Fibijean
Fibijean
About
- Username
- Fibijean
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@akbays35 said:
@Fibijean said:
@akbays35 said:
@Fibijean said:
I think it's too soon to be saying definitively whether a new killer is bad or not. It's been less than 24 hours since release. Obviously there are going to be balance issues, but in terms of basic mechanics, I think it's super cool that they've designed a killer who either heavily discourages or actively counters things that have been widespread problems for a long time - not only tunnelling, but bodyblocking and pallet looping as well. People just need more time to figure out how to play as Legion - it seems like this killer is pretty different and will take some getting used to, but that doesn't mean it's automatically bad or underpowered because it doesn't work with the playstyle that most people have grown accustomed to.I've played this game for almost 2 years, I watched streamers play him and even they struggled to get Legions power to be beneficial, most games that i saw where they got kills was with a mori or tunneling with m1. My biggest issue is how many perks don't work with Legion, that he/she is pigeon holed into using perks like Thanatophobia and Moniter and Abuse just to help the weakness in their kit. For as complicated as Legions mechanics there is very little payoff.
I understand the concern, and I'm sure he has his problems, but at the same time I don't think that anyone has had time to really get a good grasp of his mechanics and how to play him, unless they've been playing him nonstop since release, and even then I would suggest they need a bit more time to think things over. I haven't played him yet, but from the sounds of it he's not pigeonholed into anything. Using perks to make up for the weaknesses in the base kit is one strategy, another is using entirely different perks to amplify the base kit's strengths. It's just a matter of playstyle and build. As I said, I'm sure he's not perfect, but I still think he's going to take more than a few hours, which is likely how long most people have played for so far, to figure out.
(For the record, I've been playing longer than 2 years. It doesn't make much of a difference in terms of skill.)
Well Legion is "fun" to play, but he's objectively somewhere between pig and wraiths strength, big maps screw him/her over hard since he has trouble chaining attacks also not seeing scratch marks really can hurt him if survivors break los. I played him/her for a couple hours and got tired of being genrushed (I don't understand why ptb players do this when they need to learn new looping mechanics)
his perks are really good though I can see using Iron Maiden for Huntress and Doc, Discordance will possibly be meta since it's a good survivor locating perk, True Grit is a must have against body blocking swfs but it will be hard to tell when they are in lobby anymore.EDIT: I'll explain the pigeonholing, you can't effectively use on hit perks with this character's power it doesn't apply (third seal, sloppy butcher). Bamboozle doesn't help him or increase his vaulting, he has a smaller terror radius so monitor and abuse is required to be more stealthy. Mend doesn't count towards healing so you can't use Nurses, Coulrophobia, as far as I know even Dying Light doesn't effect it.
As far as the first paragraph goes, I'll have to take your word for it because I haven't played the PTB yet.
I understand that there are some perks that don't work well with him, but there are still quite a few left over. Surely there are at least a few interesting builds in there to work with? Every killer so far has a pretty good selection of perks to choose from, even if there are some that don't really work for that killer (say, Myers with Insidious for example). I find it hard to believe I guess that the devs would commit such a huge oversight as to create a killer who is forced to use a very limited selection of perks to play effectively.
-
@Orion said:
@Fibijean said:
@Orion said:
@Fibijean said:
@Orion said:
@Fibijean said:
@Orion said:
OP is a Survivor main. That and their name should tell you everything you need to know.
The only way you would know that is if they'd told you so. And they've said explicitly that they're a killer main. Also.. what does their name tell us exactly? That they play killer but are a decent human being? Gasp! God forbid such a person exist.
I must've confused him for someone else. I remembered reading a comment by someone with the same profile pic and a similar name saying they were a Survivor main. I checked a few of his comments and couldn't find it, likely meaning I was mistaken.
That said, their name tells us that they don't play to win. It doesn't make them a "decent human being", as you said (although that's quite telling), it makes their opinions pointless when discussing balance changes like this, since all they want to do is play "pin the tail on the donkey and let the donkey walk out of the gates".I don't think that's necessarily true, it's something you're reading into it based on how you think of "friendly" killers. I think, for starters, being friendly does make someone a decent human being. But friendly doesn't mean that you don't play to win, in this case it likely just means that he either aims to play in such a way that makes the game fun for everyone while still playing competitively, which is definitely possible to do, and/or is kind to people he plays against. That doesn't mean he lets them go, just that he's a good sport. I think all of those things are to be applauded, not looked down upon.
You either play to win or you handicap yourself. You can't have it both ways.
There was a link going around some time ago about scrubs and what "play to win" actually means, wish I'd saved it.I know you can because I've experienced it time and again. A handicap doesn't mean crippling yourself. It just means you make it harder for yourself to win, but you still try to win regardless. Say if you're playing a board game you're good at with your family, it's the difference between brutally slaughtering your opponents and taking advantage of their inferior skills, or playing to beat them but doing it in such a way that they learn and have fun at the same time. Yes, maybe you don't win as efficiently or by as great a margin as you might have otherwise, but it's not crippling yourself if you still win, it's just being compassionate towards the other players. For some people, compassion for strangers you're never going to see again isn't important, and I understand that, but personally I still think it's an admirable quality to have.
Handicap yourself or play to win. Pick one. "Play to win" means playing to the full extent of your ability, period.
Well, no, and I just explained why. Restating your point isn't an argument. But given that that's the case, I'm not going to repeat myself. So okay. Let's just agree to disagree, I guess?
-
@Orion said:
@Fibijean said:
@Orion said:
@Fibijean said:
@Orion said:
OP is a Survivor main. That and their name should tell you everything you need to know.
The only way you would know that is if they'd told you so. And they've said explicitly that they're a killer main. Also.. what does their name tell us exactly? That they play killer but are a decent human being? Gasp! God forbid such a person exist.
I must've confused him for someone else. I remembered reading a comment by someone with the same profile pic and a similar name saying they were a Survivor main. I checked a few of his comments and couldn't find it, likely meaning I was mistaken.
That said, their name tells us that they don't play to win. It doesn't make them a "decent human being", as you said (although that's quite telling), it makes their opinions pointless when discussing balance changes like this, since all they want to do is play "pin the tail on the donkey and let the donkey walk out of the gates".I don't think that's necessarily true, it's something you're reading into it based on how you think of "friendly" killers. I think, for starters, being friendly does make someone a decent human being. But friendly doesn't mean that you don't play to win, in this case it likely just means that he either aims to play in such a way that makes the game fun for everyone while still playing competitively, which is definitely possible to do, and/or is kind to people he plays against. That doesn't mean he lets them go, just that he's a good sport. I think all of those things are to be applauded, not looked down upon.
You either play to win or you handicap yourself. You can't have it both ways.
There was a link going around some time ago about scrubs and what "play to win" actually means, wish I'd saved it.I know you can because I've experienced it time and again. A handicap doesn't mean crippling yourself. It just means you make it harder for yourself to win, but you still try to win regardless. Say if you're playing a board game you're good at with your family, it's the difference between brutally slaughtering your opponents and taking advantage of their inferior skills, or playing to beat them but doing it in such a way that they learn and have fun at the same time. Yes, maybe you don't win as efficiently or by as great a margin as you might have otherwise, but it's not crippling yourself if you still win, it's just being compassionate towards the other players. For some people, compassion for strangers you're never going to see again isn't important, and I understand that, but personally I still think it's an admirable quality to have.
-
@Orion said:
@Fibijean said:
@Orion said:
OP is a Survivor main. That and their name should tell you everything you need to know.
The only way you would know that is if they'd told you so. And they've said explicitly that they're a killer main. Also.. what does their name tell us exactly? That they play killer but are a decent human being? Gasp! God forbid such a person exist.
I must've confused him for someone else. I remembered reading a comment by someone with the same profile pic and a similar name saying they were a Survivor main. I checked a few of his comments and couldn't find it, likely meaning I was mistaken.
That said, their name tells us that they don't play to win. It doesn't make them a "decent human being", as you said (although that's quite telling), it makes their opinions pointless when discussing balance changes like this, since all they want to do is play "pin the tail on the donkey and let the donkey walk out of the gates".I don't think that's necessarily true, it's something you're reading into it based on how you think of "friendly" killers. I think, for starters, being friendly does make someone a decent human being. But friendly doesn't mean that you don't play to win, in this case it likely just means that he either aims to play in such a way that makes the game fun for everyone while still playing competitively, which is definitely possible to do, and/or is kind to people he plays against. That doesn't mean he lets them go, just that he's a good sport. I think all of those things are to be applauded, not looked down upon.
-
@akbays35 said:
@Fibijean said:
I think it's too soon to be saying definitively whether a new killer is bad or not. It's been less than 24 hours since release. Obviously there are going to be balance issues, but in terms of basic mechanics, I think it's super cool that they've designed a killer who either heavily discourages or actively counters things that have been widespread problems for a long time - not only tunnelling, but bodyblocking and pallet looping as well. People just need more time to figure out how to play as Legion - it seems like this killer is pretty different and will take some getting used to, but that doesn't mean it's automatically bad or underpowered because it doesn't work with the playstyle that most people have grown accustomed to.I've played this game for almost 2 years, I watched streamers play him and even they struggled to get Legions power to be beneficial, most games that i saw where they got kills was with a mori or tunneling with m1. My biggest issue is how many perks don't work with Legion, that he/she is pigeon holed into using perks like Thanatophobia and Moniter and Abuse just to help the weakness in their kit. For as complicated as Legions mechanics there is very little payoff.
I understand the concern, and I'm sure he has his problems, but at the same time I don't think that anyone has had time to really get a good grasp of his mechanics and how to play him, unless they've been playing him nonstop since release, and even then I would suggest they need a bit more time to think things over. I haven't played him yet, but from the sounds of it he's not pigeonholed into anything. Using perks to make up for the weaknesses in the base kit is one strategy, another is using entirely different perks to amplify the base kit's strengths. It's just a matter of playstyle and build. As I said, I'm sure he's not perfect, but I still think he's going to take more than a few hours, which is likely how long most people have played for so far, to figure out.
(For the record, I've been playing longer than 2 years. It doesn't make much of a difference in terms of skill.)
-
@Freudentrauma said:
@Fibijean said:
He also appears to counter pallet loops by being able to vault a pallet or a window as fast as a survivor can, if not faster, while his power is active. His other perks, "Discordance" and "Iron Maiden", seem designed to counter cooperation between survivors to finish gens quickly, and hiding in lockers, respectively. Both of which are things that have been complained about by killers a lot. It's a PTB, so it goes without saying that there are going to be things that need adjusting and improving, but overall in terms of basic mechanics I would call this a win for the killers.Perks aren't that important discussing the killers power, if the go hand in hand. that's nice. But we are talking about the base power of the killer. And at the moment Legion can only counter pallet loops with their frenzy for getting a debuff hit. For downing a survivor they have basic chase with 110% movement speed. And that's a little bit the problem. The power can be good at stalling the game if you hit multiple survivors with it. On the other hand. But chasing a survivor with that speed... I mean have you ever looped a huntress without her hatchets? Even if she would one shot you the additional time survivors get through looping, is basicly they time the killer gets for stalling.
Like many said Legion and the Deep Wounds effect just feel a little bit underwhelming right now. We can argue people haven't unleashed the full potential of the killer yet. But don't forget that survivors haven't figured out how to play efficiently against them yet. Some people are already looping and stunning Legion while in frenzy.Fair enough, but I still think his base power's counter is the most important one. The others are just bonuses. I would call no tunnelling in exchange for no pallet looping a fair tradeoff. The difference with the huntress though, is once she runs out of hatchets she has to break the chase to get more, whereas the Legion just has to wait a bit, and from what I've seen in gameplay videos you can only get 1 or 2 loops in the time it takes for his power to recharge. I can understand the concern over the deep wounds effect somewhat, although I haven't played it yet and can't personally comment I can see the reasoning on both sides. As for the survivor counters, the looping sounds like a problem since that's what he's designed to counter, but getting stunned is usually just a lack of skill on the killer's part.
-
@Orion said:
@Fibijean said:
That's interesting, I had assumed that mend only applied to the effect created by the killer's power, and borrowed time was still much the same. So basically, the timer is shorter, but tunnelling a survivor on BT is discouraged and they can do the same thing they used to do to recover, except they now don't need self care to do it?Also @Orion You needn't be so harsh on @Kalec84 . If you understand what he means to say, then surely that's more important at this point, given that he has managed to communicate his true point one way or another. There's no reason to keep going on about the words he used when you know what he actually meant.
There's a reason to keep going on about the words he used because that's what everyone is going to read. Intent cannot be divined from plain text.
I would agree with you, except that he also clarified what he meant later on. Intent can be divined from plain text if the intent is stated in the text. But just in case someone does get the wrong idea, and since he's already admitted English isn't his native language, I'll say it for him (and @Kalec84 feel free to correct me if I get it wrong).
What he's trying to say is that even though the killer's power didn't buff survivors directly, its introduction into the game necessitated some changes which buffed survivors. So there wasn't direct causation, but if the killer hadn't been introduced those buffs wouldn't have been either.
-
That's interesting, I had assumed that mend only applied to the effect created by the killer's power, and borrowed time was still much the same. So basically, the timer is shorter, but tunnelling a survivor on BT is discouraged and they can do the same thing they used to do to recover, except they now don't need self care to do it?
Also @Orion You needn't be so harsh on @Kalec84 . If you understand what he means to say, then surely that's more important at this point, given that he has managed to communicate his true point one way or another. There's no reason to keep going on about the words he used when you know what he actually meant.
-
I'll probably come back here and say what I think once I've had a chance to play the PTB, but I just wanted to congratulate you for now on offering a fair and informed criticism of the killer's weaknesses while acknowledging his potential. You're the first person I've seen to do that, so good job!
-
I think it's too soon to be saying definitively whether a new killer is bad or not. It's been less than 24 hours since release. Obviously there are going to be balance issues, but in terms of basic mechanics, I think it's super cool that they've designed a killer who either heavily discourages or actively counters things that have been widespread problems for a long time - not only tunnelling, but bodyblocking and pallet looping as well. People just need more time to figure out how to play as Legion - it seems like this killer is pretty different and will take some getting used to, but that doesn't mean it's automatically bad or underpowered because it doesn't work with the playstyle that most people have grown accustomed to.
-
I mean, expressing your opinions about a game on a forum dedicated to just that I think is perfectly fine, as long as you can do it in a calm and rational manner. It's perfectly okay to disagree and discuss different points of view. Just because we enjoy the game doesn't mean that people can't/won't have complaints.
Having said that, I do wholeheartedly agree that there's far to much toxicity, name calling and general unpleasantness around here, not to mention the whole "us vs. them" mentality. If someone makes an argument in defense of a survivor or a killer mechanic/perk/build/strategy/whatever, there's always going to be someone saying something to the effect of "you entitled [insert role being defended here] mains are all the same". It's pretty sad. But as for people who abuse people ingame, those kind of people are always going to be like that no matter what they're playing. Just ignore them, and feel sorry for them because they must be such an angry, bitter, pathetic person to find enjoyment out of hurling abuse at strangers over a video game.
-
The main issue with the hatch isn't the concept, it's the fact that it forces a stalemate. Basically, if both players find the hatch at the same time, or if the killer finds it first and the survivor manages to get close enough, they both just have to stand there until one of them goes "oh alright, I'll let you win". Occasionally you can mindgame each other and thus earn the victory, but if you've got two people that know all the tricks already, it becomes a stalemate where no one can really win. Stalemates aren't fun in any context, and are therefore to be avoided. In this case, I would say that it's evidence of poor design. Which is okay, not saying the designers are bad at their job, sometimes it's hard to predict these things. But it does need fixing. The idea is sound, but the execution is flawed.
-
@alivebydeadight That's a pretty powerful addon! What rarity is it?
Everyone's complaining that he's too weak to secure downs/kills, but by the sound of it he's secured at least one kill, and that's the painful demise of the pallet loop.
-
@Orion said:
OP is a Survivor main. That and their name should tell you everything you need to know.
The only way you would know that is if they'd told you so. And they've said explicitly that they're a killer main. Also.. what does their name tell us exactly? That they play killer but are a decent human being? Gasp! God forbid such a person exist.
-
@chefdave12118 @alivebydeadight Totally agree. People always do this when new characters are released, in a lot of multiplayer games, not just DbD. If they aren't used to playing as that character, or the character doesn't suit their playstyle, they say that it's weak. If they don't know how to play against the character, they say that he's OP. Maybe Legion is weak, maybe he's OP. But that's not something that can be decided within 24 hours of release.
@powerbats lmao the trio is reunited once more.
-
@Wolf74 said:
@Fibijean said:
His other perks, "Discordance" and "Iron Maiden", seem designed to counter cooperation between survivors to finish gens quickly, and hiding in lockers, respectively. Both of which are things that have been complained about by killers a lot.
I have never seen any killer complaining about that.
You've never seen a killer complain about genrushing or locker dwights? We must be looking at different forums, then.
-
@Wolf74 said:
@The_Crusader said:
Legion is basically the anti-healing meta of the past few months personified. Think of him that way.
How is that any benefit?
NC doesn't show mending… so I expect it not to be affected by Sloppy or Caultrophobia either.
And you have to give up the chase to let the bleed timer go down.@Fibijean said:
he seems designed to counter "toxic" playstyles on both sides, for example his power discourages tunnelling but as I understand it he also counters survivors bodyblocking.Again,, what is "toxic" about "tunneling"? Any time someone says SC is OP, the answer is "don't lose the injured survivor or he deserved to heal up". So tunneling is just playing efficient.
So this killer is more efficient in being unefficient...yay!^^And how does he "counter" bodyblocking in any way?
Both tunnelling and bodyblocking have been previously labelled either as toxic behaviours or legitimate strategies, or both. In general, I think it's a good idea for the devs to be designing new ways to counter strategies that make the game less fun for those on the receiving end, but I was making no judgement about whether or not certain behaviours were toxic. Hence the quotation marks - I was merely referencing the fact that they're behaviours which people often complain about and say are toxic. So no need to start a crusade just yet.
As for the bodyblocking, I was referring to his perk "Mad Grit". The perk seems specifically designed to counter bodyblocking because he basically suffers no penalty from hitting survivors while he's carrying someone, and the wiggle timer is paused. So basically, it turns bodyblocking to the killer's advantage.
He also appears to counter pallet loops by being able to vault a pallet or a window as fast as a survivor can, if not faster, while his power is active. His other perks, "Discordance" and "Iron Maiden", seem designed to counter cooperation between survivors to finish gens quickly, and hiding in lockers, respectively. Both of which are things that have been complained about by killers a lot. It's a PTB, so it goes without saying that there are going to be things that need adjusting and improving, but overall in terms of basic mechanics I would call this a win for the killers.
-
I haven't played as him or against him, but one interesting thing I did notice about him is he seems designed to counter "toxic" playstyles on both sides, for example his power discourages tunnelling but as I understand it he also counters survivors bodyblocking. A good thing to bear in mind, though (and again take this with a grain of salt because I haven't personally tested it yet) is that whenever a new killer comes out, like 90% of the time when people say the killer is too weak it's because they haven't learned how to use them, and 90% of the time when people say a killer is OP it's because they haven't learned to counter them.
-
@Arsoul said:
Its summer in the southern hemisphere, which contains more than a single country as well.
You seem to be missing the point that pretty much EVERY game does the American holidays and Northern hemisphere season with no regard to anywhere else
I live in the Southern Hemisphere too, and yeah it sucks a little bit but honestly like Orion said, 88% of the global population live in the northern hemisphere. It's not about being American, it's about catering to the majority. If they were a New Zealand company, and 70% of their player base was Australian, say, then they would be more likely to do something more locally-themed. But it's a little unreasonable to flip out over there being snow in an event when a Winter theme is what's relevant to the company and the vast majority of their player base.
To answer @borna_lk , they do a Christmas event of some form every year so it would surprise me if they didn't do one this year, especially since they still have Christmas-event-related achievements available on Steam. Also lmao why did you mark your own post as an answer to your question?
-
@Visionmaker said:
There is rumored to be a game mechanic where the killer never decreases in power throughout the game, whereas survivors get exponentially weaker when they're eliminated...
Some say the hatch is to counterbalance that because it was never about "deserving" anything...
Hit the nail on the head. Man, I wish I could upvote this more than once.
-
@Global The survivor objective is surviving, not completing generators. It's literally in the name. Generators are only one means to an end. So yes, to win, they do have to finish their objective.
@Rebel_Raven I applaud you for trying, but as you can probably see by reading the rest of this thread you're wasting your time arguing with this Wolf guy. He only listens if you agree with him, otherwise he just restates the same point over and over, no matter what you say to debunk it.
-
@Global said:
@Fibijean said:
@Global said:
NOED doesnt activate until the doors open. it doesnt counter hacth. Even then it onjly sometimes give you what? 1 kill? Thats if it doesnt get taken down first.
Hatch doesn't open until everyone else is dead. Even then, it only sometimes allows what? 1 survivor to escape? That is if the killer doesn't find them first.
I never said that NOED counters the hatch - he asked what the "safety net" mechanic for killer was and I said that NOED is the killer's safety net. I then went on to argue that NOED is more of a safety net/crutch than the hatch, and also that it's easier to secure kills with NOED than it is for the last survivor to escape through the hatch, giving reasons for both viewpoints.
If you want to read my arguments above and then bring up more points to refute them, I'm more than happy to discuss the issue further. I'd just rather not have to repeat myself, that's all.
Hatch can still open if everyone is alive with a key (this is why hatch is bullshit because no you dont need to be last. If you have a coordinated team everyone can leave with 2 gens still left.) . Yea NOED imo is a crap perk that shouldnt of been buffed. Before the buff I wouldnt consider it a crutch because you would have to of invested some BP into the RNG based bloodweb leveling system but now it makes my blood boil when i do play survivor and havent been downed the entire game because of how ######### the killer is just to get [BAD WORD] a NOED tier 1.
I see what you're saying, but I still disagree. I agree that the hatch mechanic is fatally flawed, but not because all the survivors can use it to escape by taking a very- or ultra-rare item. By that logic, moris are also broken and unfair, which I don't think they are. They provide an enormous advantage to the killer in completing their objective, similarly to how the hatch provides survivors with keys and their teammates an enormous advantage in completing theirs. But that's okay, because they're very rare and relatively expensive, and that's what rare and expensive items/addons/offerings on both sides are designed to do.
(I do feel the need to point out that your statement that a coordinated team can escape through the hatch having only completed 3 generators is incorrect, unless by "coordinated team" you mean "two coordinated survivors and two dead ones". For a team of 4 living survivors, coordinated or not, such an escape is impossible since all 5 generators have to be completed in that scenario for the hatch to even spawn.)
As I said, I do agree with you that the hatch is fundamentally flawed, but not because skeleton keys exist - I outlined the inconsistency in that line of logic above. The hatch is a flawed mechanic because it has the potential to create a stalemate scenario, and stalemates in games should be avoided under any circumstances, because they're not fun at all for either side.
-
@Global said:
NOED doesnt activate until the doors open. it doesnt counter hacth. Even then it onjly sometimes give you what? 1 kill? Thats if it doesnt get taken down first.
Hatch doesn't open until everyone else is dead. Even then, it only sometimes allows what? 1 survivor to escape? That is if the killer doesn't find them first.
I never said that NOED counters the hatch - he asked what the "safety net" mechanic for killer was and I said that NOED is the killer's safety net. I then went on to argue that NOED is more of a safety net/crutch than the hatch, and also that it's easier to secure kills with NOED than it is for the last survivor to escape through the hatch, giving reasons for both viewpoints.
If you want to read my arguments above and then bring up more points to refute them, I'm more than happy to discuss the issue further. I'd just rather not have to repeat myself, that's all.
-
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf So if the exit gates are powered, and 2 or 3 survivors manage to escape, do you agree that at that point, the remaining are entitled to an escape? Because the killer has basically lost at that point, right? They've failed in their objective to kill anyone. By your logic, in that scenario, once the first 2 or 3 survivors have escaped, the entity should reduce the killer's movement speed to 3% so that the remaining survivors are all but guaranteed an escape. I think we can both agree that would be ridiculous.
What I'm saying is your logic is flawed. Just because you managed to get 3 kills does not entitle you to a 4th, and if you thought about the opposite perspective equivalent I think you would agree.
@apropos You do make some valid points, but at the very least it's debatable whether survivors are actually "supposed to be" a unit. I would suggest that based on the way the game plays and what the devs have said about it in the past, it's more likely that they're simply 4 people who work together when it's convenient to ensure their own escape. So I would argue that one survivor left doesn't mean that the survivors as a whole have failed in their objective - it means that three survivors have failed, and the last one, in the broad sense of the word, outplayed his teammates. Why should he be denied a chance to escape because he managed to be the last one standing? Again, just because the killer managed to get 3 kills does not mean that they're entitled to the 4th. If you want that 4th kill, outplay the last survivor and earn it, the same way you did with the other 3.
The hatch exists not to give the survivor a free escape necessarily, but to combat the enormous advantage that killers have in that endgame scenario. Similarly, perks such as Blood Warden, Remember Me and NOED were designed to even the playing field in the endgame where the gates are powered. Yes, those are perks as opposed to a base game mechanic. However, at the point where the gates have been powered, the killer has no one but himself to blame. He has all but failed in his objective to keep the survivors from escaping. But in the hatch scenario, the final survivor hasn't failed at anything except dying. His objective is still to escape, and why should he automatically fail his objective just because the other players failed theirs?
-
@Wolf74 With all due respect mate, "sorry but no" and just stating your original point over and over ("the hatch is free and you're wrong") has nothing to do with facts or logic. We presented new points and new evidence to back up our arguments, while you simply restated your initial argument every time. But you're right in saying that there's not much point continuing with someone like that - we've all made our case and anyone who cares to can read the points discussed and draw their own conclusions.
-
@Wolf74 said:
@powerbats said:
It's funny how you try and twist things to fit your false narrative which doesn't the fact that it's still FALSE.
Go to your bathroom and read that line to the mirror.
Repeat it 12 times and come back.
@powerbats I feel like this about sums up how much reasonable discussion you're going to get at this point.
-
@Wolf74 said:
@Fibijean said:
@Wolf74 said:
@Entità said:
2) PROBLEM ANALYSIS: What specific injustices do you believe derive from the existence or from the actual operation of the hatch?
I am just focusing on this one.
The injustice is the following:
The hatch is a mechanic to avoid a 4 kill match and give the last survivor a chance to escape without doing the remaining gens or gates with a clear advantage after the survivor found the hatch.
So it is a kind of a safety net.
But where is the safety net for killer?
Where is the game mechanic that avoids all 4 escaping?That would be NOED. People get extra altruistic after the gates are powered. Otherwise, just... playing well? The thing is, the last survivor isn't necessarily last because they played badly. They could have played really well and just had a bad team. So it makes more sense that they get a chance to escape. But if all 4 survivors escape as killer, that usually just means you played a bad game. (Also it's lore-friendly - lore-wise, the hatch exists to encourage hope in survivors because the entity feeds on the hope of survivors. They don't get anything out of hopeful killers.)
Just to be clear, I do think the hatch mechanics as they stand are problematic. I just don't agree that it's a "safety net" - that would imply that the survivor played badly but it's okay because hatch, but usually it's the other way around: their team played badly, but they still have the opportunity to earn their reward.
No. You can't compare a perk that a killer choose to spend a slot on with a free mechanic like the hatch.
The survivor get that mechanic for FREE.Yes, but the hatch's existence guarantees escapes less often than NOED guarantees kills. The survivor may or may not have a clear advantage after finding the hatch, that's debatable, but the killer has the clear advantage in searching for the hatch. Sometimes, the survivor gets found before they find the hatch. Sometimes they get outplayed in standoff. Whereas with NOED, you just hit one person after the last generator is done, which is not at all difficult to do, and bam, instant free kill 95% of the time.
You asked if there was a game mechanic that prevented all 4 survivors from escaping at the last minute. NOED is that mechanic. Just because it costs something doesn't mean it's not a game mechanic. Also, as I explained, NOED is much more of a safety net than the hatch, since the necessity for the former usually means that the killer played badly, whereas the necessity for a hatch escape often just means that their team played badly and screwed them over. Not always, but often enough to be significant. A survivor's loss can be the fault of other survivors. A killer's loss is no one's fault but their own. So they may have different pros and cons, but the hatch is, at the very least, as much the undeserved free win that you're making it out to be as NOED is.
-
I posted a topic a while back in which this was discussed at length. You might be interested in checking it out, and seeing some of the points that were made there. No sense reinventing the wheel
-
@Orion said:
@Fibijean said:
@Orion not when it comes to intentions, because intentions are a situational thing. You intend something in the moment. You can change your opinions after the fact, but you can't change your original intentions. So if we're going to define an exploit as something which exists outside of what the devs intended for a particular mechanic, then no, they can't change their minds.On the other hand, if we're defining it instead as existing outside of how the devs think something should work, then yeah they can change their minds about whether something is an exploit, but opinions are subjective, which brings us back to the question of whether the devs' opinions should be taken as gospel or simply another perspective to consider.
Well, the devs are the ones with control over the game, and exploits are things they didn't intend and don't want in the game. Explain why their word isn't the only word that matters when it comes to what they're making.
People who believe in "Death of the Author" strike me as the type who'd argue with God about humans being bipedal.
(Except that God by definition is actually infallible and the devs are... well, human, and therefore fundamentally flawed, so it's not quite the same thing.)
That aside, because I'm not really interested in derailing the topic by debating religion of all things... their word is, arguably, what matters when it comes to determining their intentions, as long as we're accepting that as our definition of an exploit. However, I think Wahara 's original point was not necessarily that the devs' word doesn't matter, but if their actions contradict their words, it's their actions that tell the true story. So in the case of dribbling, they choose to believe that it's not an exploit not because the devs say so but because it makes sense in the context of the devs' actions, that is, their work, the game they created. But if the devs were to say something outlandish like "decisive strike is the weakest survivor perk in the game", yes they created the perk and the game and they may have meant for it to be a weak perk, but the evidence provided by the game itself would suggest otherwise.
In the case of exploits, as I said, it comes down to how we define the term. If we accept the definition as being that an exploit is anything that is possible but that the devs didn't intend to make possible (although personally I would argue that that's the definition of a bug, which is different from an exploit) then I totally agree that the devs' intentions are all that matter in defining whether something is or isn't an exploit, and the devs are the only ones who can tell us what their intentions were. However, in general, I think it's not a good idea to take the attitude of "the devs said so, so they must be right" because there are situations in which they might not be, and it would be wise in those situations to look at the evidence presented rather than just taking their statements at face value.
-
@Unicorn Oh ew. That sounds terrible. Is there a way to disable receiving messages from randoms?
Also @friendlykillermain lol commas make all the difference
-
@Orion not when it comes to intentions, because intentions are a situational thing. You intend something in the moment. You can change your opinions after the fact, but you can't change your original intentions. So if we're going to define an exploit as something which exists outside of what the devs intended for a particular mechanic, then no, they can't change their minds.
On the other hand, if we're defining it instead as existing outside of how the devs think something should work, then yeah they can change their minds about whether something is an exploit, but opinions are subjective, which brings us back to the question of whether the devs' opinions should be taken as gospel or simply another perspective to consider.
-
@Wolf74 said:
@Entità said:
2) PROBLEM ANALYSIS: What specific injustices do you believe derive from the existence or from the actual operation of the hatch?
I am just focusing on this one.
The injustice is the following:
The hatch is a mechanic to avoid a 4 kill match and give the last survivor a chance to escape without doing the remaining gens or gates with a clear advantage after the survivor found the hatch.
So it is a kind of a safety net.
But where is the safety net for killer?
Where is the game mechanic that avoids all 4 escaping?That would be NOED. People get extra altruistic after the gates are powered. Otherwise, just... playing well? The thing is, the last survivor isn't necessarily last because they played badly. They could have played really well and just had a bad team. So it makes more sense that they get a chance to escape. But if all 4 survivors escape as killer, that usually just means you played a bad game. (Also it's lore-friendly - lore-wise, the hatch exists to encourage hope in survivors because the entity feeds on the hope of survivors. They don't get anything out of hopeful killers.)
Just to be clear, I do think the hatch mechanics as they stand are problematic. I just don't agree that it's a "safety net" - that would imply that the survivor played badly but it's okay because hatch, but usually it's the other way around: their team played badly, but they still have the opportunity to earn their reward.
-
Ok but guys as entertaining as this is you can get in trouble and get the discussion closed for derailing so... let's go back to talking about leaving teammates behind in DbD?
-
@friendlykillermain said:
perfect parents really need to read age ratings on video games
Halfway decent parents who care about their kids*** need to read age ratings on video games in order to not be guilty of child neglect. Also reading this made me happy, but how do you even receive voice messages?
-
@twistedmonkey said:
@Fibijean said:
I think you've misunderstood me. I never suggested that NOED was a bad perk, that it is overpowered, or that the fact that it takes time to counter is a bad thing. I think it's great, actually. I was just contesting your suggestion that it realistically takes 70 seconds to cleanse all the totems, because it actually takes a lot more than that. Yes, you often see totems around the map. That doesn't mean that you can find all 5 easily. You might only see 3 or 4, and spend ages looking for the rest. Just because totems are visible doesn't mean you can just go from totem to totem taking them all out with ease, because you might know where 1 or 2 are but you have to search for the rest, while being stealthy so the killer doesn't find you. It takes time.
And as I said, it doesn't actually matter much in terms of efficiency whether or not everyone is cleansing totems, because even if others have cleansed some, you don't know that, so if you want to make sure they're all gone you have to go around and find each one anyway to make sure it's gone (plus they're not as easy to see when they're already broken). And that takes more time. Which, again, is not a bad thing necessarily, but it's incorrect and dangerous to think that NOED takes no time at all to counter. The counter is simple and easy, but in reality it isn't quick. That's all I'm saying.
If you still aren't sure what I'm talking about, imagine that I said "well it only takes a maximum of 120 seconds to kill a survivor, so your games should only last 480 seconds at a maximum. I mean, how often do you see other survivors when you're in a chase?" Obviously it's not exactly the same thing, because survivors are sentient and mobile unlike totems, but the point is, moving around the map takes time. Locating and chasing down survivors takes time. Hooking them isn't the difficult or time-consuming part, so it's silly to act as though that's the only part worth mentioning. Similarly, the difficult and time consuming parts of totem cleansing aren't the actual cleansing but moving around the map, stealth, and locatinig totems. There's a lot more to it than just that 70 seconds.
Sorry yes I misunderstood a bit, I am in agreement that NOED can take a lot of time to remove, totems take 70 seconds to cleanse not factoring in finding and moving to them, but thats not to say its hard to do, it could take 3 times as long in the grand sceme of things, I do however still stand by my statement of which it can be taken out the game very quickly if each survivor simply did each totem they saw when they had the chance too, I also think for the most part in most of the maps we will all see a totem if spawned accross the map within the first 30-60 seconds of the game starting and thats not actively looking for them, that is just moving towards our objective of doing gens.
You're quite right that totems are often easy to spot and the perk can be disabled relatively quickly if everyone does their job. However, unless the whole team is communicating, as an individual you have no way of knowing how many totems have been cleansed by other people, so you still need to find each totem to make sure that you're safe, and that can take as much time as just doing them all yourself. And if everyone cares enough about disabling NOED to cleanse totems, it's likely that everyone will be taking the time to search the map to make sure they're all cleansed, which means they're not doing generators and they are making themselves vulnerable to the killer. I imagine if everyone did care that much about secondary objectives, it would play out fairly similarly, though perhaps not as dramatically, as the Hallowed Blight event.
-
@Orion Yes, but devs can claim that something is an intended mechanic when what it actually was is a bug that they liked the effect of. Bethesda does it all the time. No one is saying that the dev's opinions are worthless, just that perhaps they shouldn't be taken as infallible gospel and rather we should look to the game itself to work out whether a tactic is gamebreaking or not.
-
@BLUE_APE said:
@Fibijean said:
Story mode sounds cool and I think it would be if done well, but it would be a huge amount of work and realistically it's not going to happen for a very long time, if at all. The devs have much bigger fish to fry at the moment.As for the legacy thing, I'm guessing you're just going to tell me it isn't fair no matter how I try to justify it, but I'll give it a go anyway. (Disclaimer: I don't have any legacy skins, because I'd only just started playing at the time, but I was there when the change happened.) Prestiging a character used to be a much, much bigger time commitment. It took like 5 times longer than it does now. The legacy skins were a reward for those who put in so much effort to get there before the devs made prestige a lot easier. It's the same as event-exclusive skins - you put in the work, you get the reward. The skin is like a badge of honour that says "I put in this much time and work into this game at a point in its development when getting to this place was much more difficult". And you want to have a badge that says that you did all that work, even though you didn't? Now that's unfair. Exclusives are exclusive for a reason. It doesn't affect your game at all, it's just an optional identifier to say "I was here, and I did the grind". Just get the next exclusive item that comes along, and you can have bragging rights for that. But let the people who did the time get the reward for it. You're not entitled to something you didn't earn, under any circumstances.
Woah! Slow down crucifier, I didn't mean it like that.
Okay I know a decent amount about DBD, but I only have been playing since christmas last year in 2017.
But I didn't know thats some of the main reasons why, they made it exclusive.
So I wasn't around at the time to play DBD at the time (due to still being under house rules)But tell me this
How many people are getting reported/banned and unfairly targeted because they have legacy?
How come there can't be new challenges/events that let late players like us get a chance to get them?
Whats to say they have a different/new look for legacy, but its not the same as the ones that were the event exclusive?Somebody hacked my friend's dbd account and gave him legacy, later my friend got banned, and he didn't even wear the legacy into a match (not that he told me of at least)
I'm not saying I want a badge of honor, I just want a costume, there is nothing stopping the devs from making different legacy cosmetics that are not the same or as rare as the others.
Like people who have legacy (from the event) get a special medal on the costume or something?Okay so before you start excusing me of wanting something I didn't understand was a badge, make sure I know first.
I apologise, I assumed that I wasn't the first person to tell you why asking for legacy skins isn't a good idea, and that if you were going to request something like that you would have known what the legacy skins actually are and what they represent.
To answer your questions:
I would say not many? Most people who have legacy skins earned them. Those who have hacked skins usually hacked it themselves, and so are in the wrong and deserve to be punished. I would guess that people like your friend who acquired skins wrongly but not through their own misbehaviour are very much in the minority. If you're talking about being targeted by other players, well, it's their choice to wear the skins or not.
The reason there can't be events that let players who joined later have a chance at getting them is exactly what I said. It would defeat the whole purpose of the legacy skins in the first place. If you just want exclusive skins, play the holiday events. In short, there already are events that let "late players" earn exclusive cosmetics. But not cosmetics that you didn't earn. Wearing a legacy skin says "I ground for the prestige way back when". Wearing the Huntress' dog mask or David's donkey jacket says "I ground for points during the Howling Grounds event". But they're exclusive for a reason, because if they weren't they wouldn't mean anything. You say you understand that legacy skins are akin to a badge of honour, but if you understand that then I don't know why you still think that new players should have a chance to get them.
You're right, there is nothing stopping the devs from making different exclusive cosmetics. They already do. But that's not a legacy skin, that's a something-else skin. Legacy skins are the ones awarded to players who prestiged characters at a time when it took a lot of work to do so. So as I said, they can make other cosmetics, and those can be exclusive, but I'm not sure how that would solve anything in terms of people begging for legacy skins they didn't earn. The main reason people seem so desperate for legacy skins is simply because they can't have them. So creating an exclusive skin that's like legacy but different wouldn't solve the problem. Case in point, the Hallowed Blight skins, which is about as close to the appearance of the legacy skins without actually being the same thing as you're going to get. Those were available very recently, and yet there are still those who feel that they should be able to get the "real" legacy skins.
-
@Wahara In other words, the fact that the devs say something is so is less important than one's interpretation based on the evidence present in the work itself. I would encourage @Orion to consider the possibility that whether or not the author intended to do or say something, what matters is what emerges in their work because that's what they actually did or said. If someone wrote a book where they said "the cat was black" and then afterwards they told everyone "actually, I intended for the cat to be brown all along", well... that's what the author said, sure, but fans could be forgiven for holding the author's actions, that is, what they actually wrote about the cat, in higher regard than whatever they claimed after the fact.
But as I said, as long as the bases are so firmly divided, there's not much point in taking the discussion much further other than just agreeing to disagree.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
@Fibijean said:
Even if everybody cleansed them, it would take a lot more than 14 seconds out of the game. You're not factoring in the time it takes to find them at all. Some totem placements are better than others, and some maps are easier to find them on than others. But in most cases regardless, it still takes time to look around and find them, while also trying to avoid the killer if they're nearby. Or if you get found, which usually happens to someone within the first 30-60 seconds of the match, that's time that you're not cleansing totems as well. Even if no one gets found and they all make totem cleansing a priority, they still waste time finding the rest to make sure that they're all gone, because without SWF and third-party VC they have no way of knowing how many totems other people have cleansed without checking for themselves.
So if all the survivors collectively spawned within view of all 5 totems and cleansed them straight away, plus they were a SWF 4 man and could then tell each other that they'd all cleansed totems, and they weren't interrupted by a killer like nurse or hillbilly (i.e. huge map presence) during that time, then MAYBE it would take as short a time as you say. But that's a fantasy situation, not the reality for most games.
Yes what I was stating is it takes 14 seconds for each one, the best case scenario is each one a survivor runs past gets cleansed, that is only 70 seconds to cleanse all the totems, its the equivalent of almost doing one gen and it only takes away 14 seconds from each survivor with one being 28 seconds.
Of course they have to use a few seconds running to the totems they see and if the killer finds them they can lose what progress they may have done but let me put it this way, in doing this objective you do not let the perk activate, it saves someone going down at the end game so easily, it saves the time in everyone or maybe just one trying to find NOED at end game, the time taken within the match saves the time at the end, of course you could just leave the game but most do not and that is why it is complained about so much.
You actually hit the nail on the head, of course it wastes time and that is the pupose of it being a totem, the fact that you have to take time of gens means it is working as intented, numerous times I have cleansed 3 or 4 totems per match only to find NOED activating, guess what happened? 1k turned into 3k and those players complained the killer was a noob for using it in the end game chat, who was actually the bad player in that scenario?
My point still stands apart from Lery's and The Game how often do you actually run around doing gens and not spot a totem within 30 seconds? i would say its very rare that you never pass any unless you spawn right next to a gen and start on it instantly.
The reality for most games is that a lot of players just dont do them, NOED is in essence a totem to give survivors what many people have been asking for, another objective for survivors to do, of course it can take time but thats the whole point, dont take the time and you risk the perk activating, its a choice you make.
Would you prefer it went back to be the original way? NOED used to be perma at the end game when the game first came out, now it has an actualy counter its just people refuse to use that and then blame the mechanic or the player.
I think you've misunderstood me. I never suggested that NOED was a bad perk, that it is overpowered, or that the fact that it takes time to counter is a bad thing. I think it's great, actually. I was just contesting your suggestion that it realistically takes 70 seconds to cleanse all the totems, because it actually takes a lot more than that. Yes, you often see totems around the map. That doesn't mean that you can find all 5 easily. You might only see 3 or 4, and spend ages looking for the rest. Just because totems are visible doesn't mean you can just go from totem to totem taking them all out with ease, because you might know where 1 or 2 are but you have to search for the rest, while being stealthy so the killer doesn't find you. It takes time.
And as I said, it doesn't actually matter much in terms of efficiency whether or not everyone is cleansing totems, because even if others have cleansed some, you don't know that, so if you want to make sure they're all gone you have to go around and find each one anyway to make sure it's gone (plus they're not as easy to see when they're already broken). And that takes more time. Which, again, is not a bad thing necessarily, but it's incorrect and dangerous to think that NOED takes no time at all to counter. The counter is simple and easy, but in reality it isn't quick. That's all I'm saying.
If you still aren't sure what I'm talking about, imagine that I said "well it only takes a maximum of 120 seconds to kill a survivor, so your games should only last 480 seconds at a maximum. I mean, how often do you see other survivors when you're in a chase?" Obviously it's not exactly the same thing, because survivors are sentient and mobile unlike totems, but the point is, moving around the map takes time. Locating and chasing down survivors takes time. Hooking them isn't the difficult or time-consuming part, so it's silly to act as though that's the only part worth mentioning. Similarly, the difficult and time consuming parts of totem cleansing aren't the actual cleansing but moving around the map, stealth, and locatinig totems. There's a lot more to it than just that 70 seconds.
-
@Rebel_Raven With all due respect, I'm not a developer. I don't know the game and its functions back to front, and I never claimed to have all the answers. So just because I haven't given it the necessary thought to know where to start, doesn't mean that the devs haven't. They've tested out radical ideas in PTB before, and the game hasn't exploded in a huge ball of fire. They test things, they get feedback, they either implement or they don't. That's what the PTB is for. So you test out what actually happens when you put everyone on the same level, instead of just theorising about it. You see what the actual, tangible issues are, and then you fix them.
I'm not proposing that survivors get buffed. I'm proposing a buff to solo survivors, and then a wholistic nerf to all survivors, because it may be that survivors as a whole don't care about the killer's experience (although I would caution you against generalising like that, because it really doesn't help anyone) but I happen to be one of the ones that does. I'm doing my very best to be fair to both sides in what I'm proposing, so neither survivors nor killers feel like they have no chance or like they're missing out.
I don't have a solid game plan, I've already admitted that. Maybe if I thought about it some more, I could come up with one. I'm just pointing out what I consider to be the flaws in your logic, because you seem to actually have specific ideas, unlike me, and so maybe if I help you to see the flaws in them you can develop them into something better and more viable. I'm not trying to attack you or killers in general, so I'm sorry if it came across that way. Just trying to come up with a game plan together.
-
@Carpemortum Unfortunately that's only part of the problem, although what you suggest is a good way to close the gap between SWF and solo survivors, which is where I think the real issue lies. But the main issue with SWF isn't pre-game coordination, but in-game coordination, usually through third-party voice chat but sometimes just through knowing your friends and how their playstyles work. There also needs to be some way for solo survivors to reach that same level of coordination without talking to each other externally.
-
Story mode sounds cool and I think it would be if done well, but it would be a huge amount of work and realistically it's not going to happen for a very long time, if at all. The devs have much bigger fish to fry at the moment.
As for the legacy thing, I'm guessing you're just going to tell me it isn't fair no matter how I try to justify it, but I'll give it a go anyway. (Disclaimer: I don't have any legacy skins, because I'd only just started playing at the time, but I was there when the change happened.) Prestiging a character used to be a much, much bigger time commitment. It took like 5 times longer than it does now. The legacy skins were a reward for those who put in so much effort to get there before the devs made prestige a lot easier. It's the same as event-exclusive skins - you put in the work, you get the reward. The skin is like a badge of honour that says "I put in this much time and work into this game at a point in its development when getting to this place was much more difficult". And you want to have a badge that says that you did all that work, even though you didn't? Now that's unfair. Exclusives are exclusive for a reason. It doesn't affect your game at all, it's just an optional identifier to say "I was here, and I did the grind". Just get the next exclusive item that comes along, and you can have bragging rights for that. But let the people who did the time get the reward for it. You're not entitled to something you didn't earn, under any circumstances.
-
Bad luck man... but damn good for her! Nothing feels better than getting lucky with unbreakable or the 4% and turning a hopeless situation around, even if everyone dies later anyway.
-
As others said, Sloppy Butcher is more reliable, plus it leaves a more convenient blood trail for you to follow. It's especially good on maps with light ground like The Game or Lehry's, makes it practically impossible to hide or juke when you're injured. Not to mention, survivors generally won't heal inside your terror radius because a) coul gives them a notification as soon as it activates, so they can just go "oh my healing's going to be slow, I should get further away and then do it" and b) you might have nurse's calling, the range of which is usually about the same as the terror radius.
-
The short answer is no. I'm pretty sure the postgame just hasn't been updated. Idling and holding the game hostage are still reportable, but rage quitting is not because they already have a system in place (on PC, and they're working on implementing it for consoles) to punish people who deliberately DC from games. Because they have that system, they don't need to manually do anything about ragequitting, which means that submitting reports for it wastes your time and theirs and just makes it harder for them to get to the actual noteworthy reports. I'm not on the support team though, so I could be wrong. Perhaps @Patricia or @not_Queen can provide better clarification.
-
The thing about changing light levels is it's really hard to balance, which is why they removed the offerings that made the moonlight brighter or darker in the first place. On top of that, it's pretty easily circumvented by just adjusting the brightness on your monitor (which, incidentally, is what you should do if you think certain maps are too dark - unless it's a problem that everyone complains about, which it isn't, chances are it's your fault, not the game's).
-
@Orion @Wahara Have either of you ever heard of Authorial Intent vs. Death of the Author? It's a literary thing but can be applied to any kind of work from books to paintings to video games. Basically, the way it works is this:
If you believe in Authorial Intent, as Orion does, you believe that the author (in this case, the developer/s) has supreme authority over how their work is interpreted by virtue of being its creator. (A literary example might be if there was a character of indescriminate race whose descriptions may have suggested but didn't explicitly mention that they were black. The author insists that the character is white because that's what they intended, therefore the character is white, end of discussion.) Here, Orion is arguing that because the devs designed the game mechanics, they get to determine what is and isn't an exploit based on their own feelings and intentions, and whether or not something appears to be an exploit is irrelevant if the devs say it isn't so.
If you believe in Death of the Author, on the other hand, which is what Wahara seems to be arguing in favour of, you believe that the author more or less relinquishes creative control the moment they release their work to public scrutiny. It now belongs as much to their fans as it does to them, if not more so. Therefore, the author can still have opinions and they can still say what their intentions were, but the fans are free to draw conclusions about the work based on what's actually there. (To expand on the example above, some fans in that scenario might have read the character as black because the author's descriptions, intentional or not, seemed to suggest that that was the case. These fans can therefore reasonably argue that the character could actually have been black, regardless of what the author says, because that's a conclusion that can be drawn from the work itself.) Wahara is arguing that the developers may have their own ideas about what is and isn't an exploit, but the word of the devs is not infallible gospel, and the players can still draw their own conclusions based on their observations of game mechanics, and those conclusions are equally valid.
Apologies and please correct me if I've represented either of your viewpoints inaccurately. I'm just trying to point out that your discussion isn't going anywhere and won't any time soon because you're both working from fundamentally different bases and at the same time thinking the other person is unreasonable because you assume that they must reasonably believe the same as you do with regards to the above. As long as you're both just stating what you believe, you're never going to convince each other of anything, but hopefully this will help to clear up where the discrepencies are.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
@Fibijean said:
@twistedmonkey While I agree that NOED doesn't need a nerf, I think you're seriously underestimating the cost of countering it. The time cost isn't how long it takes to cleanse all the totems, it's the time it takes to find all 5, and if multiple people are cleansing, the time it takes to say, cleanse 3 and then find the other 2 broken ones to confirm that they are, in fact, broken. Takes several minutes at least, if you're lucky. More often it takes at least half the game, assuming you don't have a perk like small game to help. Obviously it's quicker then, but most people don't run small game.Personally I don't think i am underestimating anything, now if you apply it to one survivor only then yes it can take a long time and I think the case for it taking a long time with everyone looking only applies to certain maps like Lery's or the game, most other maps you will end up walking/running past a totem to get to a gen, how often have you saw someone on a gen and a totem right beside them?
The overall problem is not everyone actually cleanses them and i find it is generally those people who don't cleanse them that complain, the only issue is if you are the only one doing them is you can not tell if others have ignored then which is probably more than likely the case, if you are running around the map the chances are you will always see one or two totems at least (again apart fro Lerys or The Game), the fact is NOED is designed to slow the game down and to stop survivors just sitting on gens or be punished at the end game which it seems to do a pretty good job of.
Even if everybody cleansed them, it would take a lot more than 14 seconds out of the game. You're not factoring in the time it takes to find them at all. Some totem placements are better than others, and some maps are easier to find them on than others. But in most cases regardless, it still takes time to look around and find them, while also trying to avoid the killer if they're nearby. Or if you get found, which usually happens to someone within the first 30-60 seconds of the match, that's time that you're not cleansing totems as well. Even if no one gets found and they all make totem cleansing a priority, they still waste time finding the rest to make sure that they're all gone, because without SWF and third-party VC they have no way of knowing how many totems other people have cleansed without checking for themselves.
So if all the survivors collectively spawned within view of all 5 totems and cleansed them straight away, plus they were a SWF 4 man and could then tell each other that they'd all cleansed totems, and they weren't interrupted by a killer like nurse or hillbilly (i.e. huge map presence) during that time, then MAYBE it would take as short a time as you say. But that's a fantasy situation, not the reality for most games.
-
@Master said:
Fibijean said:@Master said:
@aarongai said: How many survivors do you see running a map in your games? I'm gonna guess maybe 1 out of 20 games you'll find a person using the map, and if you ask them why, they'll probably admit they're just using it to get extra bloodpoints for discovering objectives. So here's a rework idea to actually make the map useful:
* Maps no longer reveal discovered objects on the map while holding M2
* Maps instead gain a Chart function. Right click any nearby object while holding a map to Chart it, revealing its aura to all teammates
* Map rarity / add-ons can increase the max number of objects that can be Charted at one time
* Charges are expended for every object Charted
* Bloodpoints are awarded the first time a teammate interacts with something you Chart
* Dropping the map will cause Charted object auras to disappear
Benefits of the rework:* Gives the map utility that is noticeable immediately to you and your team, helping prioritize your objectives
* By granting bloodpoints only when a teammate interacts with something you Chart, you're rewarded for doing something useful rather than just collecting bloodpoints for every object you run into
* Possibly allow even pallets, windows, hooks, and lockers to be Charted, which could indirectly save your teammates' livesNice idea and doesnt buff SWF.
I assume that the charted objective is only highlighted for a certain time and will go back to normal then
I assumed that it was more of a Third-Seal type mechanic, where you would only see the auras of the last however many objects you charted, but they would be revealed indefinitely. It is a good idea in terms of closing the gap between SWF and solo queue (which I think is the actual solution to the SWF problem, because it's a lot easier to nerf/buff survivors to a point of balance if you only have to work to one standard instead of two separate ones).
Mhm the issue with this would be if the map gets overused, it would probably confuse more than help, also imagine several maps in one session
I would imagine it more as something like a ping or sth bbq-like.
Also with the permanent aura there will occur other problems, e.g. what happens if the gen is done or of the pallet is dropped?
Yeah I get where you're coming from, but thinking about it, it wouldn't be any worse than a fully explored rainbow map, which I definitely find more helpful than confusing in most cases. Perhaps there could be a "read/toggle map aura" mechanic if someone on the team has a map, so you could in a sense 'opt-in' to see the auras when you want to.
As for changes in status like generator repairs, I assume it would work like any other aura-reading perk or item. Generators are no longer visible once repaired, but pallets are still visible whether they're up or down. Sure, there are some things that might need ironing out, but I think overall it's a pretty sound proposal.
-
I honestly don't understand why (presumably) killer mains sound so salty about this idea. It's not like anyone's proposing that killers get less points, just that survivors should get more. It's not like it affects you if other people can level up their characters at the same rate by playing the role that they prefer. It did occur to me that perhaps it has to do with the kind of stuff that appears on survivor bloodwebs, maybe it's meant as a balance tactic because otherwise survivors would get too many good items/offerings? But that still doesn't make sense, because it's not like you have to use points earned on survivor to level survivors. It literally just comes down to what role you prefer, and both roles should be more or less equally lucrative. I think the game shouldn't force everyone into the killer role just to earn extra points. Killers queues are long enough as it is.
I think the solution is just to give survivors more points for things they either don't get points for at all currently, or don't get enough. So, in my opinion, survivors should get points for:
- Struggling on the killer's shoulder. More specifically, you get more points the higher you fill the bar, because it's actually a matter of technique to an extent. Sure, it's pretty mindless and doesn't take much skill, but it takes more than spamming spacebar when you're on the hook and you get points for that. The only problem I can see here is salty entitled survivors getting mad at the killer for denying them points by hooking them too close. But lets be honest, those kinds of people are never going to be happy regardless, so why should the rest of us tiptoe around them?
- Other survivors disconnecting. I think it's great that the killer gets compensation when this happens, but arguably the survivors who are left behind get screwed over/cheated out of potential points as much as if not more so than the killer does, so by the same logic they should also get compensation points for ######### teammates.
Survivors should get more points for:
- Safe unhooks. This not only rewards higher risk play - because it does put you at higher risk making sure your teammate escapes safely rather than just hiding and saving yourself - but also disincentivises farming (to an extent, but I won't go too deep into anti-farming methods here).
- Taking hits for people. 200 points is really very little for placing yourself directly in the killer's path, not only revealing your location but making yourself vulnerable by getting injured in the process.
I'm sure there are other ways to rebalance the survivor bloodpoints system, these are just a few ideas. But I think they're a start.