El_Gingero
El_Gingero
About
- Username
- El_Gingero
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,600
- Last Active
Comments
-
That would make boons worthless. CoH is absurdly strong and definitely overpowered, but boons are also a cool mechanic and keeping them usable would be preferable.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2702030#Comment_2702030
Merriam Webster has one of the meanings of toxic being ' extremely harsh, malicious or harmful eg toxic sarcasm. ' If a player is doing something to deliberately ruin the fun for another player then I would argue that falls within that definition.
While a lot of it can't be banned, BHVR seems to be doing the video game equivalent of 'boys will be boys' instead. That's also detrimental to the game as it's pretty obvious the in-game toxicity has hurt player retention for DbD.
While a lot of it can't be banned, it can definitely be discouraged which BHVR does not appear to be doing. If BHVR is serious about caring that all of its players are having fun even stating BHVR disapproves of players attempting to ruin the fun of other players would help more than the current apathetic attitude that, intentionally or not, BHVR is currently displaying to its player base.
It’s a computer game.
Many of the things mentioned in this thread are mostly irrelevant. Hook hitting for example. It’s a computer game where the killer is supposed to kill the survivor. Hitting the hook is hardly a tragedy and if it bothers someone too much, it’s on them to change how they react to it. That’s the only thing that will actually help them.
-
Camping and tunnelling aren’t exclusively “toxic,” and there can be a number of reasons for them, even at 5 gens.
The game chat censors most things, and I mean most things in general like the word “killer,” or sentences like “that was a really fun match your billy is cracked.”
I’m pretty sure you can also disable the chat?
I don’t see how the game actively encourages “toxicity.” As far as I’m aware there are no incentives to being “toxic.” You don’t get bonus bloodpoints for teabagging or flashlight clicking for example.
People do throw around the “toxic” stuff far too often.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2704425#Comment_2704425
Hey, so, can you look where I said CoH was weak? Can you find that?
No, because it's not.
People just take issue whenever NOED gets brought up as an unfair perk.
I never said that you said CoH was weak? I’m just disagreeing with your opinion that NOED and CoH are the same strength. Of course you don’t think CoH is weak if you think NOED is strong and that they’re equal strength lol.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2704343#Comment_2704343
Again, people are confusing the issue I have.
As to the question of whether CoH or Devour Hope is stronger, it's CoH. As to whether CoH or NOED is stronger, tbh, I think they are equal.
My issue came with the guy saying that being able to heal yourself was a more impactful effect than being able to instant down/mori Survivors.
You’re entitled to your opinion ofc but I have to thoroughly disagree. CoH is one of the strongest perks in the game and can flat out break some killers sometimes no matter how well they play, whereas NOED doesn’t even do anything half the time and is only strong when survivors misplay badly whilst refusing to counter it.
-
Definitely a good idea. Getting blinded from behind is just dumb. I don’t see how any survivor can possibly justify not doing this.
-
And as if that weren’t ridiculous enough, here’s the kicker. The problem with Wraith was that, although decent vs good players, he was just too strong vs new players. So the objective of the nerf was to make him weaker vs new players without affecting his strength too much vs everyone else. But instead, the nerf made him significantly weaker vs everyone else, whilst having basically no impact on his ability to stomp new players. It’s sort of comical really. Sad tho.
-
It goes to show how out of touch the devs are when they genuinely think one of the objectively weakest killers in the game is overpowered lol. I’m sure their flawed “statistics” played a role. It’s unfortunate.
-
NOED is balanced. It can be countered extremely easily, has multiple perks that counter it even harder, and in most cases will give you one extra kill at best, which you probably would have gotten anyway if you had played the game with 4 perks instead of three.
People think it’s overpowered because when they mess up and feed into it, the killer is rewarded with more kills, but that’s not a perk problem, it’s a player skill problem.
-
Dude BHVR settled all that NFT nonsense and have made it right. On the merc store you can buy a nature themed NFT and all proceeds go towards buying vegetables.
-
“Out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, we created this terrible mechanic that doesn’t work because that’s just how we do.”
”Can you remove it please?”
”No, we put too much work and effort into it.”
Thats the gist of it.
-
@Sluzzy said:
I find it hard to believe that Leatherface can 1-shot even when someone is in a snowman when all other killers inflicts limited or no damage.
We simply can't catch a break with this killer due to his license apparently.
Impossible to save against. The basement is automatic win with him because his saw lasts too long.
Impossible to escape in areas with limited pallets because of his never-ending saw.
Can down multiple survivors with absolute ease (no counterplay). Almost no cooldown after breaking a pallet and can instantly down someone.
Every time it is leatherface I know it is going to be a 4K and it usually is. I don't think that is balanced.
Don’t forget that he wears people skin too and that’s a bit of a social taboo.
-
I agree Nurse is underperforming but we need to be careful with what we do. A good starting point could be to buff her base movement speed imho. No other killer moves slower than survivors, and it’s this lack of speed combined with her debatably lukewarm power that makes her struggle so badly vs anyone who isn’t terrible at the game.
What do you think?
-
It’s an outdated game design philosophy from the early days of free to play gaming. Free to play games were niche back then, so the developers had to bake arbitrary grinds into them to boost player retention.
Unfortunatrly some games still use this philosophy.
-
Matchmaking is weird for me at the moment. Good mix of potatoes and survivors notably better than myself with lots of camping / tunnelling (which I usually barely see.)
-
Dead by Daylight is a confused game stubbornly clutching to its roots in a changed industry. With one hand the devs try to maintain that chaotic, messy party game vibe where crazy things can happen at any moment, but with the other hand they try nudge it towards the mainstream.
The result is an unbalanced casual game that can be played solo or in a team, with matchmaking, no comms or ping system, and a tournament scene of all things.
-
@SunsetSherbet said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2690861#Comment_2690861
Of course you'd do it in real life too, right? You're not a child psychologist and you should stop pretending you know anything about the subject.
You don’t need to be a psychologist to know that DBD is a video game and not real life.
There’s no “tough love.” If somebody gets an uncomfortable feeling from being teabagged in a video game, they should be encouraged to see it for the trivial irrelevance that it is. After all, their reaction is the only thing that can give it power in the first place. That’s not “tough love” but common sense.
I sympathise with anyone getting stressed out etc, but it’s on them to change how they react to it.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2690906#Comment_2690906
Yeah I don't think we are going to agree on this.
To me, encouraging arbitrary nastiness to strangers without any fear of repercussions is far more damaging to a developing psyche. We should be encouraging empathy and consideration, not the opposite. This is something I've tried hard to raise my own kids towards, and I think it's paid dividends thus far.
And, sure. It's a video game.
But video games weren't always like this. For most of gaming history, games were either played in the same room as others, or in a host/lobby/server system where jerks would quickly find themselves battling to get games, much as this would play out in other quasi-competitive social activities. Matchmaking and the lack of accountability that came with it is the problem.
Lol yeah we aren’t going to agree.
I have to say you’re blowing it out of proportion. Nobody is encouraging nastiness nor are they discouraging empathy/consideration. It’s just a crouch animation and some people use it to teabag, not to mention a chunk of them aren’t even trying to be toxic.
No psyches are being damaged here, but I do sympathise with anybody who doesn’t deal with it too well, and I’d suggest they try to change their perspective else they’ll experience similar things in the majority of multiplayer games.
I’m all for banning people for actual abuse and such, but changing the way crouch works just because a minority of people take it too personally? It may sound harsh but that’s sort of ridiculous.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2690861#Comment_2690861
Interesting.
I'd say that allowing kids to be jerks without consequences is way more 'coddling' than teaching them about sportsmanship and discipline.
I'm an educator and I see it in schooling too - in my day, pushing a kid down the stairs would likely have gotten you expelled or at least caned. Now it gets you candy and counselling. Cheating would probably have meant a month of detention - now it gets you free extra classes and a 'special' test. A few years ago I got a reprimand for bawling a teenager out in class and making them stand outside, as this was dubbed as 'unfairly singling them out and not being sufficiently respectful of their feelings'. The kid threw a pencil case at the back of my head because I told him to stop eating in class.
Millennials are already more apathetic and less empathetic than even Gen X was (the data on this is...legitimately scary) and I can only imagine what the next generation is going to be like.
This is a video game though. Every multiplayer game has this kind of thing for a variety of reasons, not all of which are even “toxic.”
Put everything into perspective and it’s really no big deal. The people are random strangers. Some just messing around, others trying to get a reaction. If we’re taking about setting standards for the younger generations, it should be that teabagging in a video game is just that, and even though it can feel personal, the healthiest reaction is to see it for what it is and move on.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2690815#Comment_2690815
Yes, it's a video game.
Gaming has become, at least in the developed world, probably as popular among young people as sports are, if not more.
We generally try to teach youngsters how to be gracious winners and non-salty losers in sports - and there's a good reason for this. It helps them substantially later in life.
Why shouldn't video games get the same treatment?
I’d say codling the younger generation to such an extreme degree can only set them up for failure. If they aren’t able to cope with random strangers spamming a crouch animation in a video game, especially to the extent that they need it to be removed, they may not be able to deal with all manner of things later in life.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2689428#Comment_2689428
Eh...
I'm an old fart and fondly remember the days before everything had automated matchmaking.
If people were BM back then, you could just write their ID down somewhere and just kick them from your lobby if they tried to join your games again or avoid their lobbies. Communities were self policing for the most part, whether it be at the individual level or server level. If you became widely known as a jerk, you'd struggle to find people willing to play with you. If you were known as a skilled, fun and mannered individual, your lobbies would fill instantly.
Now, there's zero accountability. I'm more worried about how kids are being conditioned to enjoy making others miserable with zero consequences.
It's essentially the Wild West versus modern times. In the Wild West, I couldn't go to the sheriff, but if I had a problem I had the...tools to fix it myself. Now I have to rely on the cops.
At the end of the day it’s a video game and we’re talking about things like spamming a crouch animation.
-
Didn’t it only just start? Pretty sure it’s still on.
-
As long as nobody calls them problematic or unhealthy we should be fine.
-
I don’t think you can loop vs a decent Artist. They just lock down the window/pallet.
I pretty much just pre drop, loops until they crow, hold W, run unpredictably to next tile etc.
-
Younger folk have been conditioned through social engineering to rely on the state to fix any uncomfortable feelings they may experience, instead of learning to deal with these feelings themselves.
This spills over into computer games, so when someone is teabagged, they expect the state (BHVR in this case) to fix the uncomfortable feeling for them.
A consequence of social media and political correctness gone mad.
-
Does this means we can get Deathslinger nerfed some more?
-survivor main
-
Where there is dogma, presence cannot thrive.
-
When I get angry messages I try to think of what I’ve learnt these last few years and it puts things into perspective. A couple of quotes come to mind:
Understand learning consists of chaos-driven reactions of potentiality. Interconnectedness means a flowering of the pranic.
Although you may not realize it, you are advanced. Reality has always been electrified with spiritual brothers and sisters whose dreams are engulfed in power. Walk with those seeking insight. Run from those who think they've found faith.
When I muse on these ideas I’m reminded that although the people involved are real entities, DBD is just a game, and I’d be remiss if were to allow some scoundrel playing said game to affect me in the real deal.
-
Selfishness is the antithesis of intuition.
Some survivors won’t admit that CoH is over-tuned because they enjoy the benefits it provides.
We must enlighten ourselves and enlighten others.
They should acknowledge the truth; CoH is busted. Only then may DBD transcend.
-
Survivor is too strong because killer is too weak. So people will say survivor take no skill. However, there are many potatoes in the sack.
It’s like my guru says:
The highest levels of performance come to people who are life-affirming, sublime, enlightened, and spiritual. People who know to see a problem as a resonance cascade.
In DBD, most survivors don’t even know what a resonance cascade is, so how are they supposed to play optimally? But it doesn’t change the fact that the game is balanced in their favour. Therefore, no respect.
-
@DeliciousFood said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2683021#Comment_2683021
Because comp =/= Public matches. Also they're not what the whiny and polarising forum spammers cry about. Comp is dumb and this game was never, nor will it ever be, made for any sort of competitive scene.
You are not facing comp players. You are facing the same casual turds Otz is stomping with every killer. The only variable is that most people are absolute scrubs next to Otz. Which is fair, he does this for a living and he's talented in mastering games and entering rigorous mindsets to achieve greatness in games he loves (Dark Souls for example). But ultimately he's proving that with skill, the 'sided' arguments just stem from people's shortcomings and putting the fault on the other side.
Though I won't deny the game's design is incredibly flawed.
You’re missing the point. At the highest level of play you get to see how the game really works; this is the case for every multiplayer game.
There’s a reason why out of 26 killers, only 3 or 4 can compete when everyone is playing optimally. That reason doesn’t just affect tournaments, and spills over into other skill levels, resulting in the feedback we see on the forums.
Yes, the feedback. Some of it whiny, sure. But much of it is constructive, and regardless of the emotional state of the author, said feedback is overwhelmingly consistent.
As for the video, there are many variables. It’s solo queue. Need I say more?
You’ve said yourself, Otz plays for a living. He’s talented in mastering games and entering rigorous mindsets to achieve greatness in games he loves.
A video showing him do well at the game he specialises in, whilst playing solo queue, only proves that his time has been well spent.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2680844#Comment_2680844
Sort of like when people say racial slurs to my family or tell ethnic jokes. They're just joking or that's how they speak. It means nothing unless I make it.
Or, instead of acting like terrible people, they could just not do things whose only purpose is to annoy and upset other people.
Comparing being teabagged in a video game to racism is a bit of a stretch.
Instead of making this about race you could just acknowledge that it’s a video game and they are random people spamming a crouch animation. They don’t know who you are or what you look like, it’s not personal, and the only power it has over you is the power you grant it.
Pretty much every multiplayer game has this kind of thing, and it’s not healthy to let it affect you like that.
-
Sadly it’s human nature to draw a line in the sand and pick a side; the killer vs survivor tribalism we see in DBD is a microcosm of society the world over.
We are all playing the same game, and we should be working together to improve the experience for both killers and survivors, but instead we dehumanise the “other side” because they’re not “one of us.”
Sound familiar? Just take a glance at the political landscape of the west. Human nature at work, whilst the puppeteers sit comfortably behind the scenes, pulling on strings.
No! We need to band together and bring our fight to the puppeteers, not to each other! The same goes for DBD. Yes. The evil geniuses at BHVR have had us under their spell of doom for far too long. Are you ready to wake up? Ready to fight for what’s yours? I am not your enemy. Take my hand. We will go to them, together, we will fight.
-
Otz has like 5k+ hours and is playing full-on tryhard with best in slot everything, vs randoms and casuals with random perks and items. Of course he’s going to win a lot. Just as any survivor streamer can escape over and over under the same conditions.
If the game is not survivor sided, why are only 3 of 26 killers able to compete in comp? Just bad luck?
-
The gap between solo queue and SWF must be bridged for killers to be buffed accordingly. The only viable option is to add comms and a ping system. Making info perks baseline will help but it’s a half measure.
-
Comms + a ping system need to be added, else these problems will persists no matter what.
-
@BaldursGate2 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2680126#Comment_2680126
That's a bad argument. If your boss screams at you, you could say, it's meaningless, it's just a job. If people beat up each other at a football game, you can say it's just a football game.
That's not just a computer game. It's like refuse a handshake from the loser and spitting in their face.
If ignoring would have any influence, there would be not daily complains from many users that are fed up with that bs. And they will give it back in the next game to the survs, and they give it back to the next killer. The only ones that can make the game less toxic are the devs.
Comparing being teabagged in a computer game to being in a fight or getting into trouble at your job is a bit silly.
They are just random strangers playing a video game. It means nothing unless you make it.
-
I think you should try to put this into perspective. It’s a computer game. They are random strangers spamming a crouch animation. It’s meaningless. You may feel uncomfortable, but you have the power to change how you react to it.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2679338#Comment_2679338
I really don't see the appeal for VHS personally. A lot of people don't like how in DBD that the killer can be bullied, but in VHS it's the objective to kill the killer and sometimes the killer has to run away. There isn't any significant difference between the development teams in my opinion. If VHS does succeed they'll no doubt start selling cosmetics and probably won't end up communicating as much, that's where DBD is at really because that's just how it is.
Well, each to their own. I’d say though, it’s difficult to be bullied in VHS because of how the game is designed. From the ground up, the devs have designed and balanced it to prevent bullying.
For example as a killer, if you hit one survivor, everyone nearby has their weapons locked for a few seconds, forcing them to run away and providing you with great pressure. I think this also resets any damage you’ve taken in the last x seconds.
You also have tools to avoid damage altogether, like Wart’s shield which absorbs weapon damage, or the werewolves howl which disables all weapons in an AoE.
There’s more to it than that but generally speaking, if you lose in VHS it’s not to some bully squad or unfair mechanic, but because of a mistake you made, that you can easily identify and say to yourself, ahhhhh that’s why I lost, ok I’ll do it differently this time.
The game really is extremely fair and balanced with much competitive potential.
EDIT: As to the devs, it’s early days but they seem to listen to the community and have already made changes based on feedback. I think the above shows they actually care about core issues with their game and dedicate resources to addressing said issues.
They also play obsessively and are some of the best players with thousands of hours, so they understand the ins and outs better than most, unlike the devs in DBD for example who play casually at a low level, making them rely on misleading data instead of objective reality.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2679413#Comment_2679413
I didn't say you're incorrect that SWF is a balance issue, I said you're incorrect that the devs not having voice chat built into the game is affecting their ability to gather data on it.
Also you're incorrectly assuming the devs are "balancing around solo". That's not the case, they're balancing based on how they internally play the game and the actual game data, both of which include many, many games that are on comms. The devs themselves regularly play on comms in fact, so why would you think that's not a factor when they're balancing things they're working on?
The issue with swfs isn't that the devs don't use comms (they do) and it's not that they don't have comms built into the game (because their test data already has lots and lots of games that have swfs on comms). It's that the fundamental advantages that comms give versus people that don't play on comms is difficult to actually work around unless they maybe had from the beginning gone into development with the eye toward having persistent buffs for solo players the people in swfs don't get to level the playing field. Without that many things they add to the game will have slightly disparate impacts on both solo and swf players that might be intractable - buff something that's weak for solo players and it becomes too strong for swfs, and vice versa if you nerf things that are too strong for swfs but not for solos.
So yes, they should address solo versus swf balance disparity, but adding comms to the game as a built in feature does absolutely nothing toward that end.
I never said the absence of voice chat prevents the devs from collecting data, but that it prevents them from balancing the game properly.
I’m not incorrectly assuming anything here. By the very nature of the power imbalance between solo and SWF, the devs cannot physically balance the game around one without it impacting the other and vice versa. There’s no getting around it.
Sure, they can try their best to compromise, but it’s impossible for balance to be consistent when there are two fundamentally opposed ways of playing the same game; two ways which inherently rely on different balancing approaches.
The devs themselves regularly play on comms in fact, so why would you think that's not a factor when they're balancing things they're working on?
Well I didn’t say it was not a factor. I said the devs balance the game around solo queue. They can of course take into account comms to the best of their ability, but that doesn’t mean they’d be balancing around comms, it simply means they’d try minimise the damage caused by such an inherent design conflict. A very hit or miss approach that misses the mark a majority of the time.
The issue with swfs isn't that the devs don't use comms (they do) and it's not that they don't have comms built into the game (because their test data already has lots and lots of games that have swfs on comms). It's that the fundamental advantages that comms give versus people that don't play on comms is difficult to actually work around unless they maybe had from the beginning gone into development with the eye toward having persistent buffs for solo players the people in swfs don't get to level the playing field.
I never said the devs don’t use comms. I’m sure they do but it’s sort of irrelevant.
Your conclusion here doesn’t really hold up for the reasons I’ve already stated. The advantages of comms are indeed difficult to work around but only if you don’t have comms as a default feature. With comms, it’s no longer an issue because there’s no longer a disparity.
You can’t adequately balance the game around two fundamentally opposed play styles when the difference in power between them is so drastic, and when the corresponding toolkits available to them are poles apart. Hence why DBD has such noticeable balance issues in the first place. There’s a reason for it. This is that reason.
Why do you think weak killers get nerfed instead of buffed? It’s because they’re too strong vs new/bad players, for there are no tools to facilitate team work in this teamwork oriented game. As a result, said killers are too weak vs everyone else and that’s mostly where they stay.
Adding comms as a game feature enables the devs to buff weak killers without negatively impacting solo queue. This is the key.
Without comms, killers have to be weak to compensate for the disorganised, inefficient and varied nature of solo queue. Without comms, the devs can seldom give them the tools required to compete vs efficient and/or organised survivors. That’s just the nature of it.
Sure, sometimes they get lucky and manage to strike a balance with one killer - I think we have what…3..maybe 4 examples? But this game has 26 killers. That’s a 11.54% success rate.
It’s a joke and needs to be addressed appropriately.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2679296#Comment_2679296
2) isn't correct. The devs themselves use third party comms when they play, so they also presumably use them for internal testing. And they can relatively safely assume that the great majority of swfs use their own comms, so any game data involving swfs also use comms. Therefore leaving comms out of DbD as a built in feature has no impact on how easy or hard it is to balance the game.
As far as 1) goes... 🤷♂️ I'm just passing on what I remember them saying in dev chat about it.
I’m correct. The power imbalance between solo queue and SWF is a game-breaking issue which negatively impacts balance on a fundamental level.
Buffing killers to compete vs comms would make them overpowered vs solo, therefore the devs are forced to balance around solo, which of course makes killers weak vs comms.
With comms as a default feature, this is no longer a problem and the devs can buff killers accordingly, giving them the tools required to compete vs comms without negatively impacting solo queue.
There’s a reason so many killers are so consistently dissatisfied with DBD and it’s not just people complaining for the sake of it. This negative reception is a growing trend that’s not going anywhere until the core issue is addressed.
-
Honestly, if you like the look of it, sign up for VHS beta. It’s different from DBD but it’s a vastly superior asymmetrical pvp game from a design and balance standpoint. The devs genuinely seem to care and have really thought everything through from the ground up. It’s also free to play and barely even has a grind, unlike DBD. The skins are cool too plus you have fun emotes like the thriller dance for werewolf.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2678138#Comment_2678138
The devs have said a few times they aren't going to add in-game voice chat for a couple of reasons.
- They don't want players who don't like voice chat to feel pressured to use it. That's also a reason they don't want to add localized chat where you can hear people near you in game.
- They feel that since there are decent free third party services like Discord available for people who do want to use voice chat there's not really a benefit for them to spend developmental resources adding it to the game.
That's not to say that there isn't a balance gap between solo survivors and survivors on comms, of course. And while it's rare the devs have at least once rebalanced something based on it overperforming in swfs (namely they revamped Object of Obsession because it was so powerful on groups using comms.) So it can happen that they take swfs into account on a balance pass, it's just not typically the main reason something gets adjusted. (Also the devs have implied that 2-person and 3-person swfs in particular don't have too big an edge over solos in the stats, it's something like a +3% escape rate for survivors per person beyond the first in a swf. So I don't think they consider it game breaking like some players do.)
Those are terrible reasons.
1) Voice chat would be optional and a ping system would be implemented for people who don’t want to use it. Easy solution.
2) Discord is not a part of DBD. Built in comms are required to be able to rebalance the game around them, which is a vital step to fix the colossal balance issues that would otherwise never go away.
Relying on third party services like discord simply leaves the game fundamentally broken as the devs can only balance around solo queue, meaning killers have to be weak, making them terrible vs people who do choose to use comms.
So the devs’ rationale for not having comms amounts to a misunderstanding of how their game works on a fundamental level, and catering to an extreme minority of players at the expense of not only everyone else, but the balance of the game as a whole.
Not surprising to hear at all.
-
Survivor has a fair bit of down time. Back when I wanted to main killer, I would always play survivor whenever I wanted to drink a coffee and smoke a ciggi whilst playing. Just sit on the gen and chill innit.
-
Not only is the game survivor sided, with killers being intentionally weak to balance for solo queue, and not only is killer QoL in the gutter, with weak killers being nerfed and others made to feel clunky, but even when things are going well and you’re winning, many killers just aren’t that fun for a sizeable % of the playerbase.
If you think about it, playing many killers is akin to a running simulator where you’re intermittently stunned and that’s about it. You run along, chasing someone who’s just out of reach. Then you break a pallet, essentially being stunned, and run along again. Then you hit the survivor, essentially being stunned as they whizz away, then you run along again. This time you get hit by the pallet and are stunned, then you break it, stunned again, then you run some more. You hit the survivor again, they go down, and you are stunned as you pick them up, and again as you out put them on hook. It’s just a whole lot of running and being stunned with no satisfying upside.
Even the mind games are sort of boring busywork. You win the mind game and watch as the survivor whizzes away. Your reward? More running along, more pallets, more windows. If the survivor wins it’s far more satisfying as they get rewarded with more looping which is actually the most fun thing fun for them.
Then you add to that the balance issues, the bugs, so on so forth. Fun times! 😂
-
Not a chance.
Stagnation. Minimal content development. Constant bugs, some of which never get fixed. Outdated and amateurish balancing and design philosophy. Failure to acknowledge or address core design issues. Broken game on console for years. Greed. Lack of respect for playerbase. The list goes on.
I still play the game, albeit not too often, but that’s only because there’s no viable alternative and it has great potential. Once VHS is out I’ll be spending most of my gaming time there. I’ll still check back occasionally as DBD is unique, no matter how flawed.
-
I think it boils down to mental gymnastics. Most SWF like to think they are highly skilled individuals, thus they feel the need to lie to themselves, pretending they aren’t in a SWF, and eventually believing their own lies. In their heads, they are genuinely playing solo.
-
Power imbalance between solo + SWF.
-
Engineer’s Fang was of course fine.
Did it make Pinhead OP? No. So what’s the issue?
Did it make him strong? Yes. That’s sort of the point.
Contrary to what the devs and many survivor mains seem to think, there’s nothing wrong with at least some killers being strong, even if they have to use an iridescent addon.
This game has what, 26 killers? Yet only 3 or 4 of them at best are able to compete vs skilled survivors. We are told this is acceptable. Frankly it’s pitiful.
Any time another killer gets close to that level, they are nerfed. There’s no getting around it. DBD is undeniably survivor sided, and survivors are overwhelmingly coddled by the devs. If you don’t know how to play vs a killer, like Wraith for example, they are nerfed so that your ability to play the game is no longer a factor.
I’ve yet to see one vaguely convincing argument for why the addon should have been nerfed.
It shifts his power too much? What does that even mean? Seems like another way of saying, it makes him stronger. Well yes. That’s the idea. What’s the issue?
It allows him to injure at range? Yea. That’s the idea. What’s the issue?
It makes him an S tier killer. Alright. If using an iridescent, the game now has three S tier killers out of 26 killers. What’s the issue? S tier killers are simply able to compete or come close to competing on par with survivors. Sounds like we need more of them, not less?
No. Engineers Fang was nerfed for the same reason everything on the killer side gets nerfed. Entitled survivors mains complaining because they don’t want to have to actually play the game, learn, improve, etc. They just want easy escapes and they only care that the game is fun or rewarding for them specifically, and the devs seem to overwhelmingly agree.
-
Because DBD doesn’t have built in comms or a ping system, despite being teamwork intensive, killers have to be balanced for solo queue, which is of course disorganised, inefficient and consists of varied skill levels. Thus, killers have to be weak.
Any killer, with very few exceptions, will be nerfed whenever it comes close to a competitive level, else it’ll be overbearing for solo survivors. This of course makes killers underpowered vs anyone on comms, which is a notable % of the playerbase.
It’s game breaking issue that seeps into every aspect of balance, but even after all these years the devs refuse to address it. Inexplicable, but it is what it is.