CaulDrohn
CaulDrohn
About
- Username
- CaulDrohn
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,515
- Last Active
Comments
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
Bit concerned how this would play out vs a Huntress camping on top of the basement stairs, though.
Her hatchet-M1 combo typically means the survivor can’t even reach the top of the stairs, even with OTR.
Sure, but it's the same with Bubba or Trapper having all exits trapped in shack. If you get down near the basement, esp. against a killer that is strong at protecting a basement hook, you misplayed and should not have a guaranteed escape due to this mechanic, imo.
All you can do then is use the self unhook at the last possible time per state, so you waste as much time as possible of a camping killer.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3425854#Comment_3425854
What will you do as survivor if I stand in front of survivor and ignore EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD and just wait for hooked survivor to be unhooked - and once he is on the ground but before he can move - I just press M1? You can't push me away as killer. You can't walk into hook to take said hit instead. Killer just always redown said survivor, or somebody had BT/breakdown.
I will play custom game with you and I am certain I will get BT hit 10/10 times and there's nothing you can do about it. The only possible chance is for killer to screw up and hit survivor too soon (which means no hit is counted).
Now compare this to current state, where killer can go for person he hits on hook, killer can grab, killer can bodyblock, killer can hook far away from gates, killer can have STBFL, killer could not screw up before endgame and removed 2 players in any way, killer can have some kind of 1hit ability or killer can have ability that allows him quick succeeding hits (trickster, bubba with addons, etc).
Everything you describe only matters when there's only one surv. attempting the unhook. WIth multiple rescuers, they can and will make sure you won't hit the unhooked! You cannot stop an unhook with two or three ppl around you. And if you really wait for the unhook to happen without hitting any of the three, good luck trying to hit the unhooked, with three ppl ready for body blocking.
Since you asked, what I would do in that situation you described: LEAVE THE ONE HANGING! Try to find others to help, or if there are't any left, just leave. Unhooking someone else ALONE when the killer is standing besides you should never be a free card for both of you to get out.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3425843#Comment_3425843
it is impossible to bodyblock if killer facecamps (which is something he should do in endgame). It was fine before, because survivors knew they had to bring the perk every time (or be grieved in soloQ by farming teammate that didn't bring it). Right now survivors have 4 perk slots instead of 3. So it would be unfair in current situation
No it's not impossible to bodyblock, I have way enough experience in that matter! If the gate is nearby, there is literally nothing you can do when going against three unhookers. The survs will squeeze through to the hook, one will go for the unhook, the others blocking you from grabing / hitting the unhooker. When you hit someone, another one will unhook. All run to the gate and butt dance. Thats why I usually hit the first surv approaching and chase them to down if I can afford it (gate being far away), instead of trying to protect a hooked surv at end game. That fails more often than not.
And before you retaliate "skill issue", no sir, when 3 unhookers play it right, it's very difficult to down any of them, esp when the gate is near. You only chance in this situation is playing the right killer (Bubba, Huntress, 99% Myers) or having certain perks (STBFL, Exposed effects). If you have got none of them, you can only hope for the survs to screw up.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3425742#Comment_3425742
So the perk is now back to being required?
Not a good solution.
The EGC is fine as is. If anything, it shouldn't be so Killer-sided, but I'm not in much of a mood to change it
Why required? You can totally get out in EGC without it, just due to body blocking.
According to Nightlight, BT dropped from 36% before perk overhauls to 3.6% now. Just bc. of base BT effect. Disabling only base BT in end game but not the perk, would give some incentive to run it more again. It would still be far away from the former 36%. And since BT perk doubles the duration of endurance, an increase in BT pick rates might actually have a small effect against tunneling, simply because waiting out the base BT timer would fail more often.
-
@1ettuce said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3425742#Comment_3425742
No, 4 outs shouldn't be impossible without BT
Why should it be impossible without BT? We had a time without base BT, and situations where you would be unhooked without the unhooker having BT. 4 man outs would still happen, just because body blocks exist. I would assume body blocking is way more important than any BT timer for getting 4 man out. With lesser ppl alive, BT timer is more important, sure. But with less body blocking, it's also easier to wait out the timer as a killer.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3425678#Comment_3425678
Once again, it is not a free escape.
EGC is not supposed to be Killer-sided, it's supposed to end the match.
Killers don't deserve a free Kill, which is EXACTLY what no basekit BT would give them.
But you know, there was a time before basekit BT where the survivors still escaped. They woul have to use NORMAL BT then.
So I'm thinking, how about disabling base BT in endgame, but not BT perk? So if you really want that extra bit of protection in end game, you have to bring good'ol BT perk in your loadout.
-
I was just thinking, maybe we could give Insidious a buff similar to the buff Lethal got, so that it extends the duration of timed Undetectable effects by a certain amount. Would give the perk more utility besides just camping (hooks or gens).
The perk tiers could than be various amounts of the extension, e.g. 30%, 40%, 50% longer. And the Undetectable when standing still could trigger after 1 second already, which would maybe allow to use it in loops for mind games.
-
I have the impression as well that those misses due to "aim dressing" increased with the mid chapter. I'm on PC as well, so it's not a console only issue (might be worse on console, now).
It esp. happens more often during 360s, in my experience. Feels really bad to get your hits robbed multiple times in one game.
-
@PyramidHACK said:
Lmao, alright, I've been unironically playing Darktide since release, and I went back to it for a while until this latest patch went live. If you know the Darktide playerbase, you know they are some serious teammates. Nobody is effin around, because everyone has the same objective, whereas in DBD, everyone is kinda doing their own thing, you will find helpful teammates, but it's not always the rule. Anyway, I was just being salty after coming back months later.
What I meant with the doge meme thing, even I didn't get it right, I was talking about 'Swole Doge vs Cheems'. You can look it up as that, and that's what I was talking about. Honestly, nothing makes me more livid than dealing with Darktide's many shortcomings, mostly coming from the god-awful developers, but the playerbase is almost always pretty goddamn good, whereas here, you see a lot of toxicity or just people goofin' around, which is why I keep coming back, don't get me wrong.
Ok, I looked that up and I know that meme, at least form seeing. Guess I'm not too old, then ^^''.
-
@galanonim25 said:
Decisive Strike had many in my opinion healthy changes preventing certain situations that could be abused by survivors. However even tho Decisive Strike can save you from certain killers or give you at least a little bit of precious time punishing tunneling, there are some that will remain unbothered. Of course, the two main examples are nurse and blight. That's why I wanted to propose a certain solution that would be a negative status effect on a killer. I made this status effect for one of my killer concepts and probably something same or similar could be made by somebody else. I called it the Amnesia status effect.
Amnesia status effect would work that way: When a killer is under that status effect he can't use his abilities ( Power and Special abilities ). It doesn't stop the ability that is already in use ( like Bubba chainsaw ) and this also doesn't disable killer abilities he already used or placed ( like trapper traps).
I think 5 seconds of Amnesia status effect for a killer hit by Decisive Strike at the third level of that perk would be pretty reasonable.
I'm eager to hear your opinion and your personal balance adjustments to that case.
I like the core idea, I just wanted to ask, why use a different status effect? DS could just drain the power of the affected killer (if it's drainable, that is). So Nurse, Blight, Spirit would have to wait for their power to come back. No need for an extra status effect.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3422601#Comment_3422601
It would hurt them both. But that means you are back in chase against S-tier. If u r extremely lucky, you could even disappear. And it's full chase reset for regular M1
But @galanonim25 suggestion would not / hardly affect M1 killers at all, where it would hurt high mobility killer more severely, at least for a short time. The later are stronger and often capable of rendering DS meaningless, so inconviencing them more should be the way to go.
Your solution of an after-DS sprint is the other way around: M1 killers would have it way harder to continue the tunnel just bc of the time investment (itself a good thing), but high mobility killers are not so much affected. Thus increasing the power difference between strong and weak chase killers, when we should rather try to decrease it.
I'm not against the sprint, just that it barely matters against Nurse and Blight. If we really wanted to lean into the "surv. vanishing" aspect, it could also remove scratch marks and blood for a short amount of time (like 5 seconds). That might be enough to escape from M1 and high mobility killers alike.
-
@killeriseasy said:
I wish there was a button I could press to not play against certain killers. I absolutely hate playing against certain ones.
I just had lengthy conversations in this forum about that very idea. Bottom line is, it cannot be realized without also introducing massive abuse potential.
You proposal is even worse: You write about blocking MULTIPLE killers, not just one. Just imagine what would happen to strong killers like Nurse, Blight or Spirit, if any survivor could block them as a batch. You wouldn't be able to ever play them again, or at least have to wait incredible long time to play them.
You could argue that this should only work for new players (less 100h or something), but even that could be abused by swf. There's just no simple implementation without risking massive queue times for certain killers.
-
I had exactly that same issue for a few months now. Every now and then I would get black screen, audio continuing in a loop, but system otherwise unresponsive so I had to restart the machine. It's better with the recent patch though, didn't have such a crash since.
-
@StuMacher said:
This just happened to me. Also, have video.
Could you upload the vid and post a link to it here?
-
Doesn't need an explanation, not a bug.
-
Not a bug, it's one of the rare occasions where you can make use of his zombies. It sucks sure, but it won't happen in every game. And it's under your agency, if you don't get down near / by a zombie, the Nemesis cannot pull this off.
-
Can someone explain the thread title to me? Who or what is Darktide? What is "from uber doge to mlem doge" supposed to mean?
Guess I'm just to old for this sh!t ...
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
Solo-q was never good but i swear every new patch makes it just worse.
All of changes we got lately was another punch to our face (solo survivors). You changed meta and now survivors are needing to be more coordinated which was never problem for SWF. But how solo survivors will do this without bringing perks?
I love how this game have double standards for their player base. It is almost 7th anniversary and after all of years solo survivors still don't know even that what perks their teammates have. Very simple change right? You will just see items & perks in lobby but we can not even have this.
Solo-q issues are keep ignoring and this is explain very well why this game is so bad for solo-q atm.
"solo-q issues are keep ignoring"
HUD-changes: Am I a joke to you?
-
@LiveBritishReaction said:
Solo queue became so much better after the HUD update that it made me actually enjoy playing the role again. I think it's in a better spot than it's been in for a long time.
Same for me. HUD changes help alot in coordination:
- Only one gen to go, and some other is already working on gen at 80%? Geat, gonna zoom to a gate to open it as soon as the last gen pops!
- One person hanging, two ppl busy with a gen? Guess it's my time to rescue!
There are so much situations were the new HUD makes soloQ games more efficient. The info it provides just has to be used correctly by the players. In my games, that works more often than not.
-
"Anyways, we are arguing in circles, so I think I'll stop."
One last thing, in case you are wondering why we even argue, when I think it's a bad idea as well (for different reasons):
Discussing / arguing a topic makes me reevaluate my initial suggestion. And helped me realize that this idea would probably not work, or have to much unwanted side effects. It would have just been nice to have a conversation partner that actually tried to grasp what I'm talking about, instead of repeating the same flawed retorts again and again.
So until next time, bb.
-
@NoHookDC said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419819#Comment_3419819
So such a killer ban would indeed not impact me at all.
And that makes it ok? All the Nurse and Blight mains would be affected, but not you, so it's a GREAT idea?
I've already pointed out the hypocrisy in thinking Survivors should be able to ban Killers but Killers can't ban Perks.
I also pointed out how it's not 'just increased queue times' for Killers while, somehow, banning Survivor perks is magically 'balance' instead. Weird non-logic on this one. Like, how it is NOT balance for Survivors, but unfair balance for Killers? How?
If I wouldn't get a game with Nurse, so what, will play the perk build with a different killer then ...
So all you can see is how it would affect you...and you're fine. Great way to go about a massive balance change. 🤦♂️
Anyways, we are arguing in circles, so I think I'll stop.
You are again ASSUMING that it would affect all Nurse and Blight mains. Which is a thing that would have to be tested out. It might be a real problem, but it might also be a non-issue. It depends whether survivors team up for banning the same killer. That i cannot see, just judging from the recent complains about certain killers. There were a few complains about nurse, can't recal any about Blight, and a MASSIVE amout about Dull Merchant.
Why is it a hypocrisy, when the two things are not comparable at all? Banning a killer prevents games form happening, banning perks change the game THAT are happening. If you are really insisting killer need compensation for such a killer ban, than I already suggested an SWF ban for killers. THAT would be comparable. Killer bans making queue times for banned killers longer, SWF ban making queue times for SWF longer, each side gets some. It would be hyper problematic, bc SWF would be banned for more widespread than any killer could be, but at least it would be "fair", right?
Where did I say ANY perk bans are fine? I stated multiple times that perk bans IN GENERAL are bad, indifferent from the side!
It's not a balance change, it does not touch any game mechanic at all. It's a proposal to make SoloQ a little less of a nightmare, since random mates are less likely to insta DC or give up with killers they totally hate. Would it be effective? Likely not, so for that alone it's prob a bad idea not worth being implemented and tested.
You see, we are actually on the same side, we both think it's a bad idea. But for different reasons. Imo your reasononing is flawed, you are not willing to think it through with an open mind. Yes there are valid concerns (queue times of banned killers), but I'm not buying a flat-out "banned killers won't get any games then" argument, when it would be a highly volatile and dynamic situation. It would have to be tested to see if thats really an issue. Which will likely never happen.
-
"Which, btw, spoken like a true Survivor main."
You can check out my stats at nightlight, btw. I joined it just recently, so there are not so many games, but I play a little bit more killer than survivor (I play the role that gives more BP bonus, that usually is killer bc I can only play at night). And I play ALL games with a random perk build the site gives me (Build challenge).
So such a killer ban would indeed not impact me at all. But not because I'm a "true survivor main", but because I switch through all the killers for my Build Challenges. If I wouldn't get a game with Nurse, so what, will play the perk build with a different killer then ...
-
@NoHookDC said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419686#Comment_3419686
So your idea is:
- Survivors can ban 1 Killer. This would (somehow) not be too badly abused because...vague reasons.
- Killers don't get to ban anything in return. Because...Survivor entitlement demands they control who Killers can play, now. You're ignoring reality or mad if you think someone will ban Freddy over Nurse or Blight. Anyone with an iota of pattern recognition knows your idea would lead to mass blockings of Nurse and Blight.
- Killers get bonus BP for playing massively-banned Killers. You know, in all those no games they will be playing because no one will want to wait 40 minutes to find a lobby.
- You think perk bans are dumb, but Survivors dictating who they can and cannot go against is fine? I can't tell if you're serious now, because this is...wow.
- You also think banning Killers is 'Just higher queue times' but Killers banning Perks is a buff? Hypocrisy much? How is Survivors banning a Killer fine but Killers banning a perk is magically a buff?
The idea is still horrible. Survivors get to dictate who they see, which adds up on a grand scale. And Killers get nothing because 'Increased queue times are THAT bad!' Which, btw, spoken like a true Survivor main.
"We get to block the most hated Killers and they will suck it up because we think it's fine. Also; Killers banning perks is a buff, but Survivors banning Killers is 'just increasing queue times'." 😂🤣😂
- If it is abusable would have to be TESTED, therefore a PTB! Do I speak french? You are ASSUMING it would be abused (BADLY), I'm ASSUMING it would not really matter in queue times. I'm also ASSUMING that there would be no mass blockings of one killer, at least not for long, simply bc killer players would switch to other killers, creating incentive to block that killer now, creating a back and forth. Nurse is blocked by 90% of survs, killers play more Blight, Surv siwtch form blokcing Nurse to blocking Blight, making Nurse play possible. A queue time estimate would come in handy here.
- Why do killers have to get something in return? WHY? I asked it two times now, still no answer. There's is NOTHING COMPARABLE that killers could get, bc as you yourself pointed out, banning surviors is useless. But you know, since you are so obsessed with having a compensation change: Killers can opt out of facing SWF now! That would surely make it hard for swf to get a game at all, but whatever, making a "fair change" where both sides get some is more important, right?
- Then why don't they play a DIFFERENT killer then? You whole point about "survivor dictating killer selection" only works when all the survivors mysteriously all choose the same killer, which is highly unlikely! WIth just two killers tieing the bans, you have at least half the playerbase to play against, there won't be any 40 minute wait. Also I wrote about matchmaking priority for high-banned killers. That would be perfectly feasable.
- Perk bans ARE DUMB, at least with our current MM procedure. They cannot be enforced, bc survivors can always dodge a lobby where they don't like then perk bans from the killer, and vice versa. Such a change would MASSIVELY increase lobby dodging, and thus the time for getting into a match.
- Then HOW does banning a killer make the game HARDER? If you queue for Nurse, and get a game after one hour, will it be HARDER for you? It MAY be, simply because the survivors are not afraid to face you and may be good enough to last for longer than five seconds. But is this BAD, to be potentially faced with ppl. that do not give up instantly?
- So banning survivor perks is NOT a buff for killers then? Your killer games won't be any easier when you can block SB, UB, Adre from being used? Then why did YOU bring it to the table, when it not even helps a killer (according to you)?
You know, the one striking flaw in my idea you did not even tackle:
What is the BENEFIT of this change?
And i've got to admit, there is not much, at least not enough to warrant the addtion of said killer ban, imo.
Such a killer ban filter MIGHT HELP in reducing rage quits from ppl against killers they totally dislke (the actual topic of this thread). A survivor that despises facing Scully could choose her for the ban, and never have to worry about facing her again. A player with epilepsy coul ban doctor for plaing safely. A player totally loathing camping bubbas could block bubbas. But if such a change would really decrease DC's / Givving up from the start is hard to tell.
Maybe it could be a SOLO / DUO ONLY feature, since having a player DC / give up is more likely in solo / mixed games than in 3- or 4-man swf. Would that be less abusable for you?
-
@NoHookDC said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419610#Comment_3419610
Even if SWFs only get 1 ban; the majority of the player base would ban Nurse because Survivors hate her. This means Nurse mains would be unfairly punished with longer queue times just because Survivors are lazy. 🤷♂️
And if Survivors could ban a Killer; what do Killers get in return? Banning Survivors is useless, because Survivor power is in the perks, not the Survivor. Which is why Killers would get to ban Perks. Because it's the Survivor equivalent.
Yes, Survivors ALSO have perks, but setting aside that fact; What would Killers get if Survivors can ban a Killer and completely shaft certain mains? What would be the Killer equivalent? What would be the trade? Name ANYTHING other than "Survivor Perks' that would be a fair balance. Can you?
Or are you going to insist that Survivors get to ban Killers AND perks while Killers only get to ban perks? Because that would b e unbalanced, unfair, and absolutely broken.
How are you so sure Nurse would be banned more than others? Nurse pick rate considerably lowered after her blink hits became special attacks. Blight is played way more often, so many groups might choose Blight over Nurse. Also, esp. high MMR teams usually LIKE going against a Nurse. But there are numerous reasons for hating killers: Constant 3-genning (Scully, Knight), Face Camping (Bubba), obnoxious addon combos (Legion), avoiding epilectic attacks (doctor) and so on.
Imo it's more probable that such a killer ban option would be very volatile. Bad game against a Pinhead? Just ban him and move on. Boring af Freddy game next? Will ban Freddy now ... but thats exactly why I said we would have to see it in a PTB. It's just not predictable is such a feature would impact queue times significantly or not.
No, banning surv perks is NOT the equivalent of banning killers. Banning KILLER PERKS is the equivalent of banning SURVIVOR PERKS! There is NO EQUIVALENT for banning a killer, period. I cannot tell you something for "counter balance", because there is none! But there simply does not need to be anything! A killer ban would not impact the trials, just the matchmaking time might be affected (taking longer). So if there was any compensation, it would have to be something about faster matchmaking. Like increased chances to find a lobby if you play a killer that is blocked a lot. Or maybe a BP bonus for potentially waiting longer. But surely no compensation to make your trails easier. When we assume that mostly the strong killers might be blocked, why should we make them STRONGER as a compensation? Thats flawed logic.
Where did I say survivors should be able to ban killer perks? I explicitly stated that perk bans in general are a really dumb idea. So no, NEITHER surivor NOR killer perk bans.
Since you made it very clear that there MUST be some kind of compensation for killers:
Why do you think a compensation is necessary? Just for "fairness"?
How do you justify buffing a killer (by allowing surv perk bans), when all the killer ban does is potentially increase queue times?
How does playing a widely banned killer make your games HARDER, so a compensation is needed?
I just don't get your reasoning here, so pls enlighten me.
-
"And 4-Man SWFs could ban 4 different killers."
No, you should read again what I wrote before:
"And maybe only allow one killer could be banned per group. So a 4-man can only ban one, while randoms could potentially ban up to 4 (but cannot coordinate before, since they don't know wizth whom they queue)."
One banned killer per (swf) group!
"And yet Nurse, Blight, whatever players should not be forced to have inflated queue times just because salty Survivors want easy wins."
Sure, but it's not clear if that would be the case (hence a PTB). You can only ban one killer per group, and not all groups will ban the same. Some groups will ban Nurse, some Blight, some Spirit. They cannot ban ALL of them.
"No. [PTB] Would be a waste of time."
Since such a feature will never be implemented anyway, there won't be any PTB about it. But if hypothetically there was such a feature, then surely it would need a PTB to look if queue times are affected (heavily) or not.
You know, the devs response to things like different game modes is always "We do not want to divide the playerbase between normal and special matchmaking, which would increase queue times, so we are not doing it." But I think, we should actually try something out to see if that concern is justified or not. And something like a ban-feature test could be used for that purpose.
"Because it's the same thing; You want to ban a Killer & their powers. Survivors don't have powers, except for perks."
It is NOT the same. LIke I said, no killer will be banned from every group, it's not a gloabl ban! There will be groups which block them, and there are other roups which will face them. And this trials will play out relatively normal (survivor may perform a little bit better overall, just bc there are fewer players instantly giving up). Survivor perk bans by a killer would affect EACH and EVERY game that killer player is playing! Regardless whether the killer they are playing is actually on someones block list. Why should a team that does NOT block a certain killer be punished for playing against that killer?
Banning a killer would happen BEFORE a lobby is found! More specifically, when a group queues for the game, and possible matches with the blocked killer will be discarded. So when they find a lobby, it will be guaranteed it's not the blocked killer. Thats all because the killer player cannot change the killer after queueing.
Banning perks would happen AFTER finding a lobby, since perks can still be changed while waiting in a lobby. There would have to be some sort of notification that one party disallows the use of certain perks from the other party, and each party might have to adjust their loadout. Or just leave the lobby. If you are really concerned about queue times with a killer-ban option, just think about how much dodging would occur if perk bans would be a thing. Pls be aware that I'm talking about general perk bans here, not just survivor perk bans. Perk bans, indifferant for which side, will not work at all, just for the fact that they can be circumvented by dodging lobby and queueing again. There's no such issue with killer bans, bc when the killer gets into a lobby, it is guaranteed the this killer was not blocked by the survivors.
Killer bans do not impact the games that eventually will be played at all. Surv perk bans would ABSOLUTELY impact each and every game that is played. The two things are nowhere near comparable
"Incorrect. They are the same thing. Because Survivors don't have powers to ban."
If anything, survivor perk bans should be compared with killer perk bans.
"Incorrect. If Survivors can ban Killer powers or perks; Killers get to ban Survivor perks."
It is not incorrect, you just don't understood what I meant there. I tried to explain it again above. It all comes down to the fact that killer bans would be performed BEFORE a lobby was found, while perk bans can only be applied AFTER a lobby was found. Which itself leads to dodging. If we wanted to apply perk bans BEFORE as well, then the loadouts needed to be unchangeable once you queue for a game, just like how the killer is fixed when you queue. And that would REALLY increase the waiting times by alot!
So please, just read again what I wrote and think about how it would play out. It's not as "BS" as you make it out to be.
-
@NoHookDC said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419045#Comment_3419045
No. Not unless Killers can pick to ban 4 perks.
I mean, you have 4 Survivors picking to ban up to 4 different Killers, which would inflate the queue times of people playing those Killers, based on Survivors having hurt feelings over some of the roster. So allowing Killers to ban perks they don't like in return is only fair.
It would only be POTENTIALLY 4 killers for four randoms. And the randoms could not coordinate their bans, bc they have to lock in their banned killer BEFORE queueing for a match, since the killer player cannot change the killer once in a lobby!
It would only increase queue times when many different players all hate the same killer. But like I said, the hate for certain killers is relatively diverse, so I don't think it would be noticeably, at least in "normal" MMR regions. In high MMR regions, bans for nurse, blight or spirit might be more prevalent, potentially increasing their time. But it would also increase the wait for survivors, so I guess it would also self limit. Would be great to just try this out in a PTB, imo.
About banning perks, how is banning survivor perks fair as a compensation for killer bans? When 50% of survivors ban Blight, there are still the other 50% to build lobbies from. Killer bans do not impact the games that eventually will be played at all. Surv perk bans would ABSOLUTELY impact each and every game that is played. The two things are nowhere near comparable. If anything, survivor perk bans should be compared with killer perk bans.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3418957#Comment_3418957
This. Either people have to accept to play against the whole roster or not at all.
Imagine people would ragequit all the time in league of legends when they play against one of the many champions they don't like from the 150+ characters. They can only ban one themselves and there are a dozen counters for every champs in lol.
With more than 30 killers, maybe DbD could use such a ban feature as well. It would have to be a selektion before queuing, bc the matchmaker would habe to respect it. And maybe only allow one killer could be banned per group. So a 4-man can only ban one, while randoms could potentially ban up to 4 (but cannot coordinate before, since they don't know wizth whom they queue).
Don't know if this would be abusable, but I think there are many killers hated on by different ppl (Nurse, Blight, Cannibal, Scully, Twins), that it might even out overall. YOu just would have to expect longer queueing times when using killer ban feature.-
-
@Unicorn said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3418957#Comment_3418957
Not gonna lie, I don’t DC but I surely will feed myself to her if the game is lasting longer than it needs to because she wants to hold her 3-gen strat. If need be, I will end myself on hook & really won’t care because its exhausting and boring.
If that makes me a bad person, I’ll be that.
Giving up on hook may still be a dick move (when done right on first hook when the game is still winable for the survs), but it's within the game rules and it does not rob the killer the adept. So as long as you at least tried to break the 3-gen and not give up instantly bc its a Scully, I wouldn't blame you.
-
@Unicorn said:
I feel bad that you didn’t get your adept, but I’m not blaming the Nea for rage quitting. Playing against SM is hell, pure & utter hell.
Imo rage quitting is never acceptable, esp early in the game when you got downed the first time. It's just a d*ck move to all the remaining players. If you don'T want to play against SM, play killer or not at all!
-
It's the same with darkness revealed, that will also trigger without you knowing. That's just the nature of aura perks, you might not expect being seen. But imo there should not be any info that the perk is present. It's part of the skillset as a survivor to recognize or rule out such "silent" perks. The killer has to do the same, and they may have to deal with stacked gen speed perks, which also are not recognizable apart from gens being done faster than normal. I find that quite similar.
If it really bothers you that much, bring Distortion like you already wrote. That may be a dead perk though if the killer does not have any aura effects (although then you will know which perks a killer does NOT run, which can be just as valuable as knowing the perks a killer runs). Alternatively, you could bring Alert, so you know when and where (if not undetectable) a killer kicks something, so you can be "alert" for NTH. Fearmonger will be your nemesis, though.
Last but not least, you could bring Object, which will tell you when the killer sees you, making you see them. Although you have to deal with them seeing you every 30s, except when you are not the obsession.
-
@HugTechLover said:
I feel I’ve noticed it too. The map feels less tolerable now than it already was.. I despise swamp and Yamaoka.
And you are Blight main, right? So I guess there was instead something changed (if intended or not).
-
"The only grab I'd be ok with having removed is healthy locker grabs. Not the pull mind you, just the mid animation grab. And glyph grabs because that's just dumb... the survivor finishing a glyph doesn't hurt the killer at all."
I did not mention lockers in my initial post, but that's exactly what I had i mind for them. Remove mid animation healthy grabs. There are so many instances I witnessed as a killer or had as a survivor where i wanted to vault shack window, but jumped into one locker, and then the killer grabbing the survivor when exiting the locker. Getting a hit is enough punishment in this situation.
About glyph grabs, thats beyond stupid.
"Every killer in the game should have the ability to defend an objective even/especially if a survivor tries to do it in their face. That's what healthy grabs allow. The 1 in the 1v4 to overpower 1 of the 4 no matter what."
Thats why I proposed compensation buffs for gen defense. For hook grabs thats not so easy though, bc that would strengthen camping again. A killer should be able so secure a trade, but not to prevent the unhook.
"On my opinion healthy locker grabs can go because they aren't objectives. They, like vaults, are defenses so should probably follow the same rules as vaults."
I like that reasoning.
-
@AnchorTea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3412212#Comment_3412212
*New patch removes healthy hook grabs*
Hurray! Face camping is no more!
*Gets matched with Bubba, Billy, Trickster, and Myers*
#########. We didn't ask for this
At least games againat Bubba, Billy and Myers are more fun for me than say Nurse or Spirit. Trickster though ...
-
@SeaFlower said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3412238#Comment_3412238
You send two people at equal distance. Unless you’re Bubba, you don’t get a trade. You hit one, the other unhooks. You don’t hit either, they bodyblock you and one you can’t hit unhooks. I agree preventing the unhook should not be a thing. But the unhooker should always go down if they do it in the killer’s face.
But that scenario is not different in live,. With a coordinated team, they will position themselves so that you cannot grab the unhooker. And when hitting, they will body block and run out of gate (if its in end game). The grab will not help you there, except when they mess up. But then you would have gotten the down with hits as well.
-
@Vhillain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3412053#Comment_3412053
Keep glyph grabs? I actually think glyph grabbing is the stupidest interaction, it's not an objective that progresses the game or helps the team in any way.
In my opinion glyph grabbing shouldn't be thing at all. If you're risking doing the glyph in the killer's face and get smacked because they don't respect it, fair, but that risk that doesn't help your team at all should not result in an instant down. Some of the glyphs take an extended period of time to do and getting grabbed off the glyph that already took you two minutes to find because Ghost Face came around the corner is utter BS.
I'm pretty neutral on other grabs, but I absolutely disagree with getting grabbed off a non-objective archive.
Is glyph grabbing really a thing? I only ever received or dealt hits when interacting with glyphs.
-
@SeaFlower said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3412201#Comment_3412201
What I said isn’t preventing an unhook. The unhooker gets the unhook but they will go down 100% of the time with zero exceptions. Removing healthy hook grabs means survivors can make a trade impossible, which is stupid and unhealthy.
Having healthy hook grabs in the game IS preventing the unhook if the killer gets it. It's possible right now to get grabbed during unhook but still finish the unhook, but thats a glitch. It's not meant to work this way. But you know, if we somehow could have this basekit, so even when grabbing the hooked survivor is always freed, that I'm totally fine with keeping the grab. But getting bonus pressure by grabbing a surv AND prevent the unhook additionally, thats an issue, bc it makes camping so much more viable.
On the contrary, how does removing the grab make a trade impossible? You hit before they can unhook, and hit after, like you would do now. The only difference is, there would be no chicken game at the hook, but the surv would unhook right away. So you gotta be prepared for that. We could also think about a grace period where a freshly hooked survivor cannot be unhooked for some seconds, like unhook can only appear when the hooking animation is over (survivor crying / entity appearing). So unhook bombing would not be possible right away.
-
@AnchorTea said:
Instadown killers (including Bubba) getting inadvertently buffed with removed healthy hook grabs:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/4O6CQGKVYK7C/2x75fl.png
How is Bubba buffed? He can already chainsaw any approachin survivor down during unhooking. With healthy hook grabs, the whole unhook is prevented (at least it should be, but servers decide otherwise from time to time). If thats gone, Bubba HAS to use his chainsaw to secure a down, and that gives room for misplays (going into tantrum) and for the unhooked to zoom away (as long as bubba does not catch up). Removing healthy hook grabs actually nefs Bubba camping potential, even when just slightly.
-
@SeaFlower said:
Doing actions in the killer’s face should be a gigantic risk. As in, being instantly downed and grabbed. So no, they should not be removed. Realism comes secondary to gameplay. If hook grabs are removed, it becomes impossible for most killers to guaranteed down the unhooker unhooking in their face, which is stupid and unreasonable. If you want to remove hook grabs, unhooking should not be cancellable. That way, a survivor can always trade but they will never get away themselves.
Even with healthy grab removed, you are still at a great risk of going down when the killer hits you first before you can unhook. Also no one'S talking about removing all grabs, grabbing an injured survivor would still be a thing. So when a killer really wants to prevent the unhook, they still can, as long as the unhooker is injured.
Why should a killer be guaranteed to prevent an unhook? Thats a core element of camping, which we all agree sucks. It's enough when the killer more or less is guaranteed a trade. Which is not changed when healthy hook grabs are removed. And I also replied to another one, that I'm actually in favor for unhooking not being cancelable. So when the survivor commits to it, they have to deal with the consequences.
-
@sizzlingmario4 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3411906#Comment_3411906
I mean by that logic if you wanted to make it consistent you’d have to remove healthy grabs from a bunch of other interactions too, such as chests, exit gates, totems, and even certain killer-related objects (alarm clocks, jigsaw boxes, etc.). I don’t think that’s really necessary. It rewards killers for successfully sneaking up on a survivor and punishes survivors who aren’t paying attention or go for risky plays. I got gen-grabbed yesterday for the first time in months with it being the last gen at 99% and I deserved it for being greedy.
Vault grabs are the only ones that have the injured requirement. They are the exception and it’s good that way because being able to vault-grab healthy survivors wouldn’t be good.
Hook grabs on the other hand, reward camping way too much in their current state.
I actually would remove healthy grabs from all these, if they are even a thing. I'm farily certain you cannot be grabbed form a chest for example.
The sneak aspect is a valid one, it would be a shame to lose that, I agree.
LIke I said, the idea of removing healthy grabs fomr unhooking is not new. I just wanted to think it further, what if we removed ALL healthy hook grabs.
-
@Phasmamain said:
No need to remove gen grabs but healthy hook grabs need to go. All they do is encourage camping and a stupid game of chicken
@sizzlingmario4 said:
It’s only hook grabs that are an issue. All other types of grabs are completely fine
Its only that gen grabs to not even work properly half of the time, at least from the killer perspective (game shows the grab, only to be validated away by the server).
And I'm thinking, if we were really to remove hook grabs of healthy ppl, why not remove that for gens as well? Why not make it work only on injured? It would at least be consistant. And would remove such "game of chicken" in other contexts as well.
-
@09SHARKBOSS said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3411869#Comment_3411869
yes or when you read their aura and see them hide in a locker
Locker grabs would not be removed, at least while they are in. Only the delayed grab after jumping out of a locker would be removed, that thing feels so rigged when it happens to you.
-
@09SHARKBOSS said:
no it requires either stealth or oblivious survivors so its pretty difficult
You mean for gen grabbing? That's indeed a valid point, removing healthy grabs would take away the "joy" of grabbing someone with a stealth killer, at least while they are healthy.
-
@ad19970 said:
I do think that removing grabs of healthy survivors on gens is unnecessary. Your compensation changes would definitely be good though, but personally, I do not see a problem with gen grabs.
When it comes to hook grabs, I 100% agree. It's an insanely outdated mechanic that should have been removed a long time ago, and to me it's a bit insane it hasn't yet. In 99% of all cases, hook grabs only benefit camping killers, which is not good at all. Meanwhile, if a survivor is just going for a unhook while being chased, downing the unhooking survivor is more than enough for the killer to keep pressure going, because they pretty much still get a free down for nothing.
Sure, healthy gen grabs are not as problematic as healthy hook grabs. But just for the sake of simplicity and consistency, I would prefer grabs to only ever work on injured ppl. And like I tried to explain, even when not that problematic, it creates awkward situations where you play around the fallacies of the game design instead of doing the "most sensible thing" in that situations. You wouldn't just let go of a gen and wait for the killer to do their action. You would either run or try to power through.
If hopping on and off a gen wasn't instant, so grabbing was more reliable, that would work for me as well (still would prefer the grabs being removed though).
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Sorry, I’ll base it off the tldr,
I can’t remember the last time I grabbed a healthy survivor from a hook save. Usually Survivors will bait the grab and get smacked instead.
It doesn’t feel like a huge issue honestly, and I don’t know why I keep seeing it discussed so often recently. I think hard tunnelling is something that should be a higher priority. Not that healthy hooks grabs shouldn’t be mentioned at all, I’ve just never had an issue with it, even when it’s happened to me and I’ve played Survivor.
I'm not surprised you can't recall an instance were you grabbed a heathy one. I also haven't seen it when playing killer, mainly bc. the game keeps overturning my grabs (more so with gen grabs, though). But I've seen quite some instances where a surv gets grabbed and still manages to unhook, a thing that should not be possible. Thats a thing I forget in my initial post: Grabs simply do not WORK half of the time. Which is another reason to remove them or at least make them happen less (when only happening for injured survivors).
"Usually survivors bait it out"
Sure, but when removing healthy grabs, there simply is no need for such shenanigans anymore. You can just go for the unhook straight away. I wouldn't even be against it when an unhook could not be canceled at all, so even when injured and being hit in the process, the unhook still goes through. That would weaken camping even more.
-
@thrawn3054 @sizzlingmario4 @crogers271
So how is the math then?
We know it takes 16 charges to heal one health state, and self heal gives 33% efficiency debuff, making it 24 charges.
16 / (1 - 0.33) => 16 / 0.67 => 23.88
So using this formula, when adding Botany with 20% efficiency debuff, I thought it should be this:
16 / (1 - (0.33 + 0.2)) => 16 / 0.47 => 34.04
Of course that woul be additive. If it's multiplikative, like @thrawn3054 wrote, it should be this:
16 / ((1- 0.33) * (1 - 0.2)) => 16 / (0.67 * 0.8) => 16 / 0,536 => 29,85
So it's indeed 30 charges, and bandages should be enough. Good to know ^^
-
@saintjimmy456 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3409558#Comment_3409558
Ofc, thanks, I am playing that - forgot about the medkit penalty. So I will stop playing that and play self-care - just incase I am on my own and need healing. Sort of goes against what the update was meant to encourage, but I need to self heal sometimes! Ty for the answers.
Ok, so Botany was the culprit. I incidently checked the math yesterday, with botany you need 34.04 charges for self healing with a medkit. Madkit has base 24 charges, with green addon for extra charges, it's 34, so a tiny fraction too short. Don't know if the game still lets you heal full with it or not.
Instead of self care, you could run bond for finding others to heal you.
-
I've got to add, if you were running Botany Knowledge, you also get a debuff to medkit healing, so the charges won't be enough.
If all that was not the case, and the medkit still did not last longe enough, it was a bug.
-
"Windows= i dont run that perk period if anything that perk to me would be more of a hinderance than of help because of the yellowness and there other perks that far outshines windows."
I disagree, Windows is one of the strongest perks for extending a chase. Good luck trying to catch someone that knows how to loop well. Sure they won't necessarily need it, but it enables them to loop near flawlessly.
"Dead hard required proper timing and how many times I play killer and some survivor dead hard into an obstacle or at the very wrong time, very easy and common sense to bait."
You playing potatoe survivors does not proof anything. Competent players know how to use it to great effect. You cannot lunge bc that can be reacted easily, the same with many killer powers. Quick attack is also a gamble, since they will spin in your pov and activate it so you don't see it. You can wait that out, but they will too. Yes there's skill involved to use this perk, I won't deny that. But it also has the potential to correct your mistakes for you, it "rewards failure". That's no good incentive to get better. So thats a crutch in my book.
"I hate urban and sprint burst like poison and honestly want those 2 perks gutted because am tired of going from hook 1 to hook 2 because solo que bone heads love saving their sprint burst,"
Right, not every "crutch" is op, there are also ones that teach you bad behaviour.
"So none of these perks you mention I even use lol."
I did not expect you to. It just was a collection of the things that came to my mind. I also don't think the mentioned perks are all crutches per se. They come near, but are still more or less fine. With the change to DH and CoH, I don't think there are any real crutch perks left. And like I mentioned before, I DONT see aura perks as crutches.
"My favorite stop lying about using bbq for blood points when it use to give extra bp, that is a bogus lie alot of killers defend. No one care that it use to gave extra blood points and when I say no one cares I mean survivors or me personally didnt care or mind it use to give bonus bp as that was cool, it was the aura reading part am sure no one liked. But we all know truly that the perk was use for the aura reading, if it was not, why is that perk still to this day and time so common to this day and time when you no longer get bonus bp for using it?"
Your claim that it was only used bc of the aura is plain wrong. The aura effect was not changed at all, only the BP bonus got removed. But that removal caused a massive drop in usage of the perk. Just check BBQ pick rates according to Nightlight: https://nightlight.gg/perks/Barbecue_&_Chili. Before it was around 35%, now we are more between 15-20%. Again, ONLY the bonus was removed, the aura is UNCHANGED, so this drop goes solely on the bonus removal.
My personal BBQ pick rate mimics that: Before the change, I ran BBQ in literally 100% (every killer game on every killer). Yes the aura is nice, but the main purpose was the BP bonus. It was 100% more BP, and they were direly needed esp before the prestige rework (having to buy all the perks for all the killers). Now that the BP bonus is gone. I only run it when it works with my perk build idea (most notably full full aura builds with lethal, the thing you dislike so much). Sure BBQ is still used frequently on high-speed killers, bc they can use the info effectively. With normal 115% speed killers, BBQ is a mediocre choice. Thrilling has more utility when you want to defend gens, and Floods / nowhere to hide have the better aura effect (cannot be countered except with Aura block).
"Also I did not say this forum is complaining of distortion the reddit forums are and the 10kofc is an exaggeration but that forum is full of distortion qq please nerf it."
Don't know about Reddit. I always thought DBD forums was more killer sided, while Reddit is survivor sided, but that does ntot match with "10k nerf distortion" threads there. Still you are posting HERE, and HERE are simply no "Nerf distortion" threads. So this point of you is pretty much invalid here. No one wants to nerf it here, at least I don't know of any such thread recently.
Distortion is also a double edged sword. Sure it prevents you being found, but that also means that your mates are found & chased more often, which makes "unfavorable" tactics like tunneling more likely. I would only call it problematic if all 4 run it and I have a full aura build. Thats tough luck then, a lost gamble, but nothing OP.
"You sound so edgy, chill out its just a game lol ."
When you post such bold claims, it triggers reactions. You are the edge-lord then :P.
-
@lifeisstrange said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3409048#Comment_3409048
Gen defense perks is counter by =doing the gen and they wont have any effect, chase perks I do not have a problem of a killer using a perk to make chasing easier, if anything am still running and doing what I can to avoid being hit and its actually fun if the killer is trying to find a way to down me quicker in a chase. So gen and chase perks are not a problem to me like how annoying aura reading perks are, and yes i run distortion so i dont have to waste my time getting off my 90% gen and try find some locker and all that extra annoying stuff to dodge bbq. Survivor aura reading perks is mostly so situational and is a joke, specially if a killer runs fear monger. Also loling at the 10k+ complaints on people wanting distortion nerf because some huntress wanna run 4 aura reading perks and get no use out of it. Also what perks can survivors use then without the perk being called crutches and gutted, since you wanna ask about what perk can you use as killer not be called crutch.
So stacking gen defense is no issue, instadown perks are no issue (most notably node, whcih is widely considered THE CRUTCH perk on the killer side), eight stacks stbfl are not issue, Endfury + Hybris is no issue. But when I run BBQ, a very mediocre perk after extra BP were removed, which makes me leave a hook and possibly waste my time at a faraway, unimportant gen, then I'm crutching in your opinion. You are trolling right?
On top of all that lunacy, BBQ is not even really prevalent anymore, and most of the killer roster cannot even get much benefit out of it, bc they are to slow. I even forgot a counter to BBQ before, since you said you have no time for the others: Hide behind the gens aura. Or is that too annoying as well?
Where did anyone complain about distortion? I check the forums daily, can't recall a single tread complaining about the perk. Let alone "10k". You like hyperboling, right?
Nice try of derailing with that "but what about survivor perks". YOU were the one calling one of the weakest perks in the killers disposal a crutch (info perks). (Actually you called the aura perks for survivors the same). And so I asked you (two times), which perk a killer may run then. Which you STILL did not answer.
Before I can tell you which perks I would consider crutches, we would have to settle on a cructh definition first. Your definition is way to broad for my taste. Just having info you otherwise might not have is not crutch-worthy for me. No info perk tells you what to do with the info it grants, you still have to make the decision to use that info or not. Thinking of BBQ again, even if you see someone doing a gen in the corner, that does not mean it's the smartest move to go there. To call a perk a crutch, it has to have a powerful effect which on it's own can win you games that you would not have gotten without it. Or it teaches bad habits and thus may prevent the player from getting better.
The survivor aura perk closest to being a crutch is Windows of Opportunity, imo. It allows you to greatly extend a chase if you use the info it gives you correctly. It can make you a way better looper than you are without it, and might prevent you from actually learning the loops. But it's still no real crutch, imo, bc you still have to plan your routes. Pre-nerf DH was more of a crutch, bc it allowed you to straight up deny a hit you likely only got bc you were outplayed. Sure it still does that, but with max 2 activations its potential is limited. CoH self heals single handedly prevented hit&run playstyles, but thats gone know. Proove Thyself is a borderline crutch perk, bc it teaches you to do gens with multiple ppl, when it's more efficient to do gens alone (apart form the last ones). Sprint Burst teaches bad habits (walking too much), Urban as well (crouchin everywhere).
-
@lifeisstrange said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3408811#Comment_3408811
Because aura reading stacking is stupid and actually encourages tuneling, bbq= ur going to rush the survivor whos about to finish a gen, nurses= your trying to heal and get hit down again. Information perks are crutches on both sides but very much more on killers aspect.
Encourages tunneling? As if the only application for auras is to tunnel. You can also use it to NOT tunnel, or just to get into the next chase as quick as possible.
About BBQ, whats wrong with rushing to a surv on a gen? At least the killer is not camping then. And when you now the killer has BBQ, act accordingly: Avoid being found (locker, going near than 40m,) take a potential chase (position yourself at a strong loop), or let him waste time (fake going in one direction, fake hiding into locker). Complaining about BBQ gets never old, right, when it's one if not the perk with the most counterplay.
"information perks are crutches on both sides"
And guess what? You could consider Distortion as an information perk as well! Bc. it gives you the info which perks a killer uses and which not!
But you did not answer my most important question: If info perks are crutches, and gen defense and chase perks are surely too (since they are stronger), which perk am I allowed to use then, to not be called a "crutch perk user"?
You now, I can totally agree that stacking 4 gen defense perks is using crutches / handholding, and than chase perks can be very oppressive as well, but aura perks? When they have the least impact on a game? When they only help you in finding ppl, but rarely help in downing fast and totally won't help you protecting the gens? Complaining about that is exceptionally silly, imo.