechanics as you know them were not how the game was played on release, but evolved out of the refusal of survivors to adapt. They had made complaining to the devs for changes part of their meta. What the devs intend is meaningless unless they are consistent.
Being partisan means I can compensate for my distorted view-point. You are not partisan because you are able to simultaneously acknowledge you weren't even playing the game at the time whilst maintaining virtual certainty that I am wrong about every relevant fact. These are two mutually-exclusive positions to be in. If you were a partisan of the facts, you would see it. You won't see it because being a partisan of the facts means inevitably being a killer-partisan.
-
@miaasma said:
i haven't spouted anything to be insulting. all i'm doing is use what you've given me
i didn't play back then, so i don't know what nurse's original base movespeed was, but i know it was considerably closer to the normal m1 killer movespeed. i've heard it was 115% from people who did play back then, though, but it's pretty irrelevant either way
nurse's addons needed to be reworked a long time ago, both because a bunch of them are useless as well as several of them being far too strong and stacking when they shouldn't. nurse's addons being poorly adjusted does not mean that the nerf was knee-jerk, that's a connection that you are making yourself because you believe that the dominant survivor playstyle is "exploitative" and a whole separate killer is needed to prevent it. this is your (self-admitted) killer partisan at work, not anything substantial
You characterising my posts as 'some of the worst Nurse takes' you have ever-read is meant to be insulting; you didn't even attempt to describe what you found to be wrong with them. The point, the only purpose, was to be personally abusive.
Nurse's addons were not 'poorly adjusted'; they were completely unchanged despite the significance of the alterations made to her base stats. Even the achievement for making a gen-grab at the end of three blinks(her original default) was unchanged, despite it being one of the most difficult single-feat type achievements in the game, it now required addons.
The survivor playstyle being exploitative is not me stating my opinion; I'm applying standards that exist independently of myself, not least the devs own stated design-intent for the Nurse when they started acknowledging that looping was a problem rather than insisting it 'took great skill' as they originally maintained.
When defining what an exploit is, I'd like to be consistent and apply a standard. I wish others would do the same. That's why I am a killer-partisan, though I'm still not sure you understand what that means.
-
@CJDatGuy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/577500#Comment_577500
Most killers special abilities and some perks endorse camping, this is all down to the killer, the survivors don't make the killer camp, most the time it's not even caused by anything like flashlights or whatever pisses killers off, I've come across a lot of ghost face that just crouch and wait and just knock you straight down when saved, this is a game and should be played for enjoyment, and the killer has the biggest role in that
Sorry but no; the killer role is designed entirely around reacting to survivors.
The killer is in a race against time, which is an unknown number. The survivors have all the time; what they are in a struggle against is their objectives divided by their remaining resources, both of which are known numbers. For the sake of balance, a few wildcard factors are unknown to either side.
The killer can not afford to waste time; every action and decision costs them time. Only when survivors are low on resources but more objectives remain can a killer take a more relaxed stance. By default though, the survivors start with the end-goal visible and the most strength they will have all-game. The killer is working from this point to just catch-up.
This means paying attention to what the survivors are doing and making what is often a catch-22 decision, hoping for the least-worst outcome where time has been spent on getting survivors to lose resources without gaining significant progress on objectives.
If survivors did those objectives whilst the killer camps, the killer is basically throwing the game for the sake of a single sacrifice. They have lost the time it took to catch that survivor, they have lost the time it takes for the hook stages to finish. The survivors are then left with at most two objectives left, but virtually every single resource they started with, bar one survivor. If survivors made this happen in response to hook-camping, consistently, no killer making a serious attempt to win would ever camp a hook until circumstances changed.
-
@miaasma said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/577432#Comment_577432
115 ms means 115% ms, obviously
the rest of your post isn't even worth addressing. some of the worst nurse takes i've ever read
the fact that her base kit used to be worse than she is with one of her most unbalanced addon setups was an underestimation of her power upon release, and the fact that you call it knee-jerk just because the addons weren't adjusted accordingly is some serious question mark #########
Well she never moved at that '115% move-speed'. Unlike your response, I can actually define what your bad Nurse takes are and don't simply use spout stuff out to be insulting. I've explained exactly what was left wrong with her unadjusted addons following the nerf and how this indicates that the changes were not well-considered before being made. An addon which improves chain-blink whilst removing by default the ability to chain-blink was a big warning sign for the lack of joined-up-thinking going on.
Her power was not 'understimated', she did exactly what she was designed to but the devs would not commit to changing survivors exploitative playstyle and instead started to appease it.
-
@CJDatGuy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/577471#Comment_577471
I'm not saying bring in something that nerfs killers, I'm saying there needs be something that stops killers camping every hook they get, most killers don't do this but there are ones do this and I think the game doesnt punish them enough, I personally do see the enjoyment of being a killer sitting there camping
Well after using a stick failed, the devs tried a carrot instead because survivors wouldn't stop demanding something be done about hook-camping. The BBQ & Chili perk was introduced to the game, to give survivors what they wanted by encouraging killers to leave the hook.
Survivors haven't stopped complaining about it ever since. It's like they don't know what they want.
-
Endgame collapse exists purely to deny killers something they expressly and notably asked for, just for once; to be able to close the hatch and prevent the survivor forcing a catch-22 on the killer. The devs tested this and it worked, it was fairer, so of course it couldn't go in the live build.
They started teasing about hatch-closing causing the gates to be powered and that's when every killer knew we were once again being done over. Think about the two scenarios:
In the first, the survivors snow-ball, the gates are powered, but the EGC timer doesn't start until a gate is actually open. To stop the survivors hiding and stalling the end, the timer starts and they risk losing if they remain, BUT the devs didn't listen and did nothing about survivors 99%-ing the doors switches, making hanging-around almost completely risk-free. This means the killer has to make a catch-22 decision(oh they love forcing killers into these), to open a gate themselves to start the timer or keep looking for survivors and hope to be lucky. Result: survivors are under no-pressure, still get to mess around and can grief the killer with the catch-22 by 99%-ing the doors.
In the second, the killer snow-balls, the last survivor has a chance to deny a significant number of points to the killer whilst gaining little themselves when the killer has by all rights won already. If the killer gets to the hatch, they can't interrupt a survivor jumping in anymore, the closing interaction comes secondary to the jumping one. If they get the hatch closed it's even better; the gates are powered and on most maps not even Billy can guard both of them. The maps where it is possible, it's only a chance for the gate positions to be favourable to the killer.
It almost looks as if there is a double-standard to how EGC has been designed. If the survivors are winning, they are only able to stall the end of the game insofar as the killer is forced to concede by opening a gate, something that is intentionally designed to humilate them. If the killer is winning, they have to essentially provide a free-escape in most cases, which was why we had asked for the hatch-closing option in the first place, the point of which is defeated by the design of EGC.
Yeah, it needs a major rework. It's an accelerator when the survivors are winning but a handbrake when the killer is.
-
@CJDatGuy said:
New players try out the game and get camped and tunnelled, and don't play the game again, if the game wanted to grow(make more money) they need new players to stay
We careful what standards you choose to set down. There's already enough suspicion that the devs only listen to survivors because they are the majority of players, rather than balancing the game based on evidence and reason.
If that new player picks a killer and finds they have very little agency, things are decided for them and every choice is catch-22, what do you think they would do? There is a counter to camping and tunnelling which has existed since the very beginning, but survivors refuse to use it.
The devs tested an idea to discourage hook-camping once and survivors abused it, leaving the killer basically with a choice between giving away free unhooks or lose the whole match, with the survivors not having to risk anything.
-
Nurse also did not originally move at the base move-speed for killers(4.6 m/s or 115%).
The official wiki's history did not record move-speeds at the time, but from memory it was 4.2 m/s(105% base-speed) as there was discussion of how ridiculous it was that a survivor with Hope could never be caught without having to use blinking.
-
@miaasma said:
honestly i stopped reading when you said that nurse not moving at 115 ms and having 3 blinks constitutes a "knee-jerk nerf"
i want whatever you're currently smoking because it has to be good
It's called facts and reasoned argument and you can't smoke them; you have to swallow the large bitter pills.
No explanation was ever offered, by the devs or anyone, for what the purpose of the changes were. She never moved at '115 ms', you seem to have confused the move-speed as a percentage with the m/s or metres per second, which is 4.0 m/s for a running survivor and is attributed as the base 100% move-speed for the game. The Nurse now moves at 3.85 m/s which is 96.25% of base.
This effectively means that the nerf was to her being able to succeed at ANY chase. A survivor can run in a straight line and win the chase unless the Nurse uses blink, so she is forced to. It's literally impossible for her to be played as any other killer. Killers did not get to choose that; that was forced on us by people who never listen and want the game to be ruled entirely by double-standards.
We know the nerfs were knee-jerk because the achievement was not changed in conjunction and neither were her addons. It actually became impossible to use the very rare addon(Kavanagh's Last Breath) that improves chain-blinking because it still removes a blink token, meaning you couldn't chain-blink at all and now needed to equip another addon to give extra blinks. The problem there is all those addons except for Fragile Wheeze reduce the blink distance, defeating the point of using them with KLB. These changes were not thought out, at all.
It was done to appease a mob who can't make their case on an even playing-field or even stack up with any internal logic.
-
@miaasma said:
playing nurse has nothing to do with playing killer
you can spend a long time playing just nurse and mastering her, and then proceed to be terrible with every other killer in the game. this is how far divorced she is from how this game is played
Playing the Nurse was playing a killer, then knee-jerk nerfs were demanded that made her impossible to play like a normal killer. All she had to do to become what she is, is stand still as the game was made more and more 'fun' for survivors, in accordance with their own feedback that favoured one specific playstyle over any alternatives.
What happened to her initially was because people who thought they knew better couldn't imagine anyone developing a new way of playing a character. They couldn't imagine it because they themselves have never been forced into that situation, which was the design intent of the Nurse to begin with before the knee-jerk uber-nerfing.
They don't know what they were asking for, they don't know what they want and the devs must stop listening to them.
-
@GrootDude said:
@ABannedCat I think he means the FOV nerf killers received when you could see survivors inside lockers.
It could be, but the devs said when they finally addressed it that it was unintentional but had no plans to change it. It was a consequence of the graphic engine overhaul in Patch 1.4: https://deadbydaylight.gamepedia.com/PatchNotes1.4.0
It wasn't an alteration to FoV, but to Pov: the killer head-cam has been literally too far forwards since then.
-
The longer queue times is something you did to yourself.
I've seen exactly zilch in terms of evidence that the current issue is being caused by population imbalance. It started with the new matchmaking system.
-
The devs don't give an explanation for how their match-making works, but we can make inferences based on events.
Typically, whenever a new killer has been introduced there has been an observable change in the population balance as everyone wants to try the killer. A new killer has more of an impact because their unique power is available immediately, whilst for a survivor there's usually a few days before all the new perks are gained, maxed and unlocked as teachables.
However, what's going on at the moment started with the new game searching system and the wait for killers curiosly does not change according to time-zones or peak hours, as is the case when there is an overt population imbalance.
The devs say the new system only opens a lobby once four survivors have been matched to a killer, so the game should be ready to go when the lobby opens and everyone is there seconds later. This is not the case most of the time. If lobbies are only being opened when the matched players are already found, there should not be so much waiting in the lobbies.
It looks instead like killers are having an enforced waiting period that is fixed, no matter how many survivors are looking for matches. This is speculation, but it seems justified based on how things appear.
It used to be the case that the match-maker tried filling each lobby as fast as possible, with solo survivors being the smallest blocks and therefore the fastest way to get a lobby filled because they can be placed into any lobby with a vacancy. For groups however, they can only go into lobbies where there is as least as many vacancies as they can fit as a block. A 4-man SWF needs four empty slots in a lobby; they are excluded from any lobby with just one survivor in it. The only way the devs could improve the wait times for 4-man SWF even slightly was to seriously extend the wait time of solo survivors, allowing more lobbies with four vacancies to be available for the premades.
Now here's how I think the system works, pure speculation, but it's just logical that the only way what the devs say about the new system can even make sense is for the following to be the case.
Rather than working to fill lobbies as fast as possible, the system is looking at the blocks of players searching for a match and treating them exactly the same: a 4-person block of SWF is regarded as the same as a 1-person block whether they are killer or survivor. Lobbies are not a factor because lobbies are not open until the last step. Everyone is in an invisible waiting-room and rather than taking a ticket in the order they came in so they leave in the same order as online lobbies become available, the whole waiting-room empties when there's enough lobbies for everyone and the process starts again.
The pre-wait that killers experience is always the same: if the waiting-room is full, the killer has to wait for more killers. If the waiting-room is not full, the killer has to wait for more survivors. Either way, the built-in delay for killers to get into lobbies disguises what's going on.
-
Said it before: SWF would already be well on it's way to being balanced if the devs stuck to their guns.
They gave a rare outspoken design intent for the Pig originally: the purpose of the RBT was to get survivors to turn on each other, which is in line with the theme of Saw and is a much bigger blow to a premade group than it is to solo survivors. It was brilliant.
Then when it came to implementation, the devs did a practical U-turn: the timer is excessively generous, hardly anyone is ever at risk from a gen being completed while they are wearing the RBT. It should have been a very consequential thing, but it isn't.
Myers lost the ability to multi-stalk many survivors at once, when his original design intent was to punish surviors for ganging-up and messing around in full-view. The devs only restored his multi-stalk long after it was made obsolete by other changes.
-
@deadbyhitbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/576557#Comment_576557
My point about skill being irrelevant is true. Because she has no counter play in a chase. Say "just stealth" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that she has no chase counter play. How can you not realize that every killer should have this? Literally just go watch the OhTofu video if you want to see my point.
If you support the standard that 'no possible play in this game should be without a viable counter-play', then you'll find much consensus on that.
You will however be inviting a discussion on what other features of the game that standard should apply to. Is it right that once a survivor starts looping, the only counter-play for non-Nurse killers involves banking on the survivor making a mistake?
What is the counter-play to Decisive Strike? Currently the only one is to wait for it to run out, meaning the killer is stalled whether they stand there watching or go do something else. That's not so much a counter-play as it is forcing a catch-22.
There are numerous other examples that can be brought up, but if the devs incorporated 'no plays unless there are counter-plays' into their balance principle; survivors would be the ones who come off worse for it.
-
So im killer main always get read ranks, recently iv been playing swf im bad survivor not to great but not that terrible since im killer main my survivor is low rank and boy does it suck.
Yes, but not in SWF, who if they are experienced survivors can carry you and get you boosted in ranks. I have sympathy for solo survivors in low ranks or are new to the game, but they misplace the blame for their experience on the killer.
The problem for a survivor is other survivors.
-
@Slayer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/576863#Comment_576863
Almost every killer except nurse pfff...
You probably meant that only nurse is viable amongst other killers addonless? You re wrong even then. Besides addons are meant to be played with so stop handicapping yourself and admit you re wrong
I have no idea what exactly you're replying to. What you're saying, what you mean, what your point is: that's all lost on me. You're not saying anything.
Find someone with standards as low as yours and talk about this with them, not me.
-
@Zertix said:
Thank you for sharing the video
I am not going to give any comments on the skill level of the survivors or killer in this video. But I will say that hiding from nurse is not a counterplay; It is just .... hiding so that you don't have to deal with her.
Yes you can spread out, do the objective as quick as possible and pray that you don't get found but this is not countering the nurse. It is exactly the opposite which is avoiding her.
"AVOIDING HER IS NOT A COUNTER PLAY"
As a survivor, I don't want to feel helpless and that my skill and all the hours that I dedicated for this game mean nothing. I didn't play survivor for thousands of hours to hold M1 and hide behind a rock (this get very boring after playing the game for several hours). I play for the interaction between the survivor and the killer and this is what keep me coming back to play more. A killer that force me to hide behind a rock and hold M1 removes all the fun from the game.
Guess what? Killers also do not want to feel helpless and that their skill and all the hours that they dedicted mean nothing; but that is the case for almost every killer except the Nurse, otherwise they are totally reliant on survivors making significant mistakes. We picked the role that above all else should not feel helpless, survivors picked a role where a certain degree of helplessness is necessary and should be expected based on the theme and the principle of an asymmetric multi-player.
In an asymmetric multi-player, the side which has the numbers advantage should not ever have the 1v1 advantage, or even be close to equal. Stealth should be a necessity in some cases, because having to face the killer 1v1 should default to the killer winning barring a huge disparity in the ability of the actual players.
-
@Gardenia said:
Tbh, it's fine to disagree and say nurse isn't OP, but to say she doesn't ignore mechanics is a bit delusional in my opinion, which is part of the reason I feel most people who play nurse are biased as hell
I can't find anyone who has said she 'ignores mechanics'. It's just that when someone argues that she does 'ignore mechanics' they phrase it as 'she ignores all survivor mechanics' or 'she ignores all escape/evasion mechanics' and there are several problems with this. She does not ignore all means survivors have to evade at all; they are in fact talking about a narrow range of mechanics which survivors prefer and have persistently lobbied for as their primary playstyle. They have others which they have neglected and have to a degree damaged by insisting that the devs support their preferred playstyle.
The Nurse circumvents the features she is designed to, because originally survivors were expected to respond by using the plentiful alternatives, not simply double-down on their strategy of demanding the game be changed to fit how they want to play it.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/576786#Comment_576786
I still don't know what "it" is so I can't comment on that.
Exploiting is not a survivor vs killer thing. There are players on both sides who do it.
I don't understand why you speak as if survivors are one monolothic being. They "don't know what they want" because they're all different people with different wants.
With every change there will be some kind of reaction or adaptation to it. People will invariably complain. Either because they didn't foresee the consequences or because they didn't want the change to begin with. I don't see the point in creating some narrative and lumping all survivors or all killers into one group.
I think your reply is very reasonable, so I'll drop my usual pretenses.
I have an issue with the standards many people who play this game adopt when they try to make arguments. These standards matter because the devs do appear to listen to feedback and many changes can be read as originating from feedback; we don't know for sure though because the devs rarely talk about their design intent.
I understand exactly the frustration when you no longer are able to meaningfully participate in a match; the killer is forcing you to ######### on the hook or wait for what happens which on balance of probability means dying anyway. This is a catch-22 decision that a survivor is forced to make, so the debate becomes: is it right that a survivor can be forced to have to make it?
The problem for me is anyone arguing that it's unfair is arguing for a certain standard, but that standard is vague: do they support the same standard when applied to killers for example? My estimation is that they don't: they want to apply a double-standard, one rule for survivors who must not face an uncomfortable and unfair catch-22, a different rule for killers who by design face constant catch-22 decisions, some of which survivors expressly lobbied for.
The first idea the devs tried as an anti-camping stick was to make the first phase of being hooked indefinite in length as long as the killer was within a certain distance of the hook. So a survivor gets hooked, but their progress towards stage 2 will stop whenever the killer is within X metres.
They tested this on the PTB and it was not just a balance catastrophe, but rife with griefing of both the killer and the person on the hook, who would often be left to die having been hooked for the entire match. They still have the catch-22 of having to decide to kill themselves or see what happens. The killer has the catch-22 of having to give away a free-unhook or chase someone who loops straight back to a hooked person they might have no intention of saving.
One common scenario was when the hook got swarmed because everyone knew no hook progress would happen if the killer wouldn't leave and the killer couldn't leave without commiting to a chase and giving a free un-hook; it was no longer a consideration about map-pressure because they were all at the hook. Killer hits one of them, they run off and if the killer doesn't follow they just do a gen whilst the other two are baiting the killer. When the killer makes moves towards one, they start running away and the other starts moving towards the hook, forcing the killer to go back or let them make a save which they will wait until just before stage 2 to do.
The only people being spared a catch-22 were the other survivors, who were often SWF whilst the hooked person was a solo. However the idea got adjusted, it would be abused. Make it so it doesn't apply in a chase doesn't work because these stand-offs were happening with everyone spaced apart and popping in and out of view, tea-bagging. It would require greatly improving the game's system for deciding when a chase is happening, for times when someone is looping around near a hook, but the devs didn't even bother doing that when they implemented the suggestion to reduce killer emblem points for staying near a hook.