Fibijean
Fibijean
About
- Username
- Fibijean
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
I couldn't comment on the killer portion, since I don't play it enough, but the survivor side seems to be based around a view that the current system is too difficult. In my experience, the opposite is true - ranking up as survivor is already way too easy for anyone who plays the game decently often and isn't terrible, and needs to be made more challenging.
-
I've only played Clown once, during his PTB, but I would guess the strategy is in deciding when and where to throw your bottles in order to force survivors to run a particular direction. Theoretically, they would want to dodge the bottles because running into one is almost a guaranteed hit, so you can use it to control their movements during a chase.
-
@NoShinyPony said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/665789#Comment_665789
From time to time, I have matches where only 2 survivors are alive with still 2 or 3 gens left to be done. The survivors know at that point that chances to get all gens repaired are super slim. And now in some cases, both survivors stop working entirely and just wait for the other person to die so they have a chance at the hatch.
In that scenario, when I play a killer with a normal terror radius without the help of tracking perk, I won't find a survivor hiding randomly on the map.
This is hostage-taking by the survivors and we need a solution for this.
Perhaps. I was under the impression that OP was suggesting that sometimes survivors enter matches with the single-minded intention of doing nothing for 20 minutes but hiding, without completing any objectives, just to irritate the killer. No one does that.
But even so, the situation you're describing is not taking the game hostage. It's only taking the game hostage if there is literally nothing you can do except DC. In this situation, there is something you can do - find the survivors. They're not invisible, and they're not faster than you. I'm sorry to be that guy going "git gud" but honestly, it's not the game's fault if you're not skilled enough to outmaneuver your opponents.
-
@Boss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/665789#Comment_665789
This comment's first half is based on a a false fact: They don't want to sit around doing nothing?
Cause that's incorrect, both sides sometimes simply want to "bully" the other side by stretching out the game's length.
Not seeing why they would do that doesn't mean they won't do that.
It also does not affect the regular matches one bit, as that's simply not how long regular matches last.
It's purely to remove the potential of taking a match hostage.
Sorry, I should have made myself clearer, but I didn't want the comment to be too long. It's not based on a "false fact" but rather a general understanding of human nature. What I should have said was, they don't want to sit around doing nothing because there's nothing in it for them. Not only is it wasting their time as much as it's wasting yours, but they're not having any more fun than you are.
Killers and survivors bully each other because they find it fun and they don't care if the other person does or not. Survivors do not find sitting behind a bush for 20 minutes fun - as a stealth-based survivor main, I can personally attest to this. Evading the killer is fun. Sitting in one spot or crouching around the map doing nothing but walking and waiting forever is not fun. People don't bully other people if there's nothing in it for them. That's just not how human psychology works.
-
Even if the killer is so bad and the survivors so good at stealth that no one ever gets found (which I have never seen happen), survivors don't want to be sitting around doing nothing any more than you do. They're playing the game because they want to do gens and escape. Just because they're not genrushing doesn't mean they're holding the game hostage. They're either going around doing other objectives, in which case you should have plenty of chances to catch them, or they're focusing completely on being immersed and not doing anything, but that's super boring for everyone and I don't see why they would do that. I just don't see any rational incentive for what you're describing to ever take place, and if it does, it's so extremely rarely that it doesn't need fixing. Worst case scenario, maybe one game in 5000, you're forced to disconnect and report them.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
While playing with a poor connection isn't bannable, it's very unfair and frustrating from the survivor's side of things. Also note that it's hard to tell between lag switching and just lag from the survivor's perspectives. All they see is that they may be in a chase and suddenly they get downed and then teleported 40 meters away from where they actually were.
If it happens often, then you probably shouldn't be playing killer, or at the very least, try to not use the lag to your advantage (if you're lagging, let the survivor go).
Not required of course, but it'll at least make it look a lot less like you're lag switching if you're not taking advantage of said lag when it happens.
When a killer's internet suddenly starts playing up in the middle of a game, that can be frustrating, but if a killer just has consistently bad net I think that's fine, they just might have trouble getting games. Speaking as a 98% survivor main, whenever I do play killer, if my internet is playing up going in I don't worry about it because the survivors can see the ping in the lobby. They knew what they were getting into.
-
Most survivors don't even know what lag switching is or what it looks like. Some just like to cry lag or hacks as soon as they come across something that feels unfair to them. I have a friend like that, and I couldn't tell you the amount of times we've had this conversation: "omg this killer is lag switching 100%" "nah mate my game is fine, your internet is just crap". In other words, some survivors are just way too quick to accuse the killer of cheating when something goes wrong. And, like HeyItsNick said above, the devs review accusations like that very carefully before picking up the ban hammer, so if you're not lag switching you've got nothing to worry about.
TL;DR ignore them.
-
@Cornix5 said:
Fix the glitch where survivors can stop and start to power through it. That is the only change ruin needs. I'm killer only and even I think ruin is good as is as long as survivors don't glitch through it.
I don't think that's a glitch. At least I'd like to think it's not, since there are a couple of good reasons not to "fix" it. First, tapping gens constantly makes progress go a lot more slowly than normal, so it's not like ruin just has no effect. Second, the mechanic that allows survivors to do that is the same one that stops survivors from failing skill checks for no reason if a skill check pops up in the split second after they let go of a generator or stop healing.
-
If you mean the tags that the post creator can use, like tagging with a particular killer or platform, those are like hashtags, just to help people find posts related to a particular topic.
If you mean when you view the list of discussions and it has coloured boxes saying "mod" or "dev", that just means that a mod or developer has commented on that post.
-
I haven't played it a whole lot, but from what I could tell it depends very much on what you're looking for. If the idea of a game which is more fast paced than DBD, more battle arena style (I got a distinct Hunger Games vibe from it) appeals to you, then Deathgarden is for you, but if you prefer atmospheric stealth games, it might not be.
-
I feel like it's a bit of a lose-lose for the devs in some ways when it comes to band-aids. On the one hand, if they don't fix things because they don't have the time or resources to devote to fixing it properly, the community starts saying "Come on devs, at least do something, even if it's just a quick temporary fix".
So they implement a quick temporary fix to keep people happy, but they're still unable to implement a proper permanent solution so after a while people start complaining that the quick fix didn't work very well, or created some other problem.
But most likely, the whole reason they were reluctant to implement a quick fix in the first place is because the very nature of quick fixes basically guarantees that more problems will be created. So it just ends up being one big cycle of dissatisfaction.
-
@Derp said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/665314#Comment_665314
So you're calling us stupid for not understanding what your post is saying? I mean, aside from the bad English, you didn't even explain anything in detail and why it should be implemented.
Yes, people who don't understand a language they don't speak are clearly idiots.
-
@chieftaco said:
i like how everyone wants to, but nobody wants to be the first to do it..
why straw poll? why not discuss pros/cons?
personally i ALWAYS cleanse. i want plague to have red vomit and here's why:
with green vomit, she runs around infecting everything and everybody. the things become stinky and gross and will infect anything that comes in contact with whatever is infected.
if it's a person, they become broken and lose the ability to take a hit from the killer, making them completely useless. when they are downed and hung, they hang there infected, and i have to go rescue them, getting myself infected (stinky, noisy, visually easier to see, soon to be 1-hit down), and they are broken so i can't even get any altruism from them.. altruism (healing others) is 25% of my score.. without that i have to max all 3 other categories just to get a 75% score..
when people cleanse and give the plague red vomit, sure she has ranged attacks but you have to get hit twice. i'm not sure why people try to constantly run away from a killer with ranged attacks, but they do.. if they would invest a little time instead in learning the size of the object you need to loop around for her to not be able to hit them with the vomit when she tries, she would run out of red vomit before being able to down them..
when they do get downed by red vomit and they get hooked, after unhooking them i get to get altruism, and so do other teammates that are smart enough to come "get it while the getting is good..". i also don't automatically get infected, so after healing, the newly formed "group" of people who can all take 2 hits if needed can then work together on getting things done instead of having to focus so hard on hiding because they're broken.
remember if survivors are as good as they think they are, 8 hooks can take place in a match before anyone ever dies.. who cares if you get downed and put on a hook? the game is not a 1v1 game, even tho a lot of people like to pretend it is, which is why people are usually dead by the time a killer has 1-3 hooks in a game instead of closer to 8..
I support the strawpoll idea partly because, as OP said, it gives us the actual data on what people think, but also mostly because it's not just rehashing old topics from a few days or weeks ago, which happens far too much on these forums.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/83574/the-plague-to-cleanse-or-not-to-cleanse/p1
-
@prettyf said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/664607#Comment_664607
least you had "some" intelligent there
got something from non english level sentence
still lack of intuition though
That's a bit rude. I understand it's not your native language and you did your best, but it's not the reader's fault for having a "lack of intuition" or not being intelligent enough if it doesn't make any sense to native speakers, especially when they've put in the effort to try to understand it as several people above have. Most people just apologise for the difficulty and do their best to rephrase their point.
-
It is quite cruel, as DudeDelicious said, but unless she let someone else get away and not you, there's nothing unfair about it.
-
@Mister_xD said:
back in the day Trapper used to be left handed, but that got changed since they used the usual formular ingame and he then held his weapon on the right.
huntress is actually lefthanded, its not that obvious since she holds the weapon with both hands, but since its an axe, you hold it with your strong hand further down the shaft, which would be her left. she also throws the hatchets with her left hand, so...
I know this is a bit off-topic, but I'm interested in where you got the information about how you're supposed to hold an axe, and why that's the case. Because I would have thought you would hold it much as an axe-wielding medieval knight would have, which is strong hand on top. Just curious 😁
-
@justarandy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/663883#Comment_663883
Uhm, are you aware that the devs are band-aid fixing the game with perks since release? And then you come here and tell me this change is a band-aid fix? I think you don't know the meaning of band-aid fixing stuff
It's possible that we're using the term in different ways, yes. I'm talking about a band-aid fix from a design perspective which is just rushing in and doing something that might solve an issue without brainstorming, testing or going through an interation or two first. I'm not saying that certain changes to the game in the past haven't failed in their objective to address a specific problem, or created another problem at the same time, which is what I assume you're referring to as a band-aid fix.
Not every design is perfectly well thought-out from the start. In fact, most initial ideas are terrible, which is why brainstorming and iteration are a thing. But because we have no idea what goes on behind closed doors, I'm giving the developers the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are adhering to some sort of design process and the fact that they know that they don't always create perfect designs is the exact reason why they do things like PTBs and mid-chapter patches. They're giving us the opportunity to give user feedback and iterating on their design accordingly. From my perspective, as a designer, that's what the evidence points to.
-
I proposed a very similar idea in my post here which is currently getting a lot of traffic. It might be a good idea to share your opinion there, since the forum is already flooded with a lot of separate posts talking about very similar issues.
-
Guys, try not to derail the thread too much, there are plenty of other places to debate the validity of the struggle mechanic but that's not actually the point here.
In response to the OP, I'm curious as to whether you yourself are a game designer. I'm not myself a game designer specifically, but I am a designer, and the design process overlaps a lot across disciplines. Often, things that users consider a "small fix" are not actually as simple as they first appear.
In contrast to your suggestion that the devs don't care enough about the community to make all the small changes to the game that are being requested, I would argue that the reality is quite the opposite. They care so much about their game and about player satisfaction that they don't want to just stick band-aids all over it. Instead, they want to listen to community feedback, carefully consider it, brainstorm solutions, conduct preliminary tests on their own, and iterate on the design until they find something they think works. For all we know, they could be working on solutions to all the issues you mentioned as I type this. They just don't want to say anything to us until they have something concrete enough that they can go, "Okay, we've thought about this and here's what we've come up with, what do you guys think?"
-
@Micheal_Myers said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/650303#Comment_650303
Look... I'm just giving context of how a match went. I understand it's part of the game. I ain't blaming no one. It's nice to counter their dick move with a dick move.
That's all I was saying.
I think people are just trying to make the point that what they did wasn't a dick move, it was just them completing their objectives like they're supposed to. They just played stupidly at the end.
Was what you did a dick move? Yes. Is there something wrong with that? Not from a gameplay perspective, but neither was it really deserved, which is what you seemed to be implying by providing the "context" that the survivors... played the game.
-
Personally, I think it's fine as long as it's not excessive. Like maybe once every 12 hours or so is okay, because sometimes you're Australian and you posted at the wrong time and want your post to get some attention from the majority of forum members who live in the US (nothing whatsoever to do with personal experience lol)
But if you're bumping constantly every ten minutes that's just annoying.
-
If you mean lore-wise, I would guess it's just a coincidence. As CthuluSE hinted above, arguably Huntress is ambidextrous.
If you mean in terms of the game itself, I'm guessing it's because it saves the devs a lot of work without affecting the quality of the game in any way. A left-handed killer would mean they couldn't reuse any of the animations currently in the game which depend on the killer's M1 using their right hand (which is more than you think, probably) and would have to create new ones. This would mean less time spent on other things that might improve the chapter like the quality of the new animations.
-
@Groxiverde said:
League of Legends literally made all skins free obtainable a few years ago. 1 guy asks in this forums to do an event 1 time a year to get some auric cells to buy skins (and he said 5-10 for match, so more than 100 games to get a 10€ skin) and people disagree. This community is amazing.
This isn't League, and Behavior isn't Riot. They don't have the billions of dollars Riot has where they can afford to start giving away previously paid content for free. That's not a fair comparison to make.
With regards to the OP, maybe a shard hunt would be viable, where you get extra shards per game or per level. But auric cells? No. Cells and shards are separate currencies for a reason. One is earnable through grind, one is only buyable with real money. Once you start letting players grind for cells, even if it's only rarely, you might as well just merge the two and be done with it.
If you want to get auric cells without paying for them, enter the competition 😉
-
These are great guys, keep 'em coming!
-
Remember the competition doesn't end for another 9 days, so you have time to wait for an answer before you make your submission.
-
@anarchy753 I live in Australia too, and know that ping can be a problem, which is why I explicitly mentioned that any such changes ought not to be implemented until after ping becomes no longer an issue (fingers crossed, this will be the case with dedicated servers).
While I understand the pain of going up against toxic players, it's not always avoidable. As a survivor, it's never avoidable. I can understand the strategic necessity of killers being able to see survivors in lobby, but as far as dodging goes, if survivors aren't able to dodge toxic opponents without risk of being penalised, I don't see why killers should be able to do so. Since we can't allow everyone the ability to dodge an unfavourable build without sabotaging the killer's strategic advantage, the only solution is to punish all dodgers instead.
-
@Wuhelm said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/660827#Comment_660827
I am fine with this if everyone gets an option to blacklist players so you never have to play with them again. If you are against it then your the toxic one and the system will weed you out. The game will sort itself out this way and everyone will be happy, the only ones that won't are the toxics. I am a survivor main and the my biggest complaint is other survivors. I would rather 1v1 the killer then play with most of these toxic survivor potatos.
Only problem there is queue times are bad enough as is, blacklisting would just extend them even further.
-
The matchmaking algorithm is broken, but I don't think it has anything to do with the peer-to-peer connection. And since the devs haven't mentioned anything about adjusting matchmaking in the near future as far as I'm aware, I think the logical answer is no, unfortunately servers won't do anything for matchmaking.
-
That's not abuse, any more than survivors looping is. That's just using the tools at her disposal to her advantage, which is what everyone is supposed to do.
-
I would be on board with this, except (a) running away from monsters is not really Sam and Dean's style, they're all about fighting/killing them so I'm not sure how that would be able to stay true to their characters in a game where you can't fight back at all. I feel like it might just make them look like pussies.
And (b) how on Earth would they decide which monster to pick lol
-
@Frosty said:
@not_Queef what would you like to see?
My first suggestion here (and ill paraphrase) was to make lockers searchable for pieces of outfits, and over time sets would be created to unlock the corresponding piece to be worn.
An in game objective that rewards shards would also be a big incentive. Lets say there are graves randomly generated around a map, and taking the time to dig up a grave could award a certian amount of: common-bloodpoints, uncommon-shards, rare- auric cells. Could even go as far as to make it ultra rare to unearth a survivor you dont currently own.
I would love to see an in-game way to earn shards, although I'm not sure how viable it would be from the developer perspective. But if there's one thing we know from events, it's that the promise of cool cosmetics is definitely enough of an incentive for most people to go for a secondary objective.
As far as game balance goes, I'm not convinced that secondary objectives are necessary, but I don't care that much because I love them. Pig is my favourite killer to play against because I find the time pressure of getting a trap off just so darn fun for some reason.
-
@Alice_pbg said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/661371#Comment_661371
Make 2 or 3 tutorials.
Basic
Medium
Advanced
And there you go, anyone can take as many or as little information as they want
Another excellent suggestion.
They could be standalone options, or they could be sequential, with basic covering the bare bones mechanics, intermediate covering things like totems and pallets, and advanced teaching general strategies like looping and patrolling.
-
Tutoring mode or training ground sound like cool alternatives.
I think it's important to remember, though, when criticising the tutorials for lack of information, to put yourself into the mindset of a new player who knows literally nothing. No one wants to spend an hour in the tutorial before they even get to try the real thing. Yes, there's a lot of important stuff that the tutorial misses, but it covers all the absolute most basic controls and mechanics. This is your goal, these are the direct steps you have to take to reach it. You can't really put much more than that in a tutorial before it gets overwhelming.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/661104#Comment_661104
They should have suspected though. There’s a distinct whoosh as Freddy channels Dream Projection. The moment that snare was tripped, that survivor should have erred on the side of caution.
Yeah, agreed. They didn't play very well. I wasn't really defending them, just explaining for the sake of empathy where their reaction might have been coming from.
-
@will_i_am_14_85 said:
but wouldn't this lead to a potential increase in slugging? if loads of hooks are gone, then why shouldn't the killer just slug the whole game until they respawn? And we all know everyone loves being slugged.
I actually do love being slugged, Unbreakable is one of my favourite perks lol. Working on getting Tenacity so I can pair them for my main build.
-
@Ark_the_Bonsai said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/661097#Comment_661097
In that case there'd need to be a decay. Maybe every Rank Reset it goes back to zero. Consistent bad sportsmanship will give you less games the longer it goes on. (I'm mostly worried about keeping the timer forever on people who actually did crash or something and then they crash again a month later and after about a year of one crash a month their timer is ridiculously long. Obviously this is a hypothetical, if you crash this much you might need to fix your pc/console)
Of course, sorry I should have specified that I was talking about within a period of 24 hours or so.
-
As a survivor main, I can assure you there was nothing scummy about that on your end, just unlucky for them. However, in fairness to the survivors, from their perspective, they didn't know that you teleported to a gen, all they knew was that they got out and there you were. So from their perspective, it probably seemed like you were camping. Not saying that justifies the namecalling, but it's easy to jump to conclusions when you're upset and you feel like something was unfair.
-
@Ark_the_Bonsai said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/661081#Comment_661081
I'd really like a longer timer before you can reque when you dodge as killer. It's 15 seconds right now. Make it 15 seconds per survivor in your lobby when you dodge (maxing it out at a minute time out for dodging them and wasting their time)
I'd also like a similar but longer thing attached to all D/Ces (a handful of minutes. About the time it takes to actually load up the game and open a lobby from scratch. this way crashes are unaffected, to barely effected but ragequitters have to cool off before even considering another match)
I would like to see an exponentially increasing timer in both cases. 1 minute to requeue the first time. 2 minutes the second time. 5 the third. Then 10, 20, 30, 45, 60, etc. Not only does it punish bad sportsmanship, but it specifically punishes consistent bad sportsmanship.
-
I'm not saying the game is balanced, but to be honest it sounds like the ranking system is actually doing its job for once. The whole point is that you're supposed to get to a rank that is at your skill level and stay there. If you're constantly getting a black pip, that means you're where you should be based on your skill. If you're constantly deranking, you're obviously sitting above your paygrade. All that pipping means is that either you're already underranked or you're getting better. It's not a measure of your worth as a person, just your skill at the game. The fact that there are people who can play and fairly consistently win killer games at rank 1 is proof that it's not the game that's the problem.
-
Yeah, the Intellectual Property rules could be a bit clearer on this one. Like, it hasn't been specified whether we can take our own ingame screenshots and videos, or use official art like icons, or if all imagery has to be our own.
I could be overthinking this, but as a design student I've been carefully trained for three years to be very careful about Intellectual Property and appropriate crediting, so it would be nice to get a bit more clarity for the contest.
@Peanits, are you able to shed some light?
-
@BloodyNights said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/661056#Comment_661056
To be honest now that I think about it, Franklin's Demise potentially always has a use, because there will always be boxes on the map. It's like a security blanket if you are worried imo. I'd like it if the killer didn't see survivors items. I don't even mind if they can't see survivors all together. But I don't think it's really that big of a deal if they can see survivors other than being able to tell if it's a 3 or 4 man swf. Even if they are wearing a bright outfit and you can't see the item, it's not like you'll be able to tell what perks they are running at a glance. They could just be....being fashionable. lol
Lol, could be, but it's mostly about evening the playing field, so that killers don't have access to too much information in advance. Adapting builds is a bit annoying, but fine, but the more information they have the more likely they are to dodge.
@BirdmanOwO said:
Removing the Killers ability to see survivor items/characters before the match would weaken them a decent amount. Seeing the characters let Killers anticipate perks, and items let us see if the survivors are going for a specific strategy. If a killer wasn't able to prepare, the survival rate would go up a decent number.
To everyone who dodges, you're immature and will never get good at the game until you stop doing so. You have 55 seconds to prepare, and a good killer uses that time to change their build; For SWF, Mori's (I don't use these due to my principals, but if its in the game, you can use it), Make your choice, Infectious Fright, BBQ, choosing even one of these perks can help against SWF, punishing altruism and giving you information on where others Survivors are.
Franklins literally counters items. Either bring it, or deal with the consequences.
TL;DR
Killers not being able to see survivors is quite the nerf. With dedicated servers coming, you won't be able to tell if you're against SWF groups, which has more implications than just dodging. People who dodge are just immature, you know they'll just DC in game anyways, wasting even more of the Survivors time.
Yeah, I understand that it could be a significant disadvantage for killers, which is why I'm leaning more towards the idea of punishing dodgers in a similar way to dc'ers.
-
In my own experience, pipping is very easy as survivor unless you play really badly or get unlucky and die very early in the game.
As far as your scenarios go, if a survivor is doing generators the whole game while someone else gets chased, they should get Iridescent, or at least Gold, Lightbringer. If they're the one being chased the whole game, they should get Iridescent Evader. If no one gets downed as you described, that's Iridescent Unbroken and Bronze Benevolent all around. Even if we assume that the chased survivor gets no Lightbringer and the genrushers get no Evader (which is very unlikely), that's enough to safety pip at the very least unless you're at top ranks. And as you said, those scenarios are fairly rare, so it's not like you consistently aren't able to pip. So I don't really see what the issue is here.
-
@Kumakx said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/661018#Comment_661018
I'm starting to wonder if there's any real reason not to just remove killers' ability to grab people off hooks
no, it would not, they would just pick bubba and keep facecamping.
Face camping sucks, but well it happens. Just gen rush the killer and move to the next game.
That's assuming that (a) they have gone and bought his DLC, (b) they have levelled him, and (c) they know how to play him. Most facecampers do so because they're new, and most new players don't have DLC or the bloodpoints to level different characters. I was up against a campy LF just the other day that had no idea he could use his chainsaw to down multiple people at once. And some people just plain don't enjoy playing him, which is important because almost everyone, when playing casually, prioritises fun over efficiency and would therefore rather use a killer they enjoy even if it's not the optimal choice for their playing style.
All in all, if we take human nature into account, I think it would be a lot more viable than you're suggesting.
-
@BloodyNights said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/661028#Comment_661028
I mean I guess it is completely useless, but to be fair about 90% of games have at least one item in it, and if they don't survivors generally go item hunting, or find a chest at some point. So it's got a better chance at being far more useful than say Calm Spirit, or Slippery Meat.
Killers just usually don't run Franklin's unless they see keys, maps, or if 3 or more people have an item. Which discourages survivors from attempting to bring them, or forces them to try and do like last second placing of items. I personally run Franklin's when the above conditions are met. I still don't think I should be able to see it.
Yeah, that's fair. That's why I feel like a good compromise would be to allow killers less information, but not none. For example, they can see that certain survivors have items, but not which items they have. And I also don't think they should be able to see the survivors themselves, because similarly to how survivors can get into a match and make educated guesses about the killer's loadout based on the type of killer ("Ah, it's a Nurse, probably has BBQ and Nurse's Calling, maybe Ruin") killers can look at survivors in the lobby and make similar guesses ("Nea has a flashlight and is wearing brightly coloured clothes, probably planning to loop and be toxic, most likely has DStrike and Balanced Landing") and adjust their build accordingly.
-
@BloodyNights said:
I personally don't think they should be able to see survivors loading in. Sure you can say but then we'd never know when to use Franklin's! Well I never know if there is a Doctor to use calm spirit. Or if it's a stealth killer and I should bring Spine Chill. Or how About a spirit, I don't normally run Iron Will, just like I don't normally run Franklin's Demise, but if I knew I was facing a spirit I certainly would use it. Maybe it's a trapper, there are some anti-trapper perks I could run to combat that killer specifically. That are other wise completely useless. Maybe if I knew it was a hag I'd bring urban evasion and a flash light.
All in all no I don't think the killers or survivors should be able to see each other. Or they both should be able to see each other, though that would hurt stealth killers more than anything else knowing that it's Mikey, or Ghosty Boy, and survivors are already on high alert.
I agree with most of what you're saying, and honestly I was going to make the same comparison myself, but upon reflection it's not an entirely fair comparison to make. Franklin's Demise is literally completely useless if no one brings an item, whereas there is not a single survivor perk that is dependent on the killer's build to function at all. Calm Spirit, Spine Chill, Slippery Meat, etc. are greatly reduced in their effectiveness if you're not playing against specific killers, but they do still have some functionality.
I agree that it sucks from the survivor perspective for killers to be able to adjust their loadout according to what they see in the lobby, but at the same time I can kind of understand why it's a thing.
-
People say it all the time, but the best strategy to counter camping is to not go for the save and genrush them instead. Barring situations where a survivors is being facecamped for being toxic, killers camp because they think it's rewarding. Don't reward them for it, and they learn not to do it.
That said, I'm starting to wonder if there's any real reason not to just remove killers' ability to grab people off hooks. That would stop facecamping from being anywhere near as effective at stopping rescues with anyone other than LF and Doctor. Sure, you could argue that it might encourage farming, but people who are going to farm will farm anyway - they just wait to get hit first so they don't get grabbed. It seems like it would save everyone time and reduce the facecamping issue if hitting was the killer's only option in the first place.
-
@jorkle said:
What about the new killers that get the ######### bullied out of them by survivors with gen rushing, constant teabagging, and honestly not giving new killers much of a chance, what reason should the killer have to give survivors a chance if the survivors dont do the same. But when you have 4 survivors in a swf running circles around the killer constantly finding new ways to screw with their head then it gets annoying. "Oh but the survivors are just doing their job" and so is the killer, but no one likes it on the other side.
Um... what about them? This thread isn't about them. And the people that do that aren't the brand new survivors, so it's not even a relevant comparison to make. There was no indication whatsoever in the OP that his friends were toxic or that the killers they came up against were camping for any reason other than that that's what new killers tend to do. Leave your misplaced salt at the door, please.
-
@RakimSockem said:
I think a lot of people here are so far removed from being a NEW player that they forget what it's like. Either that, or they picked up the game really quickly and never played with complete "miss every skill check, run and leave scratch marks for no reason" noobs.
A new player is NOT thinking about the grind or raising their characters. They also aren't going for saves enough to benefit from WGLF.
A new player wants to stay healthy, stay hidden, find teammates, and avoid death. There's no better 2 survivors for those things than Dwight and Claudette.
Making the argument that a perk develops what YOU consider to be a "bad habit" later on is irrelevant to the discussion of what is best for a NEW player. Self care is irreplaceable for a new players. Sucks that they nerfed it, but it's still top tier for a new player. Urban evasion is amazing for new players. Hell, I have friends with over 1000 hours in the game who still hold on to that crutch.
Can't believe I'm saying this but (ugh) Sprint Burst is amazing in the low ranks. I never used it because I always used Feng and Lithe, but Sprint Burst is more dependable for those new players who walk and crouch their asses off.
Yall gotta put yourselves back in the shoes of a newbie.
Exactly what I'm trying to say, thank you!
@thesuicidefox I think you're underrating UE a bit based on your own experience. All it really does is make stealth easier - a perfectly valid playing style, and not necessarily destructive even if it's not always optimal. Sprinting around like a madman isn't always optimal either. In my opinion, a good survivor should be able to do both, which is why I like to run perks that enable both. I love UE because when I want to sprint I can, and often do to get around fast, but when I want to stop sprinting so I don't get caught UE allows me to duck behind objects and make quick getaways that I otherwise wouldn't be able to. If a new survivor doesn't want to sprint, which they probably won't, they'll just walk everywhere instead. If they have UE, they'll crouch instead of walking. It doesn't discourage sprinting, just makes them harder to see when they're not sprinting.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/660908#Comment_660908
I remember being a new killer and spending what felt like AGES to finally down someone. I hook them up, and they get unhooked 15 seconds later... and all of a sudden, it felt like ALL that work was for nothing.
I really wasnt any good at applying any pressure or anything, since Id just follow the exact pathing the survivor would take (including vaulting every window) and Id get SUPER tunnel vision, because I figured id rather down this guy I finally injured than start a new chase with someone else who MUST be equally as good as the guy im chasing.
Yeah, I think it's important when talking about improving things for new players to be able to remember what it was like and put yourself in the new player mindset. There are a lot of patterns that new players - killers and survivors alike - seem to observe instinctively, that are not even close to being ideal strategies.
-
@RakimSockem said:
Thank you for bringing this up because I was a part of that other discussion.
And I want to make it clear that I am in no way, advocating for survivors being to DC in a match or encouraging it.
My only comment was that I "understand" it because sometimes it's based on a decision killers get to make before the match even starts. Disconnecting in a loading screen because "Nah, I don't feel like playing against a Mori" is in my opinion the exact same as "disconnecting" from a lobby because "Nah, I don't feel like playing against a (fill in the blank)."
I would even take it like half a step further and say that people who DC within like the first minute of the game are making kind of the same decision. Like "Nah, I'm not playing against Iri heads." They made the decision to leave the game as soon as they were given the info.
AGAIN, not encouraging it. I'm just making a comparison.
Now, with that being said, I definitely don't think survivors should be able to see the killer before the match starts. That would ruin stealth killers more than anyone.
What could be done however is:
- Removing survivor names to prevent killers from being toxic to players they've played before.
- Alternatively, ADD the killer name to the lobby so survivors can check out their profile. (I once checked a killer's profile post game to find a list of things like "Will DC if Ruin is broken before 1st hook. Will face camp if you loop me for more than 30 seconds. Face camp if you have a key, etc. Had I known that before the match, I would lobby dodge them)
- This is a little wacky, but if there was a way to not show any items in the lobby, and when it gets to the offering screen, the game says "X amount of survivors brought items, would you like to equip Franklin's Demise?" and give the killer time to switch it out for another equipped perk if they choose to do so at that time.(To do that, it would have to become a base perk and not a teachable though)
As I said in the OP, I agree that survivors shouldn't be able to see killers in advance for the same reasons you mentioned, but those are some good suggestions. Perhaps names, profiles and appearances could be hidden (shrouded in fog or something) but there could be some indicator to show if a survivor has an item equipped, but not what the item is.
Really, the only legitimate reason to dodge a lobby on either side is for ping reasons. Once that's no longer an issue, I think it would be cool to just punish people for for lobby dodging and dc'ing by not allowing them to rejoin the queue. Disconnecting would always have a queue penalty, but would only contribute towards the ban threshold if (a) the killer dcs any time after the first minute of the game has passed (since the match is dependent on their presence, and one minute is enough time to decide they don't want to play this match without wasting too much of the survivors' time), (b) the dc'er is on the ground, being carried, or on a hook (since these are the main times when people dc for unsportsmanlike reasons).