Entità
Entità
About
- Username
- Entità
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,644
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Aerys said:
Brown Mori: Grants the ability to kill the last Survivor, who has been hooked once, by your hand during the next trial.Yellow Mori: Grants the ability to kill one Survivor, who has been hooked once, by your hand during the next trial.
Green Mori: Grants the ability to kill two Survivors, who have been hooked once, by your hand during the next trial.
Purple Mori: Grants the ability to kill three Survivors, who have been hooked once, by your hand during the next trial.
Pink Mori: Grants the ability to kill all Survivors, who have been hooked once, by your hand during the next trial.
At least then it'd be up in the air as to which Mori you know the Killer is running and how much "OH NO" you have to be once he doesn't kill the first person down or hooks the second person. That said, they should all be relatively rare even for their respective rarities.
Uhm... interesting! I like that well-ordered progression. The Devs should only check if it's balanced or not, maybe some survivors' offerings could be buffed in return.
-
@Zarathos Specific items, add-ons and offerings are not rewards for a good trial: if they will become so, then the change must concern both the killer and the survivors.
-
There is no possible programming solution to unsafe unhooking: people should be wise and correct with their mates.
-
Don't you have any idea about these or other perks/offerings?
-
Please, subscribe this petition!
-
Don't you agree another range-attack killer should be implemented?
-
I'm surprised that such a proposal is ignored by people who complaint killers are too disadvantaged.
-
@Master That's my point.Entità said:@se05239 Yes, some people told me the history. I don't agree that people hooked for the first time are deprived of their three attempts to unhook themselves, while second phase is only a waste of time. If Devs don't want to restore the first phase, at least they should give the last survivor the full struggling points.
-
@se05239 Yes, some people told me the history. I don't agree that people hooked for the first time are deprived of their three attempts to unhook themselves, while second phase is only a waste of time. If Devs don't want to restore the first phase, at least they should give the last survivor the full struggling points.
-
@Peanits Don't you think the last survivor, immediately sacrificed, deserves at least the full struggling points? I understand, even without agreeing, that the Devs want a speedy endgame, so the last survivor, even if hooked for the first time, has to die, but why are they deprived of their points?
-
Prove Thyself: is there anyone who still use it?It may be reworked like this:PROVE THYSELF: Place a bet with the Entity: at the end of the trial, if you score the maximum bloodpoints allowed in one or more categories, then you get a 33/67/100% bonus on the total bloodpoints; otherwise, the bloodpoints earned in the best two categories will be spent to placate its wrath.
-
It's not probable the Devs will preserve DS nature or strengthen its power with a premature skill check: too many complaints of unbalance. I wrote six possible transformations of this perk here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/30297/decisive-strike-possible-changes-reworks
-
It's true, solo players have an awful disadvantage, compared to SWF. I agree on the Kindred 2 and the ability to see the mates' equipment before the start of the trial, while I do not think it is essential to see the number of totems left, especially if this is balanced by doubling them.
The doubling of the totems is one of the many forms of balancing that I suggested in proposing the Six perks system (https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/28160/six-perks-system), but it seems to me decidedly excessive in this case: one or two more totems, at most.
-
@Kaelum No. Once a killer wrote me "Farming", once a survivor advised me they were trying to get the trophy of the hatch (which is bugged).
-
Regarding toxicity I opened a thread to collect everyone's contributions and reach a shared solution: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/28414/lets-speak-clearly-of-toxicity-from-definitions-to-remedies
About SWF, it's impossible to prevent people from chatting and speaking with other players, in my opinion.
-
@Utna I agree with a Casual Game mode, without any rank, but I find improbable the power to block other players will be implemented.
@Just_SayanMC Thank you for giving your definition of "toxicity". What's your idea about my analysis on the possible causes and solutions to toxicity, that I wrote above?
-
In parties, a survivor killed or escaped can read killer's perks, add-ons and offerings and inform their mates, and it's not fair... The solution is not quite simple, because parties run on PS4 servers, not Behaviour's, but if some survivors entered the lobby in SWF mode, it's probable that they have a party, so they should be prevented to read the killer's equipment until the end of the trial.
It's not necessary that other survivors, who have not used SWF mode, are subject to this restriction.
-
Provided that the hatch is not a free escape, because you must find it without been downed by the killer before, I'd do some changes.
In my opinion, the Black Gen should:
1) make the hatch appear, not open it;
2) be equal to the others in the eyes of the killer: only the survivors could notice the difference (they see its black Aura and have a special symbol of its full repair in the HUD);
3) not contribute to the opening of the exit gates.Then, the hatch appears when one of the following conditions is met:
A) the exit gates are powered;
a number of generators equal to the number of survivors and the Black Gen have been repaired (same number now, but less convenient, because the Black Gen does not power the gates, thus remaining a secondary objective, which drains time to the survivors). -
I agree. Resilience should affect all actions: if you play injured, you face a remarkable risk and deserve a powerful perk.
-
The hatch should be reworked, otherwise the endgame with one survivor left behind can be problematic. This is what happens: survivor reaches the hatch, they don't jump, the killer doesn't hit them, they indicate the killer to go away with their arm, the killer answers NO by moving their body left and right, teabag, false attack and the dancing event goes on until somebody needs going to the bathroom and let the opponent win! It lacks of decency, destroys the atmosphere of the game: a real stalemate!
I wrote a lot of proposals to guarantee an adventurous endgame:
1) if the killer is allowed to close the hatch and does so, then:
1A) another one spawns elsewhere;
1B) the gates are powered;
1C) a chest with a Mist Key inside spawns somewhere;
2) there can be two hatches:
2A) the hatches open alternatively according to casual timers;
2B) if the killer closes the first, the second opens;
2C) if the killer closes the second, the first reopens;
3) when the killer and the last survivor stay near the hatch more than X seconds, then:
3A) the Entity comes from the sky to refresh the map, putting the killer, the survivor and the hatch in new positions, far at least 48 meters from each other;
3B) the killer can mori the survivor and the survivor can escape without being grabbed: the quickest or smartest player wins;
3C) the game ends with the victory of the player with the worse rank (because they have been able to draw against a better opponent).About Decisive Strike, my idea is simple: it shall not be an obsession perk, but you cannot use it until you perform a safe rescue (like Deliverance).
-
The primary purpose of No Mither is to fully recover from the dying state, so the necessary correction before any other consideration is that the survivor starts the game healthy, but cannot be cured if injured: if the killer meets for the first time a survivor already wounded, they have the mathematical proof that he is using No Mither and will NEVER leave him to bleed on the ground. Therefore the perk becomes radically useless, because it is recognizable at first sight.
This done, eliminating scratches while running is a major advantage, so I would balance with the removal of attenuated moans: the wounded moans normally and, if they want silence, must match No Mither and Iron Will.
-
@Nickenzie Considering that being injured and hooked is in the physiology of the game for a survivor (as for the killer it is to chase and hook their victims), a progressive penalty would be tantamount to a death sentence.
I could look with benevolent critical spirit that the injury causes a 10% penalty on the actions of repair, sabotage, cleansing, searching (not on vaults or movement), but considering that being injured is almost inevitable and already produces bleeding and moans of pain, the compensations must be strong, since you force the survivors to use a perk for a basic mechanics:
RESILIENCE: Immunity to penalty and speed increase of 10/15/20%
NO MITHER: You start the game in good health, you cannot be cured if hurt, do not bleed, do not cry and the penalty is halved.
THIS IS NOT HAPPENING: You perform at your best when you are under extreme stress. When injured, great skill check success zones are increased by 100% and good skill check success zones are reduced by 33% (the total success zone should remain the same, but with a bigger great area and a smaller good one).@Peanits Could it be a well balanced change, according to your point of view?
-
I think BBQ is well balanced, a fair perk.
-
@apropos I asked you to read the other answers because you could find interesting developments about how to balance the effects of such a reform, while the mathematical aspect, which I see very dear to you, is no longer treated in my other posts: no lack of respect towards you, you are biased. It is a calculation that does not take into account some variables, it is only a gross simplification: in particular, the combinations of the same perks in different order are counted repeatedly, it is assumed that all the slots are used and that all perks are at tier 3. Obviously, the result is inaccurate, I said it to @Crizpen and I repeat it to you: it only serves to trivially make the idea. What is the usefulness, in front of the Community, of irony about semesters and probability courses, instead of spending your knowledge in depth to redo the calculation in the exact and most complex manner? No objection in this regard.
Secondly, the focal point of the discussion is not the calculation, which intervenes only later and that you are free to redo with the appropriate algorithm: what I fight for is that there is a strategic variability proportionate to the immense increase of characters and perks, and the main objection that has been raised is that the killer would be too disadvantaged with 6 perks against 24. So, the heart of the discussion, which you refuse to read, concerns just the possible balancing, and I have proposed some:
1) the totems can be increased or even doubled, if needed;
2) about secondary objectives, my ideas are specifically explained in https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/27565/secondary-objective-shrines-to-the-entity;
3) to strenghten killer perks and add-ons (which ones do you consider ineffective or too weak?);
4) to add 15 seconds per gen or a sixth gen;
5) to change some maps' design, so that there are less loops, more mind games, more hidden totems;
6) to eliminate one of the two gates, replacing it with the automatic opening of the hatch, or to lengthen the opening time of the gates;
7) to increase considerably the number of crows or their sensitivity;
8) two or more of the previous corrections.On these aspects, your contribution is welcome and solicited with sincerity. Instead, you are not entitled to judge the enthusiasm with which I support my ideas and stimulate the collective debate, from which I trust they can always be improved, enriched and modified, or to give me lessons on how I should react to the objections of others: respect for the person of others is sacrosanct, the abjuration of one's own ideas to favor those of others is not at all due.
-
It's not a bad idea, you know? The player who faces the challenge without any equipment (no items, no add-ons, no offerings, no perks) cannot rely on anything other than their talent, thus accepting a very high risk and acquiring a remarkable mastery of the game mechanics.
Considering the difference between Solo Survivor and SWF and that the killer always enjoys their power, while the survivor is required to renounce even the most miserable item, I consider it fair that:
1) the solo survivor achieves the quadruple;
2) the killer gets the triple;
3) the SWF survivor gains the double.@not_Queen @Patricia @Peanits @Suggestive Would not it be great to favor this daring challenge, to push players towards excellence?
-
@d3ftc0n Think about it, if the killers face long queues, it means that the number of survivors is insufficient to cover the demand, that is, less than four times the waiting killers, so the role of the survivor must be incentivized with increases in BP.
-
@Milo That matter concerns bloodpoints gain, and I agree survivors should deserve something more than now, not to be forced to play killers to level up.
-
@apropos 1) The most expense that a killer sustains compared to a survivor oscillates in the range 0-15,000 BP, corresponding to the two extreme cases of a killer who does not consume anything and a killer who uses two ultra-rare add-ons (always lost at the end of the trial, regardless of the result; while survivors can take away their items and add-ons by escaping: 14,000 BP) and an ultra rare offering (worth 1,000 BP, that is the price difference between an ultra rare offering with a very rare, the most expensive one available for survivors: read 2)).2) The relevant point is that offerings are lost for both roles when you burn them: no extra expense for the killer (except the price difference said above).3) Not enough to rebalance the score: the best game for a killer is still worth at least 25,000 BP more than the best game for a survivor: the endgame screens testify. I do not want to take anything away from the killers, but add something to the survivors, for example in the Survival category (there are some threads in this regard).5) You have superficially liquidated the role of the survivor, so I explained to you that it is not so: if there was arrogance, not from me (I have the utmost respect for the role of the killer, I would never dream of trivialize): I accept all the killers, you accept Claudette, you cannot choose the opponent.4) 6) The emblems are distinguished from the bloodpoints, they influence the rank, not the purchasing power in the Bloodweb: if something is wrong with the emblems, open a thread to report the problem: maybe I will agree with you.
-
@apropos As I wrote to @Crizpen, it was a quick calculation, which does not take into account the permutation of the same perks in slots nor the possibility, far from hypothetical, that a player will equip less than 4 or less than 6 perks, because they do not have still unlocked all the slots or have recently prestiged the character. It was not intended as an exact computation: it does not make sense to clog the forum with formulas of combinatorial calculation.Read my other replies to other players, please: the thread has an evolution during the exchange of arguments among users, new ideas have been added, new balance solutions have been written.
-
@not_Queen @Patricia @Peanits @Suggestive Could not some experimentation be launched among volunteer players, with a special beta version? It should not be difficult, at the programming level, to swap the shape of the icon between perks and offerings and add two perk slots, after which the volunteers will be able to test the impact on the game and suggest collegially the appropriate balances. The investment of time and money to implement these two initial changes would be minimal, symbolic: the community could become the protagonist with numerous motivated feedback, according to which the developers can decide to make some balance or to set aside the project.
-
My proposal simply takes into account the evolution of the game: there are many things worse than Cypress or Ivory Memento Moris, right now.
-
An algorithm that weighed the equipment of each player to direct the RNG to one faction or the other would be the supreme justice that comes down from the realm of the Entity to that of the poor mortals, but probably a very difficult challenge for developers (there is an inevitably subjective, arbitrary component in attributing a given weight to each item, add-on, offering or perk in an algorithm). I certainly agree, if they accept the task.
-
@ReneAensland @SasukeKun The perks are designed to make the difference: if you decide to invest a slot on a perk, this must give you a real usefulness in the game, otherwise nobody uses it and becomes nothing more than a sequence of wasted program lines. I do not context NOED, Devour Hope, Make your Choice and so on: they have a meaning, a purpose, they are not mere little drawings in the HUD. Why does my Boil Over worry you so much? It does not give any certainty to escape from the killer's grasp: it takes only a few seconds, offering an opportunity, as Lithe and Sprint Burst grant a short shot, without guaranteeing any safe escape.
-
@DocOctober Exactly, it is a rarity system that existed from the beginning, which has always given excellent proof of itself, and which has been hastily "shredded" just to cope with a serious unexpected bug, which required an urgent remedy: now it is time to give back to the perks the set up that they have always had and restore, thus, a consistency in the management of items, add-ons, offerings and perks, while currently the latter, which more than any other resource have a structural need to be classified into five levels of rarity, do not receive the appropriate treatment, resulting in imbalance and "chromatic" anomaly of the game.
-
@Aerys I wrote a proposal about WGLF:
1) every altruistic action (healing, unhooking, bodyblocking, freeing from killer's grasp...) are stackable, without changing the bonus nor the maximum;
OR
2) every stack grants 37,5% extra BP, within a maximum of 150%, but perk mechanics are preserved (only unhooking and bodyblocking stack).
Instead, BBQ doesn't need any buff nor nerf: it's balanced.
What do you think?Of course, there is another solution, suggested by @Peanits: "Remove BP from WGLF and BBQ. Make them baseline. Give WGLF a new effect. BBQ is a perfectly good perk as is, putting bloodpoints on it just makes it super meta. This gives people the freedom to switch up their loadouts without sacrificing bloodpoints.", and I personally agree.
-
@Master said:
@Entità said:
@Master Yes, you're right: killers have to spend a sum every game, but there is no proportion between the greater gain and the greater expenses. Let's assume a killer uses two very rare add-ons per trial on average (and it is definitely false due to excess): then, they need 12,000 extra BPs, in theory, but in practice a good killer totals 40,000-50,000 bloodpoints against 15,000-25,000 of a good survivor, that is 25,000 extra BPs, i.e. the double of what they should deserve in the optimistic hypothesis (often false) of two so precious add-ons burnt every time. I don't want to subtract even one point to killers (the idea of punishing them simply doesn't belong to my mind), but survivors' reward must be quickly increased of at least 10,000 BP on average.@not_Queen @Patricia @Peanits @Suggestive Dear Devs, please rework survivors' endgame compensation, to make it mathematically fair.
You forgot to take into accoutn WGLF, apprently you took BBQ into accoutn though?
ALso you shouldnt forget that you have to spend a lot of excess BP for useless stuff in order to get the good addons
Read my reply immediately before this one of yours.
@Peanits I'll repost here an argument written in a separated thread. Each survivor gains bloodpoints among four categories: Objectives, Survival, Altruism and Boldness. While there are numerous actions that give the score to the other categories, the Survival does not take into account the time for which the survivor managed to escape death: for example, a poor player, who is hooked three times in the first five minutes of play, gains, due to the struggling phase, more points in Survival of those who remained unharmed for a quarter of an hour and finally were "electrocuted" in front of the exit gate with Rancor. Do not you find it appropriate that a parameter referable to the time of survival contributes to the final score in this category? Of course, no more points should be granted after the gates have been powered or the hatch opens.
Also, as you mentioned with the example of Hillbilly, each failed hit by the killer could give a fair amount of points in Survival to the survivor able to dodge it. -
@Master I talk about extra bonuses: no one should be deprived of the usual XP.
-
@apropos said:
@Entità said:
@Master Yes, you're right: killers have to spend a sum every game, but there is no proportion between the greater gain and the greater expenses. Let's assume a killer uses two very rare add-ons per trial on average (and it is definitely false due to excess): then, they need 12,000 extra BPs, in theory, but in practice a good killer totals 40,000-50,000 bloodpoints against 15,000-25,000 of a good survivor, that is 25,000 extra BPs, i.e. the double of what they should deserve in the optimistic hypothesis (often false) of two so precious add-ons burnt every time. I don't want to subtract even one point to killers (the idea of punishing them simply doesn't belong to my mind), but survivors' reward must be quickly increased of at least 10,000 BP on average.Killers spend anywhere from 9k to 21k per trial, every trial except for in the low ranks; you're forgetting about offerings. Sometimes we can use wards that allow us to keep our addons, so we make out only spending 6k, at the cost of not using another offering.
Whereas, survivors can leave with items they didn't enter with, which is equitable to receiving blood points. So with ace in the hole III, a surv could walk out of the trial with a purple toolbox and a yellow addon, about 10k BPs.
Killers leaving with 50k BP is not a common occurrence. It's just nonsense. You're talking about a small population of people that can achieve that every trial, it's hardly the norm, or something to base a major change off of.
Survivors don't have to work as hard as the killer, some claudettes go the whole trial without being seen. Easy peasy; bonus if you grabbed an item on the way out too.
Also, when the survs are genrushing, a killer without ruin is screwed as damaging gens doesn't pay off without nurse or billy.
Killers rarely get the whole 5k points for sacrificing everyone, normally its 2500. Survivors get 5k for walking out the god damned door.
Let's go with order:
1) it is materially impossible that a killer spends 21,000 BP per trial, it would require to burn two ultra rare add-ons and an ultra rare offering every time, that is to obtain at least three ultra rare resources for each game in order not to exhaust their own stocks (moreover, I doubt that there are two ultra rare add-ons for each killer);
2) offerings are consumed at the end of the game for both survivors and killers, so it is a common mechanism, there is no extra expense;
3) the survivors can escape with objects found in the map, but what are the average percentages of escape (and escape with valuable objects) for a survivor? Certainly not 100%, otherwise the killers would always be losers, right?
4) the killer running BBQ almost always gets four stacks, therefore doubles the points, while WGLF is not so effective in guaranteeing the bonuses (but there are dozens of threads on the subject, there is no need to repeat here);
5) not being seen is a merit, not a fault: it means to equip yourself with perks appropriate to slip away in time, and maintain a constant tension and high attention and, of course, work (stealth does not mean closing in a locker for the whole duration of the trial, but move generator to generator, save the companions and reach the gates or the hatch; in addition, the killer saves time to chase them: do you prefer a runner who keeps you busy for two minutes?);
6) genrushing is a legitimate strategy like camping and tunneling, annoying but not prohibited: it is normal that the opponent does everything possible to win, it is the essence of the challenge, this; if you don't run Ruin, it's your choice, not a game imbalance.@ Se05239 Waiting times are hateful and I hope developers will quickly find appropriate remedies, but all these incentives to play as killer exacerbate the problem: they need 20% killers and 80% survivors, so if anything, it's the second role to be encouraged.
-
Don't you think anything? XD
-
Who recognises the problem, but disagrees about the solution, can explain their own alternative adjustment, of course.
-
I would like to publicly thank @Peanits for his kind and accurate explanation. Your game is better than it appears!
-
-
@tizzi717 I'll tell you, I play at least 60% of games as a survivor and, when I see the killer's secret offering, I think of Devour Hope, Rancor, Judith's Tombstone, and after all I breathe a sigh of relief that the killer burnt a Memento Mori, probably of Cypress or Ivory, one the bad copy of the other. I'm not frightened, my playstyle doesn't change at all.
I am probably one of the few in here who does not speak for personal interest: I am a perfectionist idealist and my contributions are oriented towards improving the game itself, because I like it so much and I want to see it shine over the years.
-
@Master Yes, you're right: killers have to spend a sum every game, but there is no proportion between the greater gain and the greater expenses. Let's assume a killer uses two very rare add-ons per trial on average (and it is definitely false due to excess): then, they need 12,000 extra BPs, in theory, but in practice a good killer totals 40,000-50,000 bloodpoints against 15,000-25,000 of a good survivor, that is 25,000 extra BPs, i.e. the double of what they should deserve in the optimistic hypothesis (often false) of two so precious add-ons burnt every time. I don't want to subtract even one point to killers (the idea of punishing them simply doesn't belong to my mind), but survivors' reward must be quickly increased of at least 10,000 BP on average.@not_Queen @Patricia @Peanits @Suggestive Dear Devs, please rework survivors' endgame compensation, to make it mathematically fair.
-
Every game has a different result: I see both 4k and one or (seldom) two people escaped. The map, the players' style, the perk and item combinations make the difference.
-
@Master @Wolf74 My post's meaning is that people cannot be condemned to certain defeats, because they have no friends to play with, provided that no clauses compel players to make parties, so the game must be balanced for solo players, who paid to have fun not less than SWF players. Pardon, but how could I communicate with French, German, Turkish or Chinese players? O.o
-
@Master I don't know where you take these stats, but let's just assume you're right: nevertheless, who buys the game has the full right to use it even alone, in the license agreement there is no clause that without a group of friends it is unplayable, so each player deserves to be able to take advantage of the product they purchased with their own money, both with and without friends.
-
I relaunch this passionate petition, very simple to implement, right in principle and in practice, aesthetically beautiful, which is very close to my heart.
-
@Master The SWF is almost unsolvable. Here Devs must make a choice: what is better, to balance the game at SWF level, condemning solo survivors to a certain, systematic defeat, or to balance the game at Solo Survivors level, condemning killers to very hard trials against SWF teams? Is it more likely that a player survives alone or with friends? In my opinion, the answer is obvious: solo games are the vast majority, because it is not probable that friends share the same tastes in terms of videogames or have the same rhythms and hours of free time. In my experience, when I play as a survivor, in the 90% of the games I'm a Solo Survivor, in the remaining 10% I play in SWF parties.
-
@Whispers23 @SnakeSound222 I am a perfectionist: to see that progression "1 (last), 1 (anyone), 4" gives me a sense of showy imbalance, while "1, 2, 4" is much more mathematically elegant and concretely useful.