Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Sunbreaker7 said:
Up until now, all your responses have focused on situations where Bubba uses specific advantages to delay the game. However, one crucial aspect seems to slip your mind: the possibility that Bubba doesn't rely on those types of setups, which has often been my experience. Some Bubbas prioritize perks that aid in swift chases, like breaking pallets and leaping through windows speedily. Not every Bubba opts for perks that slow generator progress or impede exit gate openings.
So, if the suggestion is to prioritize rescuing survivors because the Killer uses slowdown perks, that logic doesn't quite hold. The most effective strategy remains completing generators swiftly, regardless of the Killer's potential moves. Even if one generator gets blocked for 30 seconds while you work on another, the progress made isn't lost, allowing you to return to it later without setbacks.
Yes, if the Bubba does a terrible job, it's super easy to counter.
Do you have any other wisdom? Like how dodging a trapper M1 is easier if the trapper isn't aiming for you?
You've been told why camping Bubba is hard to counter, you can't just toss it all aside because 'sometimes Bubbas don't bring camping perks'. Not to mention that @Aven_Fallen listed no build components at all. Nor did I mention any perk set-up when I pointed out that solo-queue can't communicate campers to one another and thus risk wasting more time.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618245#Comment_3618245
Thank you for coming into this thread.
Let me get this out of the way: First, I do not believe in a hyper OP Killer where Survivors have no control whatsoever. I truly want this to be a fun game for both roles (I play Survivor a ton!). My main desire is for this game to be as thrilling as possible. Because of skill disparities it will be impossible to always have this.
When it comes to the technicalities of the power role, then yes overwhelmingly the Killer is the power role. But there are times where the Survivors are the power role when they are exceedingly better than a Killer lacking in skill or experience. Of course in this situation we would be getting into holding the game hostage territory which is already bannable. So on the front we are good.
What is difficult for me to come around to is a 50% kill rate. I see discussion that 50/50 is fair. And in most cases I would agree! But in this game it is vague, but frankly isn’t a 2K a draw for the Killer? I think this is where the fairness comes down to. Should Killers temper their understanding of winning to include a 2K instead of only 3K and 4K?
Also, I fully understand that personal winning looks different for everyone. To some Killers a 4E is a win just as long as there were some jump scares and tense moments (this is where I reside).
But again, do we consider a 2K a win or a draw? If that can’t be answered then I’m afraid the argument is a stale mate.
I personally think that a kill rate of 60% is the sweet spot. The killer is a threat but not too much. A 3K per match (a definitive Killer win) would be 75%. 60% is below that number so 50% of the time the Killer still isn’t “winning”.
Again I appreciate your civility on this subject, it is a topic we are all passionate about. We all enjoy this game in different ways and in different degrees. I’m sure we all want it to be the best game it could be. In my opinion I just don’t think the player base will correlate a 2K average as a Killer win 50% of the time. But I am more than open to hearing any ideas about this subject. I am more than open to changing my mind about this topic.
Kill rate and win rate are not hard-linked like that. @ratcoffee broke it down in another thread, but you can have a kill rate as high as 50% while holding a winrate of 0%, or a kill rate as low as 45% while holding a winrate of 60%.
They're not hard-linked because of the varied distribution of outcomes, which makes me think that kill rates really shouldn't be on the forefront. This is also compounded by the swing in hookstates: You can get a 4K off 4 hooks, or a 0K off 8. Chances are, the killer was stronger in the latter scenario and felt like more of a power role, despite losing, compared to the 4K off 4 hooks.
I know I have a better time with 8 hooks, zero kills, than with 2 hooks, one kill, despite the latter being ostensibly better for my kill rates.
But there are times where the Survivors are the power role when they are exceedingly better than a Killer lacking in skill or experience.
I also want to add in here that this isn't really a change to the fundamentals of the game. I do think that bully squads have a bit too much power in their corner and I'd love to see that pruned, but it doesn't change that killers are still mechanically the power role. Additionally, a large gap in skill doesn't state anything about the inner workings or balancing of the game.
In MOBAs, for example, having a grandmaster with a certain champion utterly demolish an iron-tier player with the same champion doesn't mean that the champion is overpowered or underpowered. So these hypothetical big imbalances aren't really relevant to the discussion, IMO.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618847#Comment_3618847
Survivor 1 finishes a gen and survivor 2's gen is blocked for 30 seconds. That already puts them behind schedule.
3 survivors can in theory finish the gens in a little more than 200 seconds (considering they need to run from gen to gen) which is already longer than a good chase and the 120 seconds until the first survivor dies.
Bring Deadlock into the equation and the killer buys themself another 30 seconds without any input. So they get 230 seconds for the 5 gens at minimum. That's almost 4 minutes. But after the first survivor died (about 180 seconds into the match) the killer can pressure the remaining 3 with ease. It's not rocket science.
Add in Corrupt Intervention for that critical, free, early game slowdown.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618847#Comment_3618847
Not needed. You know like everyone else that Deadlock provides Slowdown without any input needed from the Killer.
Furthermore, since the Devs increased Gen Times, but not the time on the Hook, it is very unlikely to get 5 Gens done in two Hook-Stages. It was unlikely before, now I think it is probably not even possible, even if all Survivors are doing Gens. Then Deadlock exists.
And THEN there is also the point of SoloQ. The person on the Hook HAS to struggle to give the other Survivors a chance to complete all Gens. But if someone is Solo, I cannot really blame them for not sticking around for 2 minutes and I can understand that they would rather go into the next game.
Overall, camping currently provides way too much benefit for the Killer just staying in one area.
Also, in solo queue: there's no way to tell that the killer is camping. So most folks will cross the map to check for an unhook opportunity, losing gen time in the process.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618235#Comment_3618235
The little perk symbol shows up in the bottom right of your screen when you're in the Boon zone. If it has a cross in it then it's CoH, if it has a foot then it's SS. I can't remember what the other two boon perks look like lol
Well, that's true, but that's only by the time you're there. If I'm in chase and I see a boon totem, I can lead the killer there in the hope that it's Shadow Step, but I wouldn't know before I get there. And if it's CoH, I've just run the risk of interrupting a heal.
Conversely, if I need healing and run across the map to Shadow Step, I'll just have wasted a ton of extra time.
-
It's important to distinguish what it actually means to be the 'power role', as quite a few people seem to think it means 'the role that always wins', or 'the overpowered role'.
IMO, the killer is the power role, since in general gameplay, survivors have to respond to what the killer does, as opposed to the other way around. In that way, the killer unilaterally dictates the game. The killer can bodyblock survivors, but not the other way around. The killer can incapacitate the survivors, not the other way around. The killer determines where survivors can go, not the other way around.
There's a couple of exceptions that need to be ironed out: Loops that are too strong, and the killer becoming vulnerable when they pick up a survivor. I do think those need pruning.
As to whether or not the killer SHOULD feel like the power role: Yes, but to a limit. There's a general gameplay expectation that I think the killer should be pressed to adhere to, in order to keep the game playable.
-
@Nazzzak said:
Just a question to solo players: which boon perk would you prefer a team mate bring - CoH or Shadow Step? I can't decide 😬
It doesn't matter, because I can't tell which one it is and thus don't know how to use it.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617948#Comment_3617948
No, I already said the 1% aren't good representatives of balance and for the average game teamwork can and often does beat killers, the disparity of win/loss ratios comparing SWF to solo is evidence of that.
No, killer NERfs where appropriate can be just as good for the game as survivor nerfs, nothing I have said implies otherwise. Just because I am willing to tolerate a killer bias in outcome on the basis that its thematically appropriate does not mean I think killers/survivors need nerfs or buffs.
So no... see previous answer. But you assume what you like if it helps you rationalize your point.
Trying to avoid the negative aspects of gameplay i.e. non-participation and elimination, is the core of the game as they are the very threats you are fleeing from. Why try to escape at all without them, just to farm BP's and Pips?
If you find those threats frustrating then maybe you are playing the wrong game, as they are part of the survivor role. Attempts to create mechanics to attenuate or remove them as tangible threats is what I'm here to challenge. Because I appreciate that they are tangible threats. It makes DBD a visceral and high stakes game experience and emulates horror slasher flicks well... two positive game elements.
Lastly, nope the argument is as its always been, if they are trying to emulate a horror survival setting, i.e group of survivors flee big scary monster, you'd expect a killer bias in outcome and that's what we see. My point is this isn't necessarily a bad thing over all.
I don't see how the "your argument is backwards" really makes any sense as the concept is very straight forward.
- The goal as survivor is to escape from the monster
- For that experience to be exciting the monster needs to represent a tangible threat
- We see that tangible threat demonstrated in a killer bias in outcome
- Ergo the killer bias in outcome is acceptable in this scenario
- The real question is how much of a killer bias is too much?
You may disagree with it that's fine, but its right there and hasn't changed. It answers the killer win streaks why?.. discuss... which is the topic.
If the best you can muster is well "I don't like it, it frustrates me" as a counter point which is basically the whole premise of the counter points here... Well then... tough, I hope you learn to like it or find a game you do like. I also hope they never change it because visceral game experience its one of the best aspects of DBD.
No, I already said the 1% aren't good representatives of balance and for the average game teamwork can and often does beat killers, the disparity of win/loss ratios comparing SWF to solo is evidence of that.
We don't actually know that though, since we don't know the extent of the disparity, nor do we know what the ultimate winrate of swiffers actually is.
Trying to avoid the negative aspects of gameplay i.e. non-participation and elimination, is the core of the game as they are the very threats you are fleeing from.
Except the game itself was never built for tunnelling, camping or slugging. There's peripheral design elements that indicate that. What you are talking about as being some core of the game is actually emergent gameplay, bordering on an exploit. It has never been a core.
If you find those threats frustrating then maybe you are playing the wrong game
Considering the developers have taken steps to try and mitigate it, maybe you are the one playing the wrong game.
Because I appreciate that they are tangible threats.
A 'tangible threat', in and of itself, is not 'good' by default. If we released a killer that could simply press a button at the start of the game to immediately execute a survivor, that'd be a 'tangible threat'. It'd also be absolutely terrible for the game. It being a 'tangible threat' is not a justification for its existence.
It makes DBD a visceral and high stakes game experience
Except it doesn't. Camping most of all, is one of the most boring and tedious ways to play. Tunnelling is not much better. Neither is slugging. All of these are 'tangible threats', and also a really good reason to walk away from the game, since there's no agency for the player and thus their participation is not required. (Disconnects/suicide on hook, anyone?)
I don't see how the "your argument is backwards" really makes any sense as the concept is very straight forward.
Except you already changed your argument. Your initial claim was that it's all about tension, except it's evidently not, because you're willing to defend mechanisms that deplete tension and replace it with frustration or boredom. And so you move to a new term in 'tangible threat', which, as demonstrated, is not necessarily a good thing.
It feels like you started with a conclusion (Killers should be overpowered) and then worked backwards to try and find argumentation.
"I don't like it, it frustrates me"
This is not a personal thing, this is something that kills tension for a very large contingent of players. It's been an eyesore for years. I know your argument is that 'it heightens the stakes of a chase', but the problem with camping and tunnelling in particular is that 3 out of the 4 survivors don't get a chase. And the fourth only gets one.
This is why your argument about 'tension' doesn't really hold up. If you want to use that to try and defend those playstyles, you're letting go of your core concept.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617745#Comment_3617745
What you call unfairly balanced I call appropriately balanced. Survivors beat killers if they work as a team, you talk like its impossible to beat a killer. Survivors have all the tools they need to beat a killer, but one on one they are in trouble because big scary monster. It works and it works well.
Plenty of competitive players still play DBD and the player numbers are pretty stable so we aren't seeing this mass exodus of players due to "poor balance" people keep touting. I'd say DBD is at greater risk of alienating horror fans by making the game too tame than they are alienating PvP fans who want the horror to just be a veneer rather than a tangible threat.
Again I enjoy DBD that's reason enough, I'll keep playing while I enjoy it and I'll enjoy it as long as the temper tantrum folk don't ruin the gameplay with terrible suggestions in the name of "balance".
I never said you can't have good horror with balance just that I've never seen people make good suggestions with respect to the topic of balance for DBD. Because most balance suggestions are made by players who want this game to be played one way and one way only. They hate any kind of loss of agency or early elimination and their idea of balance is removing those aspects so they can remain in game longer which isn't "balance" at all.
Balance in of itself isn't a bad thing, but often what people define as "balance" on this forum is. Because they want the balance to bypass or ignore the tangible core threats of the game.
"Twiddle their thumbs" in there lies the problem. That loss of agency that you despise, that makes you twiddle your thumbs... that's the threat you are trying to avoid as survivor. There are two primary threats in DBD as survivor loss of agency and elimination.
If you remove loss of agency the only threat is elimination which means you are safe until last hook. Basically gutting all threat from the primary mechanic of fleeing from chases until elimination. That doesn't sound "balanced" to me, but most "balance" suggestions made for DBD often revolve around removing the primary threats to survivor till essentially game end.
There is another thread right now with suggestions about fixing "tunneling" by making survivors immune to being hooked or hit till another player is downed. Just bad suggestions that remove tangible threat in the name of balance.
So yeah I comment when I see bad suggestions to water down the tangible threat that makes playing DBD interesting.
Survivors beat killers if they work as a team
Evidently they do not, otherwise we wouldn't have these colossal win streaks!
Unless you want to argue that in multiple hundreds of matches, they never met survivors that worked as a team.
I never said you can't have good horror with balance just that I've never seen people make good suggestions with respect to the topic of balance for DBD.
Is that, by any chance, because these suggestions nerf killers in some way?
They hate any kind of loss of agency or early elimination and their idea of balance is removing those aspects so they can remain in game longer which isn't "balance" at all.
That's a 'yes', then.
"Twiddle their thumbs" in there lies the problem. That loss of agency that you despise, that makes you twiddle your thumbs... that's the threat you are trying to avoid as survivor. There are two primary threats in DBD as survivor loss of agency and elimination.
No one has a problem with going down, or getting hooked. Everyone has a problem with killers doing everything in their power to completely lock at least one player out of the game, possibly multiple, as quickly as possible, or for as long as possible.
I don't know if you've realised this, but slugging, camping and tunnelling do not create tension. They create frustration, which is anathema to tension. Your entire argument here is to maintain these godawful strategies to maintain tension when they are very obviously a detriment to that.
This is my issue with your argument, it feels backwards. It feels like the killer bias came first, and then the tension argument was developed to try and support it, as opposed to the tension argument coming first, and the killer bias coming in as a conclusion of that.
-
@DrDucky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617791#Comment_3617791
Just look at it as Carlson going against random people in bars. He would easily hit a 100 win streak, and that is basically the same as dbd pubs (granted you cannot bring strong perks or maps or items in chess which do influence wins on both sides).
That would require DBD to have no matchmaking at all, though, and I don't think that's true.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617569#Comment_3617569
We don’t need to buff killer. There is a 60-40 split on game outcome that favours killer. Killer is in a sweet spot right now.
If you think I’m saying buff killer then you missed the point again. Nice cheap shot but way off, try harder.
You don’t have to alienate competitive players in order to keep to theme. That’s another just as weak a shot.
DBD clearly has a healthy base of competitive players. A good chunk of the whining on these forums is about how people playing to win ruins other people’s fun. People are playing to win aka competitive.
My point hasn’t changed. The killer bias in outcome isn’t a bad thing and suites the game well. I’d say thematically it’s pretty well balanced and the gameplay is generally good as a result. It’s thrilling to play survivor as a result and that’s fitting for gameplay and theme.
I don’t need to play another horror game I like dbd.
If balance means watering down the threat to survival and making the game more generically mechanical rather than thematically thrilling, then yeah people are trying to make it sunshine and lollipops in the name of balance.
One of the silliest things I’ve ever read on these forums was someone saying. “They need to balance the game because currently they never feel safe as survivor”.
You’re not supposed to feel safe as survivor that’s the point of survivor. I’m yet to see a discussion on balance that wasn’t just either dumbing it down to make it simpler or undermining the horror aspects.
So I’ll give some ground and say we don’t NEED a killer bias, but the game is that much better for it.
We don’t need to buff killer. There is a 60-40 split on game outcome that favours killer. Killer is in a sweet spot right now.
Well, let me reword it: It's more clamouring to keep the game unfairly balanced in favour of killers.
You don’t have to alienate competitive players in order to keep to theme. That’s another just as weak a shot.
Yes, you kind of do. If you make the game inherently imbalanced and push that constantly, it's going to remove competitive players. They're not going to play a game where their chance to win is arbitrarily kept low.
I don’t need to play another horror game I like dbd.
But if you're playing primarily for the horror element, you'd like TCM more, so why aren't you going there?
If balance means watering down the threat to survival and making the game more generically mechanical rather than thematically thrilling, then yeah people are trying to make it sunshine and lollipops in the name of balance.
That is, again, a huge leap. You have yet to prove you physically cannot have a good execution of the horror theme with a balanced game.
I also feel it's important to point out that some of the biggest outliers in terms of winrate, which, by your logic, should have the best thematic results, are three killers that specifically kill all the tension by making players twiddle their thumbs. They're more apt at making survivors bore themselves to death.
Nurse and Blight aren't much better, generally considered some of the most oppressive killers, and people don't like going up against them because it removes their agency.
But you know, if you want to have this tension argument, let me hop on that: Remove aura reading for killers, and remove scratch marks. Stealth play is by far the best way to add tension in the game for survivors, so let's buff the crap out of it for thematic reasons.
-
Non-godtier Nurse is, IMO, one of the most fun killers to face, as juking them is incredibly rewarding. If the Nurse player is good enough to never get juked though, there's no gameplay at all.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617520#Comment_3617520
I play it for the horror element and so do my SWF friends.
I play it because I'm a fan of the horror films included in its content as I'm sure many players do.
I'm sure there are players who are here only for the competitive PVP aspect regardless of the setting but do we have to cater for only them?
Which is basically what you are saying here because people ONLY play for that reason according to your reply. People play to win within the setting and the setting is still important even if playing to win.
If you think the horror theme isn't important to DBD then you have completely missed the point of DBD. If you don't like or appreciate the horror element... why not find a non-horror game to play? Rather than try and turn DBD into a mechanical non-horror experience.
Fall guys is great - I play it because it's a laugh. I don't need them to change fall guys into a bloodbath with graphic depictions of violence and blood because I play it for the funny jelly bean fun. That's its theme and it important.
MWO is big mechs bashing on each other, based in a sci fi world. The weapons, gameplay, maps and setting are all appropriate to the theme.
Theme is incredibly important to games and stories not just as an advertisement.
I'm sure there are players who are here only for the competitive PVP aspect regardless of the setting but do we have to cater for only them?
You lose nothing of the theme if the game is balanced better. Conversely, if you intentionally imbalance the game, you do fully alienate the competitive players.
If you think the horror theme isn't important to DBD then you have completely missed the point of DBD. If you don't like or appreciate the horror element... why not find a non-horror game to play?
In case you hadn't noticed: DBD has -no- competition. The closest thing is TCM, which does the horror element far better. So why aren't you moving there if you think the horror element is so important?
Fall guys is great - I play it because it's a laugh. I don't need them to change fall guys into a bloodbath with graphic depictions of violence and blood because I play it for the funny jelly bean fun. That's its theme and it important.
MWO is big mechs bashing on each other, based in a sci fi world. The weapons, gameplay, maps and setting are all appropriate to the theme.
It's a rather phenomenal leap to assume that DBD becomes rainbows and lollipops over the game not being balanced in the killer's favour. It's also a leap to assume there's no way to make the theme work with a balanced game-set.
All in all, it just sounds like more begging for killer buffs.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617476#Comment_3617476
That is a complete oversimplification and hints at a lack of understanding the point being discussed.
DBD is a survival horror, its the theme, its the design, its the way its packaged and promoted and the gameplay is built around that premise.
Doesn't matter if people camp, tunnel, gen rush or any of the other terms that apply to gameplay, the premises remains the same. Can you survive long enough to escape vs can you catch and kill everyone before they get away.
In that environment a threatening antagonist is not a bad thing and a killer bias in outcome is not detrimental to the overall theme. Providing that bias does not completely remove the ability to escape and it doesn't. It really doesn't, no matter how much the "It's not fair!" balance babies want to make people believe it does.
If the best counter point that people can come up with is "the top 1% of players have really big killer win streaks!" Well then yeah its not rocket science to show that, as it'd be expected of those players being in the top 1%. It says virtually nothing about general game balance on the whole.
If the goal is to make a case for survivors being stronger on the premise that the outcome is biased or unfair, then this is a weak way to do it.
I also disagree with it because the killer having a bias is appropriate for the game. The real question is how much bias is required to make killer feel adequately "monstrous or scary" and survivor feel adequately "tense or exciting". Those two things are important for the game.
That is a complete oversimplification and hints at a lack of understanding the point being discussed.
No, you are the one losing track of the point here.
Your original argument is that enjoyment stems from tension, which you then subsequently argued stems from, specifically, the horror element. I pointed out that this is not true.
But even if you were to disregard the litany of gameplay problems that prove time and again that people play to win, you'd still be incorrect. People do not play this game for the horror element. It may draw them to it, but the ones that stick are the ones that ultimately gel with the mechanical aspects, not the set dressing. They're attracted to either the party game nature of a custom game among friends, or the competitive nature of the game.
Horror thrill is not one of the pillars of DBD. It's a marketing point, but not part of the actual gameplay, otherwise the gameplay would look dramatically different from how it looks right now. The closest thing we have to a true horror killer is the Dredge, and even he will be of much more interest mechanically than thematically, in the long run as novelty wears off.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615267#Comment_3615267
I don't mean chases or mechanics specifically. I mean the concept of DBD is survivors try to escape from big scary monster. That is the game concept, the specifics of how they try to escape or how the killer chooses to kill them is not really the point.
Higher concept than just simple examples of in game mechanics. Why do people play DBD? What draws them to it?
Think bigger than the simple mechanics of a single specific gameplay or killer.
I mean the concept of DBD is survivors try to escape from big scary monster.
That's the packaging, not the core. The underlying game is far more complicated and it shows in the way these gamestyles develop. Including, unsurprisingly, playstyles that very much avoid doing chases. The idea that people come to DBD just because it says on the tin that a killer chases survivors contradicts how the game is actually played and ignores the core gameplay of DBD to focus on the superficial presentation of it.
It's like someone being given the choice between a red 1995 Fiat and a blue 2020 Porsche and then saying they only chose the Porsche because it was blue.
-
We've had anti-face-camp for years, so what's this thing for?
-
@TulipsCowsClogs said:
This perk should be altered in someway. Revert this perk to ver 3.0.0
Why should it be altered?
-
It's Dead by Daylight, not Resident Evil: Dead by Daylight.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616082#Comment_3616082
Even that can be considered a chase power. No red stain, going down in one hit and his ability to crouch to avoid being seen definitely help. On top of that he has the ability to sneak up on survivors and force them to play around the first loop they get to because they have little distance.
They said anti-loop, though, not chase. Ghosty, Meyers, even Wraith, don't have anti-loop.
-
I think Insidious should cause regressing gens within X meters to regress faster, while it is in effect. This would give it value in gen-camp gambits instead of it only being used for Bubba's Basement.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616014#Comment_3616014
I am, and i'm saying none of that matters because when every survivor plays this way you will never end up in a "situation" that makes this play bad and will basically guarantee at least a 3 man escape.
Clearly it does matter, since the absolute highest level of play still sees swiffers lose plenty. Shroompy is right, flat math will never fully grasp the complexity of the game.
-
@daffyd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615492#Comment_3615492
@Ryuhi I feel moderation is near and dear to your heart but for reasons I keep repeating this post isn't about being able to lock everything down, the world isn't like that and people are people as are children but then this is an 18+ game.
Apologies if you are feeling frustrated/antagonistic but I am merely after an answer to my original post.
You already got an answer. You just didn't like it.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615378#Comment_3615378
No, it isn't. There have been plenty of complaints about the killer meta in the past, the only reason you aren't seeing them now is because survivors got the short end of the stick. If the roles were reversed, I guarantee we would be seeing it.
For instance, we can think of Undying, NOED, Spirit and her add-ons, and many others. And I'm not here to discuss whether or not these things needed nerfs, what matters is that survivos complained about them.
Reversions have to be done in order to fix the issues, but these reversions have to go both ways.
Undying got complaints because it was legitimately too strong. Spirit got complaints because there was no counterplay. NOED got complaints because there was no counterplay.
They didn't get complaints because they got picked. NOED and Spirit weren't even 'meta'.
@Krazzik said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615378#Comment_3615378
Old Eruption had FAR more complaints about it than WoO has ever had.
No, because Eruption didn't last that long. Windows of Opportunity has overtaken it by now.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615330#Comment_3615330
Survivor perks doing things that benefit the survivors is considered a problem. You're not going to be able to expand the meta if every perk becomes the next scapegoat for why a killer lost a match. What would you want to buff? Healing, and have killers complain healing goes too fast? Boons, and have killers complain that boons can't be permanently broken? Item searching perks, and have killers complain about flashy saves and toolboxes? Stealth, and have killers complain that survivors are hiding too much?
To be fair, there are many things in the killer meta survivors complained about. Don't act like this is a one-sided thing, because it isn't.
And the solution is quite simple: revert the nerfs, but do it for both sides. Essentially, if we were to bring back the bloodpoint gains for WGLF, then we do the same for BBQ. That goes for all reversions.
It kind of is though. Camping and tunnelling will get complained about, but general killer perks and kits don't get nearly as many complaints, with the exception of Blight's add-ons.
Meanwhile, there's a new WoO nerf thread every week. I haven't seen any calls for gen-kick nerfs in months. The last time I can remember that gen-kick was complained about was Eruption enforcing a 25 second 'do nothing' time-out every time someone got hooked.
@Krazzik said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615330#Comment_3615330
Those same things are said about killer perks too, and I'm saying that this is something that should be done on both sides. Survivors widely complain about gen slowdown, but when killers moved to use much more aura-reading/info perks, survivors then complained about being found too easily. Even when killers actually started to use chase perks, mainly STBFL, that then got complained about and is on the chopping block.
This is something that both sides are equally guilty of so please don't try and make it an 'us vs them' arguement.
No, it's not 'equally guilty'. Windows of Opportunity has had more complaint threads than STBFL, Eruption and Aura-reading combined. And the complaints aren't even always calls for nerfs, just reworks to sidestep an issue with interactivity while preserving power. Eruption imposed 25 second thumb-twiddling and STBFL is being used to camp. I don't think I've even seen complaints about aura-reading perks other than Ultimate Weapon circumventing Distortion, the perk whose one singular job it is to protect from those perks.
And still, Windows of Opportunity is higher on the list to complain about, in general, with the primary argument being pickrate. Not that it's frustrating to go against, or unbalanced or anything of the sort, no. Just pickrate.
Survivors are using it, therefor it is busted.
-
@Krazzik said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615277#Comment_3615277
Players complain about seeing the same perks every game. Killers and survivors, no one likes a stale meta and having low variety in what they face. WoO has been -the- most popular survivor perk for months now and I think we can safely assume that if nothing is changed about it, it will continue to be at the number 1 spot for a long time.
Also, it's not just a case of only nerfing the most used perks every so often. It should also be accompanied by buffing many of the lesser-used perks, so that the overall power level of perks doesn't shift too much. It's to allow other perks with different mechanics to shine and to help breathe new life into the game.
This is also not a survivor-only thing, I think perks like Pain Res, Corrupt and Deadlock should be tuned down too and other, weaker killer perks buffed so that we see fresh new loadoats.
It should also be accompanied by buffing many of the lesser-used perks
Here's the problem though: We're not seeing these buffs, and we're not going to get them, either. Survivor perks have been on a downward trend where anything that is slightly above any of the established perks will be cut down.
Windows of Opportunity is, in terms of balance, a completely blank slot. It does nothing for the overall balance of the game. It is STILL being complained about by killer players.
Survivor perks doing things that benefit the survivors is considered a problem. You're not going to be able to expand the meta if every perk becomes the next scapegoat for why a killer lost a match. What would you want to buff? Healing, and have killers complain healing goes too fast? Boons, and have killers complain that boons can't be permanently broken? Item searching perks, and have killers complain about flashy saves and toolboxes? Stealth, and have killers complain that survivors are hiding too much?
-
@Krazzik said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615041#Comment_3615041
It's not only because WoO has the highest pick rate by a decent amount. You need to realise that the most popular perks are heavily weighted toward universal perks, and unlockable perks from free characters. This makes sense because newer players will only have access to those perks, so their pick rate is always going to be much higher.
Last time we got data from BHVR I believe that 8 out of the 10 most popular survivor perks were 'free' perks, with the only DLC perks being WoO and MFT. MFT was pretty widely acknowledged as being OP, and was rightly changed, but WoO was STILL picked more than that. WoO has also been the most picked survivor perk for quite some time now, and I mean it does go to show that it's simply too strong.
It isn't as obviously OP as perks in the past like DH and MFT, it doesn't make survivors faster or allow them to do anything they otherwise wouldn't be able to do normally. However, being able to always see where nearby windows and pallets are is clearly incredibly strong or else so many people wouldn't run the perk. It allows even bad loopers to be decent in chase and allows decent loopers to be much stronger in chase.
I don't think it's particularly 'unhealthy' like many overtuned perks in the past, but I do believe it needs some kind of change.
BHVR has shown in the past that they don't like stale metas and they want to force change, which is something many players agree with. It only makes sense that the number 1 most picked survivor perk for months and months will get tuned down to allow other perks to get the spotlight.
To go back to the adage from Warframe: There will always be a Draco.
That is to say, you can nerf the currently most-picked thing, but something else will then become the new most-picked thing. Which will then be considered too strong because 'they wouldn't pick it if it wasn't!'.
If you keep going down this path, you're legitimately heading for 'a survivor perk does something = nerf it' territory. Not everything needs to be an Autodidact, No Mither or Potential Energy.
-
But you can't deny that the main draw for both sides to DBD is - survivors fleeing from big scary killer.
Well, actually, I can.
It's been demonstrated over the years that that's really not the main draw for either side. Killers have been shown to avoid it as much as possible, essentially, and survivors will also take every exploit they can to limit this experience.
Camping has been a thing from the game's inception and that involves no survivors fleeing from anyone. Chess Merchant became a thing, someone showed how effectively you can win by not chasing anyone at all and people started copying that. Recent flashlight bug had plenty of players boogie their way into lockers so the killer literally cannot hurt them.
People, overwhelmingly, play for the win. How they get there is a secondary concern.
Remember when mind gaming played a major role in chase outcome, there was guesswork, random variance and some unpredictability.
If you're referring to Spirit, the coin flip gameplay was incredibly frustrating as it removed all agency and thus killed all the tension.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614788#Comment_3614788
Trying to refute my point by associating it with "biased killer mains" doesn't address the point it just tries to undermine it associating it with potentially biased players. That's called a strawman and its a weak position to have. (I know the phrase strawman gets used a lot as a I win buzzword but here we have a great example of one so I feel its warranted). It only holds true if I am a killer main and I'm not as I said don't assume my playstyle and I won't assume anything about you, that includes maintaining an argument that needs to assume it to have basis, which is what you've done.
Now for the topic at hand. I never said fear you don't have to be scared of the game in fact most people aren't. We aren't talking about fear we are talking about tension. What makes a chase so intense in a game of DBD? The consequences, and the consequences can be high if you fail to do well and that creates Tension also known as excitement. When the horror is gone the excitement is what remains.
What you are proposing is to dumb down the excitement in the name of mechanical balance. My counterpoint is that's a crap idea because mechanically DBD is pretty bland and I really don't want DBD to become a bland mechanical experience that lacks tension. There are enough games out there like that.
There is a lot of stuff from old DBD that I would like to see back again not all change is good change. Its generally improved but its definitely lost some of its more threatening and exciting mechanics. Old Moris for instance. I understand why they were changed but I miss the atmosphere they used to create and the threat they used to represent, I hope they never dumb them down further and actually bring in that proposed special mori ending that would be really crap.
Steam charts are actually pretty stable across the long term charts and making assumptions about why players quit is just as bad as making assumptions about why players play or have the opinions they do. Circle back to the first point about assuming things.
I'm not refuting that killer wins more than survivor you would expect that given the need for teamwork on the survivor side, the point I've always made is that's not necessarily a bad thing when you consider the theme of the game. (Before any schmuck quips back with "people won't want to play a game where they always lose," I'm not saying they should but a killer bias is to be expected and its what we see in outcome and its completely appropriate if people want a thrilling game as survivor).
We aren't talking about fear we are talking about tension. What makes a chase so intense in a game of DBD? The consequences, and the consequences can be high if you fail to do well and that creates Tension also known as excitement.
Let me add in a bit of a counterpoint here: Tension requires investment from the players, and there's a lot of ways in which this investment can be undermined. Frustration is a very big threat to investment, and probably the main reason why camping/tunnelling/slugging are such problems to the survivor playerbase. I know the game loses all tension to me if the killer engages with one of those.
But similarly, someone slapping on Blight with busted add-ons makes me lose interest as well. I already know the outcome of the game, roughly, so it's not worth getting invested into anymore.
You need good balance to keep the tension alive and prevent it from getting swallowed up by frustration.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614794#Comment_3614794
Give reason then? Because at the lowest level killer tends to win usually. And I gave you an explanation as to why I think that... All you gave is a statement without explanation.
The explanation is that every time BHVR has shown stats and then separated out the higher MMR regions (Be it Iri rank or just 'high MMR'), the killrates at higher MMR have been higher. Which logically means that at lower MMR, killers get fewer kills and are performing less adequately than they are in higher MMR.
I can't give you a reason because there's not that many stats to go off. I can speculate as to the reason, as I think killer has a higher skill floor but also a higher skill ceiling leading to low MMR killers underperforming but high MMR killers doing comparatively much better.
But all I can tell you is that killers are statistically stronger in high MMR.
-
@mecca said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614701#Comment_3614701
Except that killers can string up wins into the thousands. I think the Blight streak is almost to 2 thousand!
And the killer win rates is way higher than 50% actually.
Killer winrates range from 40-50% I think, mostly. Barring a few exceptions like chess merchant.
But just flatly going by 'winrate' is a bit of a misleading stat, since DBD also has what can be classified as 'draws' eating into the pie. Most important to know is whether killers are winning more or losing more, and across the board, they're almost all winning more than they're losing. I checked Nightlight the other day, and I found only three killers that lose more than they win: Nemesis (4.3 percentage points more losses than wins), Hillbilly (2.7 percentage points) and Singularity (1.1 percentage points).
The rest all won more than they lost.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614701#Comment_3614701
The question is in what skill range is the game killer or survivor sided? I think if for example in comp there were no perk or item regulations the game would most likely be rather survivor sided (maybe unless going against Blight with his most busted addons), besides like 5-10 killers in comp the rest is not really able to perform somewhat well against the survivor side and is basically expected to get like 3-6 hooks or something like that... I think you could call it rather survivor sided in this setting because 2/3 of the killers are not viable in this setting.
I think the lower you go the stronger killer becomes in comparison, because it becomes easier to tunnel and camp as the survivor don't necessarily know what to do against it... And if they do know and are beyond a certain point in skill, give you are of equal skill, less and less killers become viable from that point onwards... But in matchmaking, since it is what it is all killers are somewhat viable.
I think the lower you go the stronger killer becomes in comparison
And you would be incorrect, see point 3.
-
It's quite amazing that, statistically:
1) Killers average an above 50% killrate
2) Killers win more than they lose, on average
3) Killers perform better in high MMR than low MMR
4) Killers are able to string up wins in streaks in the hundreds
And not only do people still complain that killer is not strong enough, but there's even people saying the game is 'very survivor-sided'.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613607#Comment_3613607
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613643#Comment_3613643
First of all, I don't really care about this win streak argument but wanted to correct the fact that matchmaking only ever worked like @Firellius said for a very short time around the implementation of sbmmr, which led to insanely long queue times for the top of both sides. After that it got changed and then softened at least once again. So even my 10-20% might be a low guess.
Second, @AmpersandUnderscore your statistics are based on a wrong assumption.
Tldr: You forgot that the matchmaking algorithm doesn't only pit the 1% killer against the 10-20% survivor but the same bracket percentage on both sides with however much skill comparison really involved so the chance can be waaay lower than the 5% in this example.
For the sake of the arguments I will use idealized factors like 20% fix for the top bracket used by the matchmaking, instead of 10-20% and 1killer/a 4men squad for each %.
The matchmaking algorithm is also assumed as purely RNG in the respective bracket, seeing how many people question it on regular basis on here and my personal experience that ranged from 4men swf styling on me to 4 obvious solo so bad I had to carry them to the exit in consecutive matches, despite the same playstyle for 50-100 hours during my experiment. Also because any real factoring of the algorithm would be pure speculation and make this whole thing too complicated for my after-work-brain right now.
So with that out of the way:
Even if the numbers work out the way you describe here, that 1% player is going to go up against a 1% opponent either 10% of the time or 5% of the time (using your top 10-20%).
So in 100 games, they're up against that top 1% team at least 5 or 10 times. By the time they hit 1000 games, it's 50 or 100 times, which means they're still unstoppable against a similarly skilled team.
No matter how the matchmaking algorithm works it never only puts the 1% killer (1player) vs the 20% survivor (20 4men swf) but all 20% killer vs the 20% survivor.
So the chance of the the top 1% meeting the other 1% isn't simply 5% but, just like rolling a 1 on a d20 twice in a row 1/20 times 1/20, so 1/400 aka 0.25%.
Of course this doesn't take any real work of the algorithm into consideration but also not the real amount of players in each of the % on either side. That ratio could be the perfect 1/4 but is more likely to be 1/3 or 1/2 or even more on the killer side because to be one of the 1% on killer side needs only one person and for survivor 4 need to work together.
So with my idealized model the chance of this blight main that has his 1,6k win streak to meet a swf on the same level would amounts to 4 games.
It's a soft cap though, isn't it? Which means that although the matchmaking range would be widened, it would still prioritise players of higher skill level and thus increase the chances of encountering a high level survivor team.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613569#Comment_3613569
Because matchmaking never worked that way?
At the best of times it pitched top 1% player against the top 10-20% to reduce queue times and that's only a guess already. It then got even sloppier when they softened everything about matchmaking.
Only at the beginning of sbmmr was it even close to what you describe and that ended with those 1% having 2hour+ queue times.
But they'd have a significantly higher chance of going up against these alleged death squads than anyone else, surely? You may have a point with smaller sample sizes, but over 1000 games, it's hard to maintain this position.
Not to mention that if the game is truly survivor-sided, then it's not just survivors of similar skill level that would be able to trump the killer, it'd be others within that 10-20% bracket too. But apparently those don't show up either because the streak goes on unbroken.
Remember, only -one- team of survivors has to outperform the killer to break the streak. But in over a thousand games, not once has the matchmaker seen fit to match this top 1% killer up against survivors that are sufficiently close to their skill level to use the 'massively survivor-sided' game's imbalance to topple the streak.
It just seems like too much of a stretch.
-
@woundcowboy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613192#Comment_3613192
Nope, most killers are also bad. The reason kill rates are near 60 is that when a bad killer faces bad survivors, the killer usually wins. When a good killer goes against good survivors, the game is massively survivor sided. It also goes without saying that the people achieving these streaks are the top 1% of the playerbase.
I don't care how bad you think survivors are, you are not bringing a 1600+ win streak if the game was 'massively survivor sided'. Logically, if the game actually WAS massively survivor sided, that win streak would've been clipped much, MUCH earlier.
It also goes without saying that the people achieving these streaks are the top 1% of the playerbase.
But that would mean they're also getting pitted against the top 1% of the playerbase, so why aren't their streaks breaking?
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612986#Comment_3612986
Stake out would have been the solution for not so skilled survivors. Skilled survivors had no issue with the skill checks. But if a player knows, that he has trouble with that, equip that perk and just enjoy normal gen repair.
The problem i often see in DbD is, that the devs give us perks, that totally solve an issue. But the community rejects/ignores it. For example, we already had a solution to 3 gens with the introduction of Potential Energy. If a killer was holding the 3 gen from the start, they could have just used the perk to break that 3 gen before it happens.
And yes, 6.1 was weird.
The issue is that these band-aid perks become a 'perk tax'. Imagine having to take Stake-out for Ruin, Potential Energy for 3-gens (Which also just... no. Working on a contested gen at a significantly slower pace doesn't really help with that), OTR/DS for tunnelling and Reassurance for camping.
This is sort of what was going on before 6.1, where the average survivor load-out was comprised almost completely of perks that had to be taken to resolve certain situations that don't have proper natural counters. It also limits design space, because any more of these 'just bring perk to fix' concepts would go over budget, and any survivor perk that doesn't fulfil a similar role to an already existing 'perk tax' perk would be a waste of space.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612334#Comment_3612334
They slowed the game down in the sense that they made it take longer to do the gens, but they were more time efficient.
Basically, a killer would have to spend a solid 20-30 seconds landing a hit. But with the crazy medkits, and CoH, they survivors only had to spend maybe 12 seconds to heal themselves. So yes, it slowed the game down in the absolute sense, but efficiency-wise, it wasted more of the killer's time than the survivors time.
That's still a bit of a disconnect though. According to you, survivors are less time efficient. So why do killers feel more pressured?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613057#Comment_3613057
Well, it seems that you are definitely not seeing the same reality the rest of us sees. What a surprise...
Again, have a nice day.
Well, when you word it the way you do, anyone would get confused. But I edited to address what I'm guessing is the point you're trying to make.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613037#Comment_3613037
- The question: "Are you going to argue now that being unreasonable is not the point of the conversation and that it is I who doesn't know what is being talked here?"
- Your answer: "I never claimed that Mecca was referring to anything other than you"
Your logic and whole way of argumentation in a nutshell. But I am the one with "something going on" and a "particular brand of weirdness".
I'm going to be left wondering in what moment I had accused you of claiming such thing as Mecca not referring to me or how you got to that conclusion, but whatever dude, not in the mood for any more strawmans or any other type of fallacies today.
Have a nice day.
I'm not sure what you think I am saying, because to my eyes, you seem to be in weirdly violent agreement with me.
EDIT: Or are you simply taking issue with Mecca and I calling you unreasonable?
Well let me put it to you this way, dude: You stomped in here and took a haughty and aggressive tone with me, and accused me of getting the conversation wrong. However, the post that you point out as the conversation starter is Tsulan's SECOND post in this thread. The post I replied to was Tsulan's FIRST post in this thread. And that one did not mention the old anti-camp at all.
Again, you made a mistake and got confused. Which is not a problem, but you could stand to not take the tone you do.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613016#Comment_3613016
Being unreasonable? Nah dude, I'm pretty sure that there is pretty unreasonable people everywhere, it is not just me.
Or are you going to argue now that being unreasonable is not the point of the conversation and that it is I who doesn't know what is being talked here? Because I can see you do it even if this started with someone saying "You can't reason with killer mains" referring to me, not going to lie...
You know full well that what you're doing is a bit more than just being unreasonable.
And I never claimed that Mecca was referring to anything other than you. Mecca was just saying that the whole killer main playerbase is like you, and they're not. Whatever you've got going on is not something I'm seeing from others on the forums.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612983#Comment_3612983
That's cute coming from the guy that only debate in fallacies when I had reached middle ground with the more hardcore followers of the survivor's rulebook this game could have spawned many times in this forum.
Like I said before, never change 🤣
Doesn't change that whatever you've got going on is definitely a 'you' thing, and not something shared by the community, does it?
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612869#Comment_3612869
That had a fairly simple solution. Stake Out works wonders when its about hitting great skill checks. They could have buffed it a little bit, to get more stacks and keept the old-old-Ruin.
Ohh i totally forgot about the disable part of the current Ruin. Yeah, they should have tested it first. Double punishing a "high risk, high reward" perk.
I really wonder why they completely changed their approach from semi strong hex perks to what we have now.
Ohh i totally forgot about the disable part of the current Ruin. Yeah, they should have tested it first. Double punishing a "high risk, high reward" perk.
6.1 was weird, man.
Also, I don't think Stake-out is a good excuse for old-old Ruin. I don't think it's healthy to mandate that perk, just like I don't think it's okay to have to bring Calm Spirit for Ultimate Weapon.
-
@mecca said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612714#Comment_3612714
You can't reason with killer mains. I wouldn't even bother.
After all, they think killers should have default 100% wins all the time. Power Role.
Oh, no, this particular brand of weirdness is not a thing killer mains share. Just this one.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612845#Comment_3612845
A killer who is trying to defend a totem is a killer who isn´t controlling gens/camping the hook. Just saying.
I still remember how stressfull a 4 totem build with Thrill of the Hunt, Ruin, Lullaby and Devour Hope was. Almost impossible to defend.
The 200% regression Ruin was kinda weak tbh. Since it was only 1/2 of the speed a single survivor requires to repair. But it was nevertheless a healthy perk. Because it rewarded killers for constantly switching targets and pushing survivors off gens. Instead of what we have now.
A killer who is trying to defend a totem is a killer who isn´t controlling gens/camping the hook. Just saying.
I think the issue with old-old Ruin is that they were still controlling the gens. It could cause them to regress while survivors were working on them, undoing their progress as they were making it.
The 200% regression Ruin was kinda weak tbh.
It didn't feel like that from the other end. Generally speaking, if a survivor was on the hook before Ruin had been found, it'd be a 4K. Any more than 200% would probably be overbearing. But I liked the 'disables when a survivor dies' nerf it got, and that would've made it really healthy if it didn't also get axed.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612813#Comment_3612813
I´d say Ruin did a lot to improve overall survivor timing for skill checks. So it was menacing enough to get survivor off gens to find that damn totem. Something where Small Game could shine. Can´t remember the last time i´ve seen someone run Small Game.
Lullaby is a late game perk that only kinda effective when the killer gets hooks (i have an aversion to perks that help a side when its already winning, but is lacking when the side needs it the most, like PoP).
Also, Doctor isn´t exactly A tier. He´s at best an annoyance. Even with this build on him. That is, when you get actually matched against one...
Well, yeah, but with old-old Ruin, Doctor could make it really hard to progress the game at all, while defending the hex. I don't think old-old Ruin was healthy.
I do want Ruin to go back to 200% regression though, that nerf made no sense.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612690#Comment_3612690
Attempting to balance around new players has brought us here. I mean, Ruin was changed, because skill checks were to hard and look where we are.
But i agree. Pig should be nerfed.
Ruin also burned the gen if you hit the skillcheck though. Only great skillchecks prevented it from hitting. Progressing a gen, if you were unlucky enough, was practically impossible for all but the most trained players. And that's not counting things like Huntress' Lullaby or Doctor.
-
Otz mentioned this too. Seems like there's a resurgence.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612714#Comment_3612714
First post by @Tsulan that started this conversation branch:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3611472#Comment_3611472
My further post, answering both of you about the topic, which was about the old camping mechanic and why it was discarded:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612024#Comment_3612024
It was always about the old anti camping mechanic. So, you either are aware of this but yet again you are lying in an attempt to claim I was derailing the conversation (which would be funny, as that's your thing) or for some reason you are not able to follow the flow of what is being talked in a conversation and respond accordingly. In any case, again, whatever you say dude.
And why are you quoting me what Tsulan said if you're trying to determine what I am talking about? Do you think he and I are alts of the same person?
The post you're quoting also isn't the post I responded to. Looks like you got confused.
-
@MigrantTheGreat said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612327#Comment_3612327
CoH (boons in general): If BHVR had made boons work like Hex's, than Boons would have never been a problem
Medkits and Healing: Idk who asked for this but I'm putting the blame on BHVR's poor choice of balance because of CoH (Even though medkits themselves weren't a problem)
Second Chance perks: These had to go, because killer's are too dependant on survivor's making mistakes, on top of that DH for distance extended chases pretty much screwing the killer over.
DS: Imo this perk needs to be deleted because of how unhealthy it is. The 6yrs I've been playing this game, the perk always makes it into patch notes at least once a year weather it's a nerf or a buff. I don't have a problem with the perk (its current state at the time of this comment) but it either needs to become forgotten or staked in the heart.
Edit: Spelling Error
Boons would've been such a colossal problem if they were one-and-done, because the power they'd need to pack to compensate for that would've had the killers in outrage. Can you imagine global Shadow Step?
Healing nerf definitely was asked for quite a lot.
Second chance perks: I don't know why people still slap a plural on this when the only one that fits the criteria is Dead Hard.
DS: If you think DS is unhealthy you're a hard-tunneller and you deserve a five second stun.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3612701#Comment_3612701
I would ask what anything of what you just said had to do with the old system being abused by survivors and that's why it wasn't implemented, but yet again, we know how you roll so whatever you say dude.
That's a question for YOU to answer, since YOU took the conversation there, not me.