Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Rickprado said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3590890#Comment_3590890
Really? Most of them are.
Infections Fright: only useful for slugging (there are better info perks)
Unrelenting: Just good on hag
Courlofobia: Good on doctor in a specific map
And many more. Most of the perks outside the meta are heavily situational.
None of those are situational, as they're quite likely to provide value in the average game. These are very consistent perks, actually.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3590548#Comment_3590548
No, it's not fine to kill perks. At least they need to be viable.
Like there is zero reason to use For the People if you don't have Buckle Up. This just shows For the People needs buff if we are gonna nerf this combo. But you are free to disagree, i am not gonna try to change your mind.
Like there is zero reason to use For the People if you don't have Buckle Up
That's not entirely true.
It's not a good perk, certainly, but it's not terrible either. Shifting a health state instantly can still be valuable in certain situations. If the killer is tunnelling off hook, if the unhooker FTPs the tunnel target, that allows them one extra hit. Additionally, being able to pick up a survivor instantly can make a difference.
My proudest play ever was when me and another Felix were running away from the killer in the badham preschool basement. The killer downed him just as he passed a pallet, and I doubled back to instantly pick him up with FTP, after which he slammed down the pallet, and we were able to make good distance.
FTP is situational, but at least what it offers in power in those situations does make it strong enough to pull it out of the fire, unlike a lot of other situational perks.
-
That is absolutely a bug, especially if it doesn't occur when switching between different, non-EMP'd cameras.
-
@BlightedDolphin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3589221#Comment_3589221
Ok that might be an issue. Although I kinda need to see it now...
Guaranteed broken as hell but it would be mad funny!
-
@BlightedDolphin said:
I’d rather it just let you lunge while carrying a survivor
That + Mad Grit = NYOOOOM
-
Maybe not Iron Grasp, but IMO, flashlight and pallet saves are the other-side-of-the-fence equivalent of tunnelling/camping/slugging, so I'd be more than fine with some fixes to it. Having perks that can grant immunity to hook denial, maybe conditionally, would probably be good for the game.
-
It either needs more power for how conditional it is, or needs to be more consistent. So I'd say either:
Increase the self-heal from 50% to 75%
OR
If you are not injured when healing another survivor, gain a token. When you are injured and healing another survivor, you consume these tokens over time, healing for 20% per token.
(On top of the usual functionality)
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3586630#Comment_3586630
Survivors not being good at hiding doesn't change that scream notifications are far weaker than auras for tracking.
It's nothing to do with survivors being 'bad at hiding'. Once UW triggers, you have a very limited time to find a hiding spot, and the killer will either know where you've gone if you try to run (Scratch marks) or know that you're hiding somewhere nearby. (If there's no scratch marks)
Scratch marks, including their absence, do a ton of heavy lifting here.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
Several things:
- It is basically a Killer-Power (Doctors Static Blast) available for everyone
- It almost has no counters. Equipping Calm Spirit is the only counter, a Perk which is very mediocre and even applies Debuffs to Survivors. Way less counters than are available for Aura-Reads
- It lingers for 30 seconds. So you can scan a very huge portion of the Map with it
- It is very strong combined with Dead Mans Switch and, unlike the Pain Res + DMS-Combo, not really anything the Survivor can do against it. With Pain Res + DMS the Survivor can stand up, which will already waste a few seconds. But with Ultimate Weapon, they will just scream at a point and the Gen is blocked
- It is stronger on the strong Killers compared to the weak Killers. In theory, every Killer can get really good value out of Ultimate Weapon, but if used on a Nurse or Blight, it becomes oppressive
- And on top of all of that - it adds Blindness. Which is not the strongest Status effect, but since Windows of Opportunity is one of the most picked Perks, it still has impact. And honestly, it is a Bonus which is not really needed for a Perk that strong.
IMO the lingering for 30 seconds is the biggest issue. The Perk would still be strong if it would not linger and just be available when opening a locker or for a smaller amount like 5 seconds.
Little extra sub-point to the 'no counters' thing: The fact that it specifically circumvents the designated anti-info perk is a kick in the shins for survivors.
And to the blindness thing: This is a kick in the shin to solos specifically. Blindness is much less impactful to people on comms but really strong against solos. This is a kick in the shins for a large number of non-meta perks and theoretically also a great perk for slugging, which means it's bad for the game.
EDIT: Also, forgot to mention that UW making you scream can trip you up in more ways than just triggering DMS. It can make you fail skillchecks or reset progress on interactions like cleansing a hex, solving Pinhead's box, or clearing a Jigsaw trap.
-
@pumpkinmiceTTV said:
the best way to prep for solo queue is to set different win conditions because I mean, as much as I love getting a 4 man escape in solo queue where the whole team kinda just has pretty decent game sense, people doing gens, rotating hook stages and taking turns looping the killer/efficiently buying time for the survivors doing gens to do what they do -
as much as I always wanna get that cheeky 4man escape but if that doesn't happen, it's alright maybe I can:
- take the cake for wasting the killer's time and being an absolute PITA to catch
- get some nutty flashlight blinds/pallet saves/flashbangs/sabo plays
- do like ~5 gens while 1 guy is getting chased and like our other teammates are MIA because they're super immersed and crouching in bushes or some random corner of the map far, far away from the killer
- get stuns with silly perks like Blast Mine/Head On like X amount of times on the same gen/locker
I think you get the idea, sorta like a little mini-game/side quest thing so that you don't dwell on the whole "oh damn I didn't escape/died :("
in my opinion, it's kind of rude to place expectations on people that you've never met or played with before and assume they take the game as seriously as you do, considering the fact that there's no ranked/comp mode or leaderboard to really have to compete; but on the other hand it's like a team based game (for survivors, at least) but idk, it's hard to tell sometimes, I'm not a fan of people acting like trolls just cause they enjoy ruining someone's day - there's a lot of people who probably play DBD as a side game and just log in to play 1 match a week/month/year and that's it, soz your mileage might vary and you kinda got unlucky with matchmaking giving you teammates that don't know how to effectively play DBD
at the end of the day, it's just a game after all, hit em with the "gg" and go next <3
"I think you get the idea, sorta like a little mini-game/side quest thing so that you don't dwell on the whole "oh damn I didn't escape/died :(""
IMO, this is what WGLF was really good for. It cemented that kind of thing and really helped the game be more enjoyable. BBQ too. They should come back, even if reduced. And there should be more.
-
There was no reason to nerf Ruin from 200% to 100% regression, that change made no sense.
-
When I learned what the event was, with portals leading to an alternate dimension, Stranger Things did immediately spring to mind...
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3577853#Comment_3577853
But that is not what you said.
You missed the "And when talking about those "106 seconds" people refer precisely that those two survivor could have done 106 charges in two gens" part.
Sharpshooter fallacy.
You do. When you bring these factors up as argumentation for why splitting up is not more efficient. If you mention these factors in that discussion, you are either tossing in completely random commentary that is entirely unrelated to the subject matter, or you are bringing it up as an argument.
Bringing arguments because my point is that even if it is not as efficient as splitting up, in some cases grouping up is more beneficial. Doesn't means that I'm arguing that splitting up is not more efficient in any moment.
Strawman fallacy and a possible "black and white" fallacy, as you are treating this whole thing as the only options are one being better than the other at all times.
So yeah, that's you claiming that survivors grouping up is not better for the killer, which by nature of the game also means it's not worse for survivors.
No, that's me pointing out that it is highly debatable because there are cases where grouping up is more beneficial, and after that I argumented why.
Strawman and sharpshooter fallacy, as you are cherry picking that first statement without taking in count the following arguments I made and distorting what I said in first place.
To quote:
Yeah, it's precisely there where all your arguments and fallacies break apart, as you keep insisting that I said that grouping up is always better and / or more efficient when in there I made clear that my point was that even if that is true, in a real match there are points and situations where securing a gen faster is better.
Anyway, you still fail to point out how in any part of this... :
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3576637#Comment_3576637
... I argued that:
- A) Splitting up is not more efficient than grouping up.
- B) Splitting up is not more efficient than grouping up because "But the killer could find one of the survivors!"
As that is what you was accusing me of.
Because that is the only scenario you considered in the situation and specifically because it is the one that best supports your argument.
False. You are lying, as after I gave that example I said this:
"In a real case, you have to count walk times, healing times, countermeasures time, chase time as a survivor being chased is unable to put any charges or time in doing any of the other things, and of course regression."
I never based my statements in just that specific example I gave.
So, another sharpshooter fallacy.
The reality is that this can also snowball for the killer because having a lot of survivors together is a recipe for the killer getting lots of pressure.
And where I argued the contrary?
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying that you are handwaving the scenario where it doesn't happen.
That doesn't even make any sense. If I didn't know you, I would say you are going for an "Ambiguity of language" fallacy this time.
Because 3genning is where grouping up is practised most and it was the core of Skull Merchant's gameplay before her rework. Did you miss the whole 'Chess Merchant' debacle?
It specifically showed that it was more than feasible for the killer to pressure a generator when it is being targeted by multiple survivors, showing that what you list as an advantage to grouping up isn't necessarily one.
So let me get this straight, first you accuse me of sticking to just one scenario, a "handwave best-case" one, to support my argument... and you do that exact same thing now? Specially with an scenario where we had an specific killer involved and can't be applied generally?
Come on, dude... it isn't even relevant for the main point of the argument. 3 genning has nothing to do with survivors grouping or splitting up, as a killer would chose 3 gens and defend them till the end game whatever survivors try to do those gen or not, or if the survivors are the ones leaving those 3 gens it would not matter if they left them for the end splitting or grouping up.
I don't even know what kind of fallacy you had tried to make here. Probably a false correlation.
And in practice, as killer, you are not going to get both of those gens regressing at the same time unless they are right on top of one another. And even then you're going to have a rough time. I need to remind you that in these scenarios, there may be two survivors, but there's only one killer, and he's not kicking both gens at the same time.
Special pleading, you were wrong so now you are trying (keyword being trying) to move the goalpost to... I don't even know.
What you said here has nothing to do with what you wrongfully claimed first and my counter argument to it. But the funny thing is that by your one logic there, again, only one gen is getting kicked and only other survivor is progressing a gen, so it is still -0.25 c/s vs 1 c/s total, not 2.
Also, funny that you made half of your arguments about accusing me of using a handwaved best-case scenario to support my claims, and now you did it not only once, but two times.
Unless, of course, there's more than one gen left to do, in which case the grouped up team gave the killer the time it took to clear the backlog, plus however long it takes them to catch up to whatever the split-off survivor managed to do.
I don't even know what you are trying to argue with this. "Catch up to whatever the split-off survivor managed to do"?...
We're not talking about a set amount of time, we're talking about the amount of time it would take to clear a 30 charge regression.
Exactly, which means that two survivors would do it in 17.65 seconds, which according to you all means 17.65 charges lost that the second survivor should had pump in another gen... your point?
And stop with the 'nothing guarantees they can put in the 30 seconds' because nothing guarantees you can put in the 17.65 seconds either! That's the problem! Stop saying I'm lying about you using that as an argument, and then, in the very same post, make the same argument again!
Your lie is that I'm saying that those 17.65 seconds can't be lost as well, and you are lying about it again here. And I keep saying it, because the ones that talk as those other 30 seconds of progress in a second gen are guaranteed are you, as that is the main point of your argument, than splitting is always better than grouping up because splitting up would mean the double of charges in total pumped up in gens, which is always correct mathematically speaking, not as much in a real match.
That's the whole point of this conversation. You are saying "Scoring a goal every 40 seconds is the most efficient way to win a soccer match, so we should always go to attack everytime", and I'm saying "But in a real soccer match, the other team would not let you do that many shots or even get close to the goalpost, so sometimes is better to keep the ball and pass it until you get the opportunity", and you are disagreeing with this because your sole objective is prove me wrong.
Stop it.
What? You don't like your lack of logic and constant use of fallacies being pointed out?
Oh, I'm sorry, did you need me to go through the entire list and explain, point by point, why everything you mention applies to both splitting up and grouping up?
No need to, as I never claimed that anything I said didn't apply to the other, as I have pointed out multiple times.
But next time, it would be nice if you stopped with the sharpshooter fallacies and didn't cherry picked what I'm saying. Or even better, not argument with fallacies at all.
I thought it was everyone BUT you that didn't understand the game!
Never claimed such thing, less so when I stated multiple times that people are right in what they are saying.
I mean, you did say that two people on the same gen saves 37 seconds and implied that that wasn't a co-op penalty.
And how is that me having problems with the mathematical theory of splitting up being more effective in total times, exactly?
The only one where that applies is regression, but you did also mention movement, chases, and even healing for some reason.
... re-read the post, and told me exactly how in the context I said that has anything to do with what you are saying.
But no, regression is not the only drawback that applies for the simple reason that, in your own words, "everything that could happen when splitted up could also happen grouped up", except when splitting up the killer has 90 second before a gen is done to mess with it and disrupt the survivors in it, while grouping up only gives him from 41 to 53 seconds depending on the number of survivors in it without even counting progression boosters.
A simple enough concept to understand, but here we are.
Along with the nebulous 'countermeasures'.
Pinhead's box? Plague's cleaning? Pig's inverted traps? Wesker and Nemesis's chests? What is so nebulous about you having to invest extra time on those things outside of just pure gen fixing?
This is mentioned to contrast with the mathematical efficiency of spreading. This would be irrelevant if it does not change the balance of efficiencies. Therefor, you mentioning these factors means you are including them as reasons as to why splitting up is NOT more efficient.
However, walk time, healing time, countermeasure time and chase time are all either neutral, or in favour of splitting up. This is what I mean with you applying these conditions to a split-up scenario, but not to a group-up scenario. And as illustrated above, even regression doesn't fully favour grouping up.
Wrong. Here is where you are wrong and why your main argument is a strawman fallacy.
I never said that "splitting up is NOT more efficient" than grouping up. Ever. In any moment of the conversation I said that.
What I said is, again, that when all those factors are in place (in other words, in any normal day match), splitting up is not always the best option even if it is the most charge per second efficient thing to do. And splitting up is not always the best option, even if it is more efficient, for the reasons I already gave. That's what you are distorting and making fallacies around non stop to base your arguments on.
Also, explain to me how "walk time, healing time, countermeasure time and chase time" are "either neutral, or in favour of splitting up" in the 100% of the cases.
The fact that you mentioned walk time specifically illustrates this well, which is why I made it an example of your oversight. To help you understand your mistake.
Again, how and why it illustrate that well or how it is a proof that I'm mistaken in saying that "I never said that those drawbacks are not present when grouping up, but they are less of an occurrence as it reduces the time window where those drawbacks can happen".
For someone with a fetish for the term 'fallacy', you do sure like to court Ad Hominems a lot.
An Ad hominem is when you use an attack to somebody as an argument instead of responding to the point they made.
In other words, saying that you have the tendency of derailing and distort the main argument after I already argumented all of my points against your fallacies is not an ad hominem, is stating a fact.
I'm done with you.
You have no idea what the discussion is about, you have no idea what you are saying, you have no idea what the subject is, you lose track of what you're talking about halfway through a post, you lie about what you're saying, you misunderstand your own points and arguments, you deliberately misrepresent scenarios and yell fallacy whenever you don't understand something.
You need to read your own stuff and think about what you are saying. I am not going to keep going over it with you.
Least of all with you taking that high horse position all the time to feed your own ego. Get over yourself.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3577486#Comment_3577486
That still doesn't make two survivors on one gen produce 106 -charges- in 53 seconds!
But... two survivors on two gens does! And when talking about those "106 seconds" people refer precisely that those two survivor could have done 106 charges in two gens, but wrongfully call them seconds and...
You know what? Let's just say it is too hard for you to understand it.
I am not arguing that it doesn't happen.
I am arguing that it happens to grouped up teams as well.
And who have said the contrary?
You: Splitting up is not more efficient than grouping up.
Where I said that. Come on, point it out exactly where I said it.
Everyone else: Splitting up is more efficient.
You: But the killer could find one of the survivors!
... I'm starting to believe that you live between parallel universes or something, because that never happened in this reality.
That's not arguing with fallacies anymore, at this point is literally lying.
Again, I am not saying it is not a possibility.
But you were literally saying it was a "handwaved best-case scenario" where in reality is a common occurrence in a daily match, and again, one of the main reasons for using Nowhere to hide. So common that I recorded that before you even made that claim.
So, I wasn't even arguing that you said it is not a possibility? But that you said it like I was fabricating an utopian scenario where the killer is oblivious of the second survivor like it can't really happen that often when it does, as like I said, the killer can only chase one survivor?...
Killers doing this is the very reason Skull Merchant got her last rework. It's still a viable strategy on certain killers overall. 3-genning is still a big deal.
Who is talking about 3genning and what the SM rework have to do with anything discussed? Back to the fallacies, again.
Which is an argument in favour of splitting up, not grouping up.
First, who said it wasn't when that wasn't even the point being made? Second, how is the killer not being able to stop a gen progressing if a second survivor stay by it unless they lose time and let the others free of pressure an argument for that?
No, my guy, YOU started this by trying to pass off co-opping on a gen as being 'too efficient'. You're getting corrected on that.
Again, where? Point exactly where I said that and how I had being corrected, when I'm the first one that said that in efficiency terms splitting up is the way to go. That, or stop with the strawmans already.
Come on, make a claim based on reality and not your distorted logic for once. You can do it, I believe in you.
No, it's not .25 c/s vs 1 c/s, because there's a second survivor working on a second gen, so that's a total of 2 c/s being done, not 1.
But only one gen is regressing, if two gens are regressing that would be -0.50 c/s total, and if they are regressing then no charges are being pumped in any gen. It was already obvious that you don't use any logic behind your "arguments", but to that point, dude? Really?
But it's 17.65 seconds for TWO survivors, instead of one, so that's a total of 35.3 seconds of survivor time.
Also, yeah, it takes two survivors 17.65 seconds to clear that 30 charge backlog up while it takes a single survivor 30 seconds. However, a single survivor taking 30 seconds frees up the other survivor to spend those 30 seconds doing something else to help the team.
Like putting another 30 charges into a different gen.
Yeah, and also give the killer another 30 seconds instead of just 17.65 to do whatever he need to do to catch you all.
Also, and again, those aren't seconds, those are charges, so that other survivor would be able to put 17.65 charges in another gen at the same time, not 30, and again, nothing guarantees that he would be able to do so. That's my point.
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that grouping up reduces the effects of regression.
You did. This whole discussion is comparing splitting up to grouping up.
You referred to my example, where according to you I was comparing "apples with Toyotas". Now, as you can't point out where I compared anything there, you change the goalpost to the whole discussion (wrongfully, as I never compared both things directly). Another fallacy to add to the list.
As can the 90 charges being dropped into a single gen. More easily, too.
And when I said the contrary? Specially after just saying explicitly that it can also happen.
It's almost like I took one of the components you are talking about and made it an...
So, you are admitting that you did a sharpshooter fallacy and cherry picked my argument to make yours. Great! Another one for the list!
If someone tells you that splitting up is more efficient and you respond to that with 'But the other survivor can get interrupted by the killer', that means you are fielding that as a counter-argument.
If someone lives in your same reality yes, of course. If not, I didn't even made that point ever to begin with. But even better, that's not a real response to what you are supposedly doing a "counter-argument".
So again: Where I ever said that any of what you said in your other post never happens when grouping up? Where I said that grouping up is always better than splitting up?
Maybe YOU do not understand that that is what you are saying, but it IS what you are saying.
So, as I'm not saying what you say I'm saying, then it's me who doesn't understand what I'm saying. Seems legit.
Stop playing this motte-and-bailey game.
Stop derailing and distorting the argument, and using logical fallacies to support your "arguments".
And it is specifically in the argumentation of its practice, not the mathematical theory (Though you have issues there, too), that you are having trouble, because this is where you draw up all these supposed drawbacks to splitting up, without realising that they also apply to grouping up, often more strongly so, too.
How I have issues with the "mathematical theory"?
And what you are having trouble is that I never said that those drawbacks are not present when grouping up, but they are less of an occurrence as it reduces the time window where those drawbacks can happen, namely in the time it takes to complete a gen. That's why my real point is and ever was that in some cases, grouping up and finish a gen faster is better than splitting progression, even if you lose efficiency in doing so, as you give the killer less time to mess with that gen. I think is not that hard to understand this, either.
Yet again, that is if you are not adamant in not accepting it because your only interest is being right (or better said, proving that I'm wrong) and no matter what I say, everytime you can't respond to it you would simply distort my point, put words in my mouth that I ever said and argue with fallacies until your arguments "make sense".
But like I said, we both know that's how you do things, so do you do and when I get bored of repeating myself over and over again I would simply stop responding and that's it 🤣
But... two survivors on two gens does!
But that is not what you said.
And who have said the contrary?
You do. When you bring these factors up as argumentation for why splitting up is not more efficient. If you mention these factors in that discussion, you are either tossing in completely random commentary that is entirely unrelated to the subject matter, or you are bringing it up as an argument.
Which is it?
Where I said that. Come on, point it out exactly where I said it.
@C3Tooth said: "Prove Thyself forces survivors to group together, and grouped together gives killers advantage"
To which you replied:
And I don't know who said that having gens done and secured in less time it takes the killer to get to a gen, chase, down and hook one of the survivors (without counting reducing the time impact regression has) is an advantage for him, but it is highly debatable.
So yeah, that's you claiming that survivors grouping up is not better for the killer, which by nature of the game also means it's not worse for survivors.
... I'm starting to believe that you live between parallel universes or something, because that never happened in this reality.
To quote:
Yes, again, I heard it all, I understand the logic behind it and I already said that mathematically speaking and in terms of efficiency, spreading progression is the way to go. What you people don't seem to understand is that in your average, everyday match, there are more things happening than just doing gens, specially if you don't have a coordinated full SWF. So, nothing guarantees that those "53 extra seconds" (BTW, in reality are "charges", not seconds, but anyway) would be spent in another generator. If that other survivor is found, downed and hooked before the first gen is done, now those "53 charges" are gone
But you were literally saying it was a "handwaved best-case scenario"
Because that is the only scenario you considered in the situation and specifically because it is the one that best supports your argument. The reality is that this can also snowball for the killer because having a lot of survivors together is a recipe for the killer getting lots of pressure.
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying that you are handwaving the scenario where it doesn't happen.
Who is talking about 3genning and what the SM rework have to do with anything discussed? Back to the fallacies, again.
Because 3genning is where grouping up is practised most and it was the core of Skull Merchant's gameplay before her rework. Did you miss the whole 'Chess Merchant' debacle?
It specifically showed that it was more than feasible for the killer to pressure a generator when it is being targeted by multiple survivors, showing that what you list as an advantage to grouping up isn't necessarily one.
But only one gen is regressing, if two gens are regressing that would be -0.50 c/s total, and if they are regressing then no charges are being pumped in any gen. It was already obvious that you don't use any logic behind your "arguments", but to that point, dude? Really?
And in practice, as killer, you are not going to get both of those gens regressing at the same time unless they are right on top of one another. And even then you're going to have a rough time. I need to remind you that in these scenarios, there may be two survivors, but there's only one killer, and he's not kicking both gens at the same time.
And in regards to regressing gens not progressing: You're basically pointing out that splitting up is better for survivors because it's harder for the killer to keep two gens regressing than one.
Yeah, and also give the killer another 30 seconds instead of just 17.65 to do whatever he need to do to catch you all.
Unless, of course, there's more than one gen left to do, in which case the grouped up team gave the killer the time it took to clear the backlog, plus however long it takes them to catch up to whatever the split-off survivor managed to do.
Also, and again, those aren't seconds, those are charges, so that other survivor would be able to put 17.65 charges in another gen at the same time, not 30, and again, nothing guarantees that he would be able to do so. That's my point.
We're not talking about a set amount of time, we're talking about the amount of time it would take to clear a 30 charge regression.
And stop with the 'nothing guarantees they can put in the 30 seconds' because nothing guarantees you can put in the 17.65 seconds either! That's the problem! Stop saying I'm lying about you using that as an argument, and then, in the very same post, make the same argument again!
You referred to my example, where according to you I was comparing "apples with Toyotas". Now, as you can't point out where I compared anything there, you change the goalpost to the whole discussion (wrongfully, as I never compared both things directly). Another fallacy to add to the list.
Stop it.
So, you are admitting that you did a sharpshooter fallacy and cherry picked my argument to make yours. Great! Another one for the list!
Oh, I'm sorry, did you need me to go through the entire list and explain, point by point, why everything you mention applies to both splitting up and grouping up?
I thought it was everyone BUT you that didn't understand the game!
How I have issues with the "mathematical theory"?
I mean, you did say that two people on the same gen saves 37 seconds and implied that that wasn't a co-op penalty.
And what you are having trouble is that I never said that those drawbacks are not present when grouping up, but they are less of an occurrence as it reduces the time window where those drawbacks can happen
The only one where that applies is regression, but you did also mention movement, chases, and even healing for some reason.
In a real case, you have to count walk times, healing times, countermeasures time, chase time as a survivor being chased is unable to put any charges or time in doing any of the other things, and of course regression.
Along with the nebulous 'countermeasures'.
This is mentioned to contrast with the mathematical efficiency of spreading. This would be irrelevant if it does not change the balance of efficiencies. Therefor, you mentioning these factors means you are including them as reasons as to why splitting up is NOT more efficient.
However, walk time, healing time, countermeasure time and chase time are all either neutral, or in favour of splitting up. This is what I mean with you applying these conditions to a split-up scenario, but not to a group-up scenario. And as illustrated above, even regression doesn't fully favour grouping up.
The fact that you mentioned walk time specifically illustrates this well, which is why I made it an example of your oversight. To help you understand your mistake.
But like I said, we both know that's how you do things, so do you do and when I get bored of repeating myself over and over again I would simply stop responding and that's it
For someone with a fetish for the term 'fallacy', you do sure like to court Ad Hominems a lot.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3577360#Comment_3577360
To quote: "TWO survivors in ONE gen"
But when talking about the lost result in those two survivors in one gen, we then talk about those two survivors in two separate gens. So hard it is to understand?
You can. But the problem is that your example of two survivors on one gen is literally only doing one gen that's right next to them with no distractions and no killer interference.
Which you then compare to two survivors on separate gens that aren't near them, with an extra heal tossed in, and the killer chasing one of them off.
That is not a fair comparison. You pull in all these extra details about how a 'real match' works, but you completely omit those from the group-up scenario to try and pass it off as better.
What? Have you even read what I said?
It is an example where the survivor would be found if it goes to look from another gen, something that could perfectly happen in a real match. Of course, the contrary is also true, there would be matches were that survivor would go to start repairing another gen and there would be no problem, or other were the two would stay and get found on the same gen.
Who the hell is saying that I pretend to say grouping is better with that example, when the example wasn't even to argue that point? Seriously dude, stop with the strawmans and putting words in my mouth already.
But you're not thinking about it, because you just take the scenario, play out the best-case for the killer and then handwave it. In your scenario, the killer is basically completely oblivious to the presence of the second survivor and doesn't play into it at all.
You mean like this?:
He came back again later, but I stayed close again, killer started chasing another survivor again, and we finished the gen as Ada also came back later. As I said, this is not an uncommon occurrence and had done it and had it done to me in a daily basis.
They don't defend the gen, they don't try and mindgame, they just come in, chase one survivor away, and that's it. But what if the killer doesn't do that? What if they instead stick around, chase one survivor off a short ways, then double back to interrupt the second survivor?
Well, obviously, you don't play killer that much, as not many killer would do that for the simple reason that you would be losing time in starting a chase with two targets at the same time and protecting a gen regressing 4 times slower than a survivor can repair it, while the other survivors are free to do whatever they want. But yeah, it can happen, and if it happens, then the killer would chase the survivor that stayed while the first one can do whatever they want, including get back to that gen.
Also, you are talking like I'm saying all this are facts written in stone or something, while the ones talking like "Spreading is always the best option" is some universal rule of physics are you. What I said is that in my experience in a every day match there are instances where is better to secure a gen than giving the killer the opportunity to mess up the regression of two. I never said one option is always better than the other in every single situation, that's what you is saying and what you are pretending that I said.
[...] and the gen they had been working on is starting to regress at a comparatively higher speed. (.25 c/s vs 1.7 c/s, as opposed to .25 c/s vs 2 c/s)
Talking about bad comparisons and not analyzing your example!
First, in your example, only one gen would be regressing, so you can't compare it with the charges of two survivors in two individual gens. In any case, it would be -0.25 c/s vs 1.7 c/s as opposed to -0.25 c/s vs 1 c/s as only one survivor would have being repairing that gen. But that didn't fit your narrative, I guess.
Second, you know that for that same reason two survivors on one gen reduces the effectiveness of regression, right? First by reducing the time lost (if 30 charges are lost, and those charges where done in 17.65 seconds at 1.7 c/s, then only 17.65 seconds of work would be lost instead of 30) and second by allowing to recover that charges faster (two survivors would recover those 30 charges in only 17.65 seconds instead of the 30 seconds it would take to only one survivor).
But of course you know, as I already said it in another post above! You just chose to ignore that fact.
The point is that when comparing apples to apples instead of to Toyotas, splitting up is more efficient.
Where have someone compared anything to anything? I just provided an example of how those 53 charges that would have being pumped in another gen can be denied. I never compared that situation to any other. I never said it is the only possible outcome of that scenario in a real match where everything is possible. Nothing. Is all in your head and your fallacies, dude.
And what does the definition of example have to do with you reducing my real point (There are a lot of things happening in a match that you have to take into account apart from just raw gen repair) to "You have to move"? Seriously, how do you even get to that point of reasoning? What logic process did you follow to even start to think it was a valid argument?
And what I am pointing out to you with the example given is that no matter what you come up with as another thing that can interfere with a split-push team, by necessity, ALSO applies to the group-up team.
...and? Who in the entity's name have said the contrary?
'What if the killer finds the other survivor?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
...and?
'What if they heal instead?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
Where had I mention healing in my example? Anyway... and?
'What about the time it takes to move to the next generator?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
Again: And??? What have anything of that to do with what I'm saying and how it contradicts it? Seriously dude, start understanding what the real points of people are and stop distorting them! I never said that any of that doesn't happens when grouping up! I never said that grouping up is always better than splitting up! I never said any of that!
And as you seems to believe I said it, please point it to me where I supposedly said it, specially when I had said "splitting up is the most effective way mathematically speaking" since the beginning.
Literally the only points where it is more advantageous to group up, is if there's only one gen left to do, or you're trying to break a 3-gen.
See how it is you who says one thing is better than the other always?
In all other scenarios, it's more efficient to split up because you make progress faster and it's harder for the killer to pressure.
False, because of the reasons that I already said. There is times where securing a gen faster is better than giving the killer more time to mess up with it. But we both know how you roll, so as always, you do you.
But when talking about the lost result in those two survivors in one gen, we then talk about those two survivors in two separate gens. So hard it is to understand?
That still doesn't make two survivors on one gen produce 106 -charges- in 53 seconds!
It is an example where the survivor would be found if it goes to look from another gen, something that could perfectly happen in a real match.
I am not arguing that it doesn't happen.
I am arguing that it happens to grouped up teams as well.
Who the hell is saying that I pretend to say grouping is better with that example, when the example wasn't even to argue that point?
You: Splitting up is not more efficient than grouping up.
Everyone else: Splitting up is more efficient.
You: But the killer could find one of the survivors!
Why else did you bring it up if not to involve it in the comparison of efficiency?
He came back again later, but I stayed close again, killer started chasing another survivor again, and we finished the gen as Ada also came back later. As I said, this is not an uncommon occurrence and had done it and had it done to me in a daily basis.
Again, I am not saying it is not a possibility.
Well, obviously, you don't play killer that much, as not many killer would do that
Killers doing this is the very reason Skull Merchant got her last rework. It's still a viable strategy on certain killers overall. 3-genning is still a big deal.
for the simple reason that you would be losing time in starting a chase with two targets at the same time and protecting a gen regressing 4 times slower than a survivor can repair it, while the other survivors are free to do whatever they want
Which is an argument in favour of splitting up, not grouping up.
Also, you are talking like I'm saying all this are facts written in stone or something, while the ones talking like "Spreading is always the best option" is some universal rule of physics are you.
No, my guy, YOU started this by trying to pass off co-opping on a gen as being 'too efficient'. You're getting corrected on that.
First, in your example, only one gen would be regressing, so you can't compare it with the charges of two survivors in two individual gens. In any case, it would be -0.25 c/s vs 1.7 c/s as opposed to -0.25 c/s vs 1 c/s as only one survivor would have being repairing that gen. But that didn't fit your narrative, I guess.
No, it's not .25 c/s vs 1 c/s, because there's a second survivor working on a second gen, so that's a total of 2 c/s being done, not 1.
Unless you want to make it a comparison between individual survivors, in which case it's .25 c/s vs. .85 c/s as opposed to .25 c/s vs. 1 c/s. The regression is still comparatively higher.
Second, you know that for that same reason two survivors on one gen reduces the effectiveness of regression, right? First by reducing the time lost (if 30 charges are lost, and those charges where done in 17.65 seconds at 1.7 c/s, then only 17.65 seconds of work would be lost instead of 30) and second by allowing to recover that charges faster (two survivors would recover those 30 charges in only 17.65 seconds instead of the 30 seconds it would take to only one survivor).
But it's 17.65 seconds for TWO survivors, instead of one, so that's a total of 35.3 seconds of survivor time.
Also, yeah, it takes two survivors 17.65 seconds to clear that 30 charge backlog up while it takes a single survivor 30 seconds. However, a single survivor taking 30 seconds frees up the other survivor to spend those 30 seconds doing something else to help the team.
Like putting another 30 charges into a different gen.
Where have someone compared anything to anything?
You did. This whole discussion is comparing splitting up to grouping up.
I just provided an example of how those 53 charges that would have being pumped in another gen can be denied.
As can the 90 charges being dropped into a single gen. More easily, too.
And what does the definition of example have to do with you reducing my real point
It's almost like I took one of the components you are talking about and made it an
one that serves as a pattern to be imitated or not to be imitated; a punishment inflicted on someone as a warning to others; also : an individual so punished; one that is representative of all of a group or type… See the full definitionof why it is not relevant to the comparative efficiency of splitting up vs. grouping up.
Again: And??? What have anything of that to do all of that with what I'm saying and how it contradicts it? Seriously dude, start understanding what the real points of people are and stop distorting them! I never said that any of that doesn't happens when grouping up! I never said that grouping up is always better than splitting up! I never said any of that!
You need to watch your arguments!
If someone tells you that splitting up is more efficient and you respond to that with 'But the other survivor can get interrupted by the killer', that means you are fielding that as a counter-argument.
Maybe YOU do not understand that that is what you are saying, but it IS what you are saying.
Stop playing this motte-and-bailey game.
And as you seems to believe I said it, please point it to me where I supposedly said it, specially when I had said "splitting up is the most effective way mathematically speaking" since the beginning.
And it is specifically in the argumentation of its practice, not the mathematical theory (Though you have issues there, too), that you are having trouble, because this is where you draw up all these supposed drawbacks to splitting up, without realising that they also apply to grouping up, often more strongly so, too.
-
@Beatricks said:
It says so, so much about BHVR that after they nailed the perk to be the most healthy one in the game, they decided to nuke it into oblivion.
Imagine if they gutted all of Blight's addons and then 6 months later they changed his power so that you get one rush token for every hookstate.
Double whammy when they replaced it with OTR, which is disabled if the killer tunnels hard enough, but can also be used to punish the killer for not tunnelling.
How did they manage to find a balance change that would make things worse for BOTH sides?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3577338#Comment_3577338
Right here [...] Two survivors on one gen put in an effective 106 seconds of survivor time, but NOT 106 charges. So that '(charges)' is incorrect.
... why it not surprises me that you don't get that when talking about single survivors on one gen, a second is equal to a charge. So, what people is saying is that two survivors on one gen could have being 106 charges in separated gens, or it would not make any friking sense as the effective time would still be 53 seconds.
That's not the comparison though. This is a problem you have with how you approach this. You don't analyse your own preferred scenario.
So, I can't give an example to argue my point that in a real match there is nothing that guarantees a survivor being able to fix another gen if he misses the chance to fix one co-op because I'm not allowed to analyse my own examples? Because if you are not saying that, I don't know what are you on about.
Yes, the killer can intercept the other survivor on the other gen. They can also intercept the pair of them while they're working on the same gen and put BOTH out of commission for a while.
Except I already addressed that specific "scenario" you are saying in another post:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3577173#Comment_3577173
But as always, you do you.
But if the grouped-up survivors want to do a second gen after their first is done, they have to spend that same time moving to it. (Only now it's two survivors moving, instead of one)
... and? What has that to do with anything? Because if you are comparing it directly to my example, then, they would be both moving after finishing a gen, which is now secured and with no way of getting regressed. They could also split and go to different gens, or to heal, or do a save, or whatever as they both are free now to do what they have to do.
So, I don't see what your point is.
Let me try and show you what happens if your 'You have to move' argument was applied equally across the scenarios.
Aham... so, from "There is a lot of things happening in a match, like moving, getting chased, having to do specific killer things, etc." you just have picked the moving one and now my argument only was "You have to move"? Right.
You can't toss up the 'survivors lose time by moving to another gen' argument and then NOT apply the same thing to your own preferred scenario.
Maybe it is because the point never was "lose time by moving to another gen", but "There are more things happening in a match than making gens, so not always is better to follow the most efficient charges per seconds route" with an example of how those 53 charges that would have being done by "Survivor B" in another gen instead of doing the gen with "Survivor A" are not guaranteed, as again, a match don't only consist of doing gens uninterrupted and the killer could basically chase and down him before he gets to another gen, maybe even find and disrupt Survivor A before he can finish the gen, while if he stayed with Survivor A maybe by the time the killer would found them that gen would already be finished and secured.
That has being my point since this conversation started, that there is more things happening in a match that makes splitting up not always the best option, and I provided an example in response to something someone else said. That's it.
But again, it doesn't surprises me at all that you either didn't get, or decide to ignore what I really said.
why it not surprises me that you don't get that when talking about single survivors on one gen
To quote: "TWO survivors in ONE gen"
So, I can't give an example to argue my point
You can. But the problem is that your example of two survivors on one gen is literally only doing one gen that's right next to them with no distractions and no killer interference.
Which you then compare to two survivors on separate gens that aren't near them, with an extra heal tossed in, and the killer chasing one of them off.
That is not a fair comparison. You pull in all these extra details about how a 'real match' works, but you completely omit those from the group-up scenario to try and pass it off as better.
Except I already addressed that specific "scenario" you are saying in another post:
But you're not thinking about it, because you just take the scenario, play out the best-case for the killer and then handwave it.
In your scenario, the killer is basically completely oblivious to the presence of the second survivor and doesn't play into it at all. They don't defend the gen, they don't try and mindgame, they just come in, chase one survivor away, and that's it. But what if the killer doesn't do that? What if they instead stick around, chase one survivor off a short ways, then double back to interrupt the second survivor? Now you've got two survivors not working on a gen, and the gen they had been working on is starting to regress at a comparatively higher speed. (.25 c/s vs 1.7 c/s, as opposed to .25 c/s vs 2 c/s)
And even without all of that, you still get a couple of seconds where the total gen repair speed between the two survivors is literally 0 c/s, which is not the case with a split-push, which just drops to 1. The same as what happens to the grouped up team in your example.
... and? What has that to do with anything? Because if you are comparing it directly to my example, then, they would be both moving after finishing a gen, which is now secured and with no way of getting regressed. They could also split and go to different gens, or to heal, or do a save, or whatever as they both are free now to do what they have to do.
So, I don't see what your point is.
The point is that when comparing apples to apples instead of to Toyotas, splitting up is more efficient.
Aham... so, from "There is a lot of things happening in a match, like moving, getting chased, having to do specific killer things, etc." you just have picked the moving one and now my argument only was "You have to move"? Right.
one that serves as a pattern to be imitated or not to be imitated; a punishment inflicted on someone as a warning to others; also : an individual so punished; one that is representative of all of a group or type… See the full definitionMaybe it is because the point never was "lose time by moving to another gen", but "There are more things happening in a match than making gens, so not always is better to follow the most efficient charges per seconds route" with an example of how those 53 charges that would have being done by "Survivor B" in another gen instead of doing the gen with "Survivor A" are not guaranteed
And what I am pointing out to you with the example given is that no matter what you come up with as another thing that can interfere with a split-push team, by necessity, ALSO applies to the group-up team.
'What if the killer finds the other survivor?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
'What if they heal instead?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
'What about the time it takes to move to the next generator?' ALSO applies to the group-up team.
Literally the only points where it is more advantageous to group up, is if there's only one gen left to do, or you're trying to break a 3-gen. In all other scenarios, it's more efficient to split up because you make progress faster and it's harder for the killer to pressure.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3577273#Comment_3577273
You still here? And you still doesn't understand what you read?
First, told me where I interchanged those terms outside of referring to "1 survivor - 1 gen" scenario where basically are the same, as the base progression for a single survivor is 1 c/s.
Second, if instead of doing a gen with another survivor, you try to find another gen and get chased instead, the number of charges lost and not pumped in another gen are only 53 charges, as you would just only had spent 53 seconds doing the co-op gen, not 90. That was the example I gave in my other post, arguing precisely that nothing guarantees that those 53 extra charges you would get from splitting progression would by pumped on another gen.
To finish:
Whereas two survivors working on separate gens is 53 seconds x 2 = 106 charges.
Yeah... that's what I was talking about, hence the "(charges)" after the "106 seconds" as that is how everybody wrongly refer to it even in this post and I myself said that earlier, so I made clear that those are 106 "charges", not "seconds" as someone said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3576299#Comment_3576299
It takes 2 survivors ~53 seconds to do one gen entirely (without prove), which is 106 survivor seconds
So, your argument with all this is what, exactly? Or are you just cherry picking every little thing you believe I'm wrong about at this point?
First, told me where I interchanged those terms
Right here:
If two survivors in one gen are "53 seconds * 2 = 106 seconds (charges)"
Two survivors on one gen put in an effective 106 seconds of survivor time, but NOT 106 charges. So that '(charges)' is incorrect.
Second, if instead of doing a gen with another survivor, you try to find another gen and get chased instead
That's not the comparison though. This is a problem you have with how you approach this. You don't analyse your own preferred scenario.
This is currently the comparison you're thinking of:
2 survivors on one gen. Timer starts the second they start working. The killer does not interfere. They are done in 53 seconds.
vs.
2 survivors start at the same gen, but one has to first move to another gen, and the killer is interfering, and they do some healing along the way, so in 90 seconds, they've done one gen and nothing else.
You add all these extra details to the split-up scenario which you omit from the group-up scenario. Yes, the killer can intercept the other survivor on the other gen. They can also intercept the pair of them while they're working on the same gen and put BOTH out of commission for a while. Yes, if they both start at the same gen, one survivor will have to spend time moving to another gen to get it fixed. But if the grouped-up survivors want to do a second gen after their first is done, they have to spend that same time moving to it. (Only now it's two survivors moving, instead of one)
Let me try and show you what happens if your 'You have to move' argument was applied equally across the scenarios.
Team 1 splits up on Gen A and Gen B. Gen A is done in 90 seconds. The other survivor spent 8 seconds to move to Gen B and get started on it. So Gen A and Gen B are done in a total of 98 seconds. (With the survivor on Gen A having 8 seconds left to spare)
Team 2 groups up on Gen A and Gen B. Gen A is done in 53 seconds, then they spend 8 seconds moving to Gen B, and do that in 53 seconds as well. So Gen A and Gen B are done in a total of 114 seconds.
You can't toss up the 'survivors lose time by moving to another gen' argument and then NOT apply the same thing to your own preferred scenario.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3577054#Comment_3577054
My brother in the entity... you are the ones talking about two survivors on one gen being 106 "seconds"!
If two survivors in one gen are "53 seconds * 2 = 106 seconds (charges)", two survivors in two gens would do 53 charges on those two gens! That's the amount of charges not being pumped to another gen for having two survivors on the same gen, and those would be the charges "lost" if that other survivor didn't get to another gen as in the example I gave. Am I missing something here?
For the rest of the post, you are not wrong, but we have to remember that the killer technically can only chase one survivor, so any other survivor in that gen only have to wait for the killer to pick a survivor to commit to (and of course, not giving a free hit to the killer) and the moment the killer turn his back keep repairing the gen. In fact, even if the killer hit you but decides to chase another survivor, you can still stick around and keep doing that gen. So, I don't agree with your "nor do they get to continue to progress the gen they were just on" statement. Survivors had done this to me, and I had done this as survivor, it is not an uncommon practice (and one of the main reasons for using "Nowhere to hide") and I even would say that knowing when you should stay by the gen or getting the hell out of there as soon as possible in that situation is having a good game sense.
About your proposal, I like it except the part where doesn't matter how many survivors are in one gen. I think it should go from 85% to 150% with 4 survivors or something like that, as if you manage to get that much survivors on one gen you should get something from it. The only problem with this is that SWF would get an upper hand, as they could communicate in which gens people are while SoloQ should use SA or go from gen to gen finding that one survivor that is already in one, or lose time doing the gen solo. So, I don't really see it.
If two survivors in one gen are "53 seconds * 2 = 106 seconds (charges)", two survivors in two gens would do 53 charges on those two gens! That's the amount of charges not being pumped to another gen for having two survivors on the same gen, and those would be the charges "lost" if that other survivor didn't get to another gen as in the example I gave. Am I missing something here?
You're using seconds and charges interchangeably, and they're not.
Two survivors on one gen isn't 53 seconds x 2 = 106 charges, it's 53 seconds x 1.7 = 90 charges, because of the co-op penalty.
Whereas two survivors working on separate gens is 53 seconds x 2 = 106 charges.
That's 16 charges lost. 8 seconds of solo gen time for both survivors.
-
@fussy said:
Considering that people are still trying to bodyblock with it, make it disable on protection hit and I'm okay with it.
But tunneling should be solved by rewarding killers for spreading hooks, not by buffing any perks.
No, if you take a protection hit with DS, you are wasting your own time more than the killer's. Plus, disabling on protection hits would mean the killer can hit you off-hook to immediately disable DS, which would defeat its purpose.
And no, you can't really solve tunnelling by just buffing non-tunnelling, since it'd have to be considerably stronger than tunnelling to be impactful. That would entail a huge buff to killers, which they don't need right now.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3576556#Comment_3576556
That's precious coming from you.
You still have to justify your fallacies! I don't see you pointing out where I said what you said I said.
But I tell you what, if you own up the fact that you only argumented with fallacies, and explain to me the reason for even making that question, what has to do with anything and how it is any proof that I'm wrong, I would try answer to it.
The keyword being "try", because it doesn't even make sense. "37 seconds compared to what?"... what?
If you thought about the question, you'd know, but you stop thinking about things the moment it looks like you might be wrong.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3576323#Comment_3576323
Again, that means your problem is with the base progression, not PT.
It means what I said. But you do you, dude. We both know your tendency to understand what you want and not what the other said. That, and repeat yourself.
You really want to try and claim that you were arguing from any other position? Saying it's not a co-op penalty to take away 37 seconds of a gen?
You didn't justified your other fallacies and start with another one? You still have to explain where I said that two survivors should save 0 seconds in generator time.
Anyway, GG.
37 seconds, compared to what, Bat?
You always just play stupid the second you realise you're wrong, just so you don't have to own up to it.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3576218#Comment_3576218
And it's still not PT saving any more than 7/5.5 seconds on a gen.
Technically the truth, doesn't change the fact that the problem with it is not how much it takes away by itself, but that it takes away it on top of the time the base progression takes.
I mean, no more interesting than claiming that PT is responsible for a feature that works when PT is not in the game.
Read above.
You already do that yourself. Here, let me show you: [...] If you fail to understand that 2 survivors taking 37 seconds fewer on a 90 second gen is a co-op penalty, then that is because you believe that that 37 seconds should be zero.
My Entity, dude! From a strawman to a even bigger strawman with a lot more fallacies after.
But I tell you what, if you are able to explain to me where I said that two survivors repairing one gen should take the same time than if they were only one, I would try to answer any of that *word I can't write as is not allowed in the forum*.
Oh, you must not've been playing for very long then.
More than enough to see gen times has being a problem since a long time now.
Technically the truth, doesn't change the fact that the problem with it is not how much it takes away by itself, but that it takes away it on top of the time the base progression takes.
Again, that means your problem is with the base progression, not PT.
But I tell you what, if you are able to explain to me where I said that two survivors repairing one gen should take the same time than if they were only one, I would try to answer any of that *word I can't write as is not allowed in the forum*.
You really want to try and claim that you were arguing from any other position? Saying it's not a co-op penalty to take away 37 seconds of a gen?
37 seconds compared to what, Bat?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3576187#Comment_3576187
But those aren't part of PT. What you're saying is that you have a problem with the base game. They were right in arguing that PT only saves survivors (currently) 5.5 seconds.
... do you realize that for PT to work you need 2 or more survivors in one gen, right? So it add more saved time to the base time saved? And that the argument was that it "only" saved 7 seconds (as we were talking about old PT) and that's why it supposedly wasn't that busted (like even the 5.5 seconds it saves now wasn't that much)?
It doesn't matter that there are those other 37 seconds because they are not part of PT. PT does not save you 43 seconds, it saves you 6.
So, a perk that works by percentage of the base regression doesn't have anything to do with that base regression, specially one that only work from that specific base regression and upward? Fascinating...
That is very much a you problem.
Yeah, that's why I started it with "In my experience".
Absolutely not, because the killer cannot pressure all gens at the same time. I'd rather have both A and B progressing at 100% speed than only have A progress at 170% speed with the risk that if the killer drops by, they undo all the work. Additionally, if I am on a separate gen and I get interrupted by the killer, I can use resources in the immediate vicinity without having to worry about being required to lure the killer away from the gen.
That's very much a you problem...
You're not going to get more of a co-op penalty than there already is. At this point, you are just looking for free wins.
Nice strawman, but dare to explain me how pointing out that fact is me wanting "free wins"? Specially when gen times being too fast had being a problem since I started playing the game. Also, if taking away 37 seconds of a gen by having just another survivor in it is a "co-op penalty", I don't want to see what a co-op reward is by your logic...
... do you realize that for PT to work you need 2 or more survivors in one gen, right? So it add more saved time to the base time saved? And that the argument was that it "only" saved 7 seconds (as we were talking about old PT) and that's why it supposedly wasn't that busted (like even the 5.5 seconds it saves now wasn't that much)?
And it's still not PT saving any more than 7/5.5 seconds on a gen.
So, a perk that works by percentage of the base regression doesn't have anything to do with that base regression, specially one that only work from that specific base regression and upward? Fascinating...
I mean, no more interesting than claiming that PT is responsible for a feature that works when PT is not in the game.
Nice strawman, but dare to explain me how pointing out that fact is me wanting "free wins"?
You already do that yourself. Here, let me show you:
Also, if taking away 37 seconds of a gen by having just another survivor in it is a "co-op penalty", I don't want to see what a co-op reward is by your logic...
If you fail to understand that 2 survivors taking 37 seconds fewer on a 90 second gen is a co-op penalty, then that is because you believe that that 37 seconds should be zero.
This is SO FAR removed from a balanced perspective that the only conclusion is that you just want the game to be rigged extremely viciously in your favour.
I mean, killers already have the higher winrate, and you want to argue from the position that any additional survivor working on the same gen should not reduce the gen time at all. Are you a Skull Merchant main, by any chance?
Specially when gen times being too fast had being a problem since I started playing the game
Oh, you must not've been playing for very long then.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3576141#Comment_3576141
Because the problem with PT (and all other progress perk / toolboxes) are those 37 seconds. The original post argued that PT was not a busted perk because it only saved 6 seconds, I pointed out that the problem is that those seconds summed up to 43 with the time that base progression already saves. So it has a lot to do with PT and any other progression related thing, and PT still saves 5 seconds more after the nerf, so the post I was responding to was still wrong.
About the rest, I hear it all before. In my experience as PR user killer main I still prefer survivors taking 90 seconds per gen than 43 as I have more time to disrupt them, and as SoloQ survivor unless we have a god looper and the killer commits to chases longer than it should I prefer to had a gen done and secured in 37 seconds less (in fact even less, as I use PT and Deja Vu), invest the extra time healing if someone is injured in the same gen and move on to the next gen or to do a save.
But yeah, if you are a coordinated SWF with progression perks and gigaboxes and want to beat the world record in gen times without taking in count how many survivors leave the game, splitting gen progress at least at the beginning is the way. If not, in your regular day match securing gens faster is the way to go and I would keep saying it.
Either way, sooner or later in the match having more survivors per gen is going to be more effective and those 37 seconds saved with base progression are still a problem. And again, PT is still a good perk for this same reason and that was the main point of the argument.
Because the problem with PT (and all other progress perk / toolboxes) are those 37 seconds.
But those aren't part of PT. What you're saying is that you have a problem with the base game. They were right in arguing that PT only saves survivors (currently) 5.5 seconds.
It doesn't matter that there are those other 37 seconds because they are not part of PT. PT does not save you 43 seconds, it saves you 6.
In my experience as PR user killer main I still prefer survivors taking 90 seconds per gen than 43
That is very much a you problem.
If not, in your regular day match securing gens faster is the way to go and I would keep saying it.
Absolutely not, because the killer cannot pressure all gens at the same time. I'd rather have both A and B progressing at 100% speed than only have A progress at 170% speed with the risk that if the killer drops by, they undo all the work. Additionally, if I am on a separate gen and I get interrupted by the killer, I can use resources in the immediate vicinity without having to worry about being required to lure the killer away from the gen.
Either way, sooner or later in the match having more survivors per gen is going to be more effective and those 37 seconds saved with base progression are still a problem.
You're not going to get more of a co-op penalty than there already is. At this point, you are just looking for free wins.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3576064#Comment_3576064
Why it don't surprise me that you somehow got that I said those 37 seconds was from the perk, when I wasn't. Read it again.
And yes, that's what everybody says, and mathematically they are right, 3 survivors in 3 gens are 3c/s pumped on those gens and at 5 gens normally it is preferable to have the progression spread. What they fail to see is that by grouping up they lose charges per second, but again, have 37 additional seconds to do whatever they need to do else (healing, cleaning totems, go to another gen, etc.), gives less time for the killer to come pressure that gen or use a regression perk to affect it, and a gen done can't be regressed anymore. Also, grouping up makes gen regression less effective by either reducing the time lost it produces or recovering that time faster (30 charges done by only one survivor are 30 seconds lost if regressed, while if there was done by 2 survivors only 17.64 seconds are. In the same case, if 2 survivors recover that 30 charges they would do it in those 17.64 instead of the 30 seconds it would take a sole survivor to do it).
About the pressure, the killer can only chase one survivor, and kicking the gen without any perks involved makes the gen regress 4 time slower it can be progressed. So, if 2/3 survivor are on a gen, they only have to wait for the killer to start chasing one of them to continue progressing the gen even if he kicks it, or if the killer stays by the gen to make sure it regresses it would take so much time that the survivors would be able to simply go to another gen and progress it a lot more than lost progress in that first gen.
In other words, funnily enough when the argument is just about pure math people start bringing in other factors that happens in a normal match, but in this case that you have to take in count all those other factors like walk, chase and healing times and such people decide to stick with just raw numbers.
About the 7 seconds:
- Completion time with 2 survivors at base progression: 90 / 1.7 c/s = 52.94 seconds.
- Charges per survivor: 0.85 c/s
- 15% of 0.85 = 0.1275 c/s
- Total progression with old PT: (0.85 + 0.1275) * 2 = 1.955 c/s
- Total completion time with 2 survivors with PT = 90 / 1.955 c/s = 46.035 seconds
- Difference between base vs old PT = 52.94 - 46.035 = 6.905 seconds
- Just for the record, completion time with actual 10% PT is 48.128 seconds. So, the nerf was only 2.093 seconds more.
So yes, those 37 seconds shaved off a gen by just having 2 survivors in it are saved time, as survivors can use that time to invest in other things that they would have to anyway.
Why it don't surprise me that you somehow got that I said those 37 seconds was from the perk, when I wasn't. Read it again.
Oh, I know that you weren't referring to those 37 seconds as being part of the perk. But you bring it up into this discussion when it has -nothing- to do with the perk. PT does not affect this in any way.
What they fail to see is that by grouping up they lose charges per second, but again, have 37 additional seconds to do whatever they need to do else (healing, cleaning totems, go to another gen, etc.)
That is incorrect, because that lose that same time again later when there's more gen progress to be done that could've been done if they hadn't grouped up. This is only a timesave when, as I mentioned earlier, there's more survivors than gens.
gives less time for the killer to come pressure that gen or use a regression perk to affect it, and a gen done can't be regressed anymore.
This is the only accurate point and the only benefit to grouping up. Otherwise, splitting up is significantly more effective.
Also, grouping up makes gen regression less effective by either reducing the time lost it produces or recovering that time faster (30 charges done by only one survivor are 30 seconds lost if regressed, while if there was done by 2 survivors only 17.64 seconds are.
This isn't true either, because you're failing to accommodate for the fact that it's 17.64 seconds per survivor.
Think of it this way: If they'd both done 30 seconds of separate gens, then the regression on one gen would only take away -half- their work, not all of it.
About the pressure, the killer can only chase one survivor, and kicking the gen without any perks involved makes the gen regress 4 time slower it can be progressed. So, if 2/3 survivor are on a gen, they only have to wait for the killer to start chasing one of them to continue progressing the gen
Which is still slower than one person on the other side of the map getting into a chase and the other survivor in a completely unrelated location losing no time at all. Also, the killer can do a fake-out and push one survivor out, then go chase the other to waste time for both of them. And then there's killer powers that also work somewhat better against groups, like Plague, Doctor, Legion or Trickster.
Grouping up is a disadvantage for survivors for the most part, unless it's a coordinated effort to deny pick-ups/hooks.
About the 7 seconds:
Ah, you were talking about pre-nerf PT, gotcha.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3575640#Comment_3575640
That would be fine, if it wasn't because it is 6 seconds saved (more like 7, but ok) after already removing 37 seconds by just being two survivors in one gen, making the total gen time 46 seconds. Even with the 10% it is right now, two survivors do a gen in 48.128 seconds approx. 3, in 35.714 seconds.
And I don't know who said that having gens done and secured in less time it takes the killer to get to a gen, chase, down and hook one of the survivors (without counting reducing the time impact regression has) is an advantage for him, but it is highly debatable.
That 37 seconds is not from the perk, first and foremost, and it's not even time saved, either, unless there's fewer gens left over than survivors.
If the game starts and survivors immediately group up, they are -increasing- their effective total gentime, not removing time.
And yes, multiple survivors being clustered in the same area is, most of the time, a benefit to the killer, since you can pressure multiple at the same time, further cutting into their efficiency.
Also, how'd you get to it saving 'more like 7 seconds'? Because I'm pretty sure it's 5.5 seconds saved. PT is additive too, not multiplicative, so your calculation should've dropped the amount of timesave even lower, not higher.
-
@altruistic said:
People are going to realize really fast good survivors are still hard to catch without MFT.
Then they’ll will start a mob for the next perk to be changed they feel is unfair.
I am surprised it took this long to gut the perk.
Windows of Opportunity has already received quite a few complaints, so that'll be next, then my guess is probably Sprint Burst.
-
@Beatricks said:
Revert the stun duration nerf of DS. Also remove the skill check, it serves absolutely zero purpose.
Skill check still serves a purpose, somewhat, in that it limits when DS can be used. Just so that you can't trigger it when the killer reaches a hook.
Though it can easily be made to trigger automatically immediately on pick-up, that'd be fine too.
But yeah, stun duration back to 5 seconds, absolute must.
-
When Skull Merchant was released and I saw the add-on that made claw-traps break pallets, I figured that's what she'd be. Entirely different power effects dependent on your add-ons.
-
@Ariel_Starshine said:
Yeah I miss it on PTS. It was a really decent way to earn BP on survivor. Now the BP I get is abysmal despite looping killer for five generators :<
If you loop the killer for five generators, you specifically get penalised in BP gains because 'Why didn't you do gens and unhooks? Selfish!'.
On topic: They're going to be removed, which is a really bad idea, because the bonus missions involved in getting the BP bonuses in WGLF and BBQ in particular are really, really, REALLY good for gameplay. Giving secondary win conditions that don't hinge on the other party losing was a stroke of genius.
And then it got killed off.
-
Semi-lightborn.
I'd legit want the killer to get blind immunity for X seconds after a flashlight save, or even just until the killer gets a hook. 1v2+ chases are the worst killer experience you can have, this would alleviate it somewhat.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3571694#Comment_3571694
I told you that it involves being tunnelled on purpose, which you kept ignoring. You also assume things like the person unhooking is suddenly on another gen and there is no situation where the killer does something like return to the hook.
I told you that it involves being tunnelled on purpose, which you kept ignoring.
Yeah, because the killer can simply opt not to.
I've seen this strategy in action, and it's been attempted against me multiple times, but every time it just results in someone spending extra time slugged and not getting any work done because I simply did not fall for the bait.
You also assume things like the person unhooking is suddenly on another gen and there is no situation where the killer does something like return to the hook.
If you are chasing the unhooked survivor, the person who did the unhooking is free to go for the gen. But again, that requires you chasing the unhooked survivor, which is tunnelling.
The absolute maximum the survivor can get out of this 'offensive use' of DS, is a single bodyblock, at the expense of either a heal or time spent slugged, in contrast to them spending up to 60 seconds on a gen. I don't understand where you are seeing this increased efficiency.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3571600#Comment_3571600
Feel free to not use the strategy I brought up. You keep trying to pidgeonhole it into not being possible/efficient and ignoring how bodyblocking works. Cheers.
What do you mean 'trying to pigeonhole it'?
What is incorrect about what I'm arguing?
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3571423#Comment_3571423
You've almost got it, but my point was about reducing the killer's efficiency while still maintaining survivor efficiency. As for forcing DS, getting into a locker is how you force the killer to either eat the DS or abandon chase (unless they wait it out, which is even more time wasted.) Even just getting downed near a pallet organically has a good chance of DSing the killer into a reset since everyone thinks its a trash perk now and it is less expected. All the survivor has to do is not make it obvious they have DS (bonus points if they OTR bodyblock the killer before using the DS) and they are costing the killer valuable time while the other 1-3 survivors are slamming gens.
Also something to note about the scenario is that you are assuming 3 survivors can be on gens the whole time after an unhook has taken place, which would require one to go for the save (and presumably one more in chase) which is the important distinction: its an efficiency "reset" after the snowball macro effect has started (survivor hooked and needing rescue.)
You've almost got it, but my point was about reducing the killer's efficiency while still maintaining survivor efficiency.
But you're not maintaining survivor efficiency when you've got an extra person in chase. You're only maintaining survivor efficiency if the only person in chase is the one with the DS, which, again, is tunnelling. Which is just DS doing the one job it was designed for.
As for forcing DS, getting into a locker is how you force the killer to either eat the DS or abandon chase
Again, if you don't -chase- the person with the active DS, it does nothing.
Even just getting downed near a pallet organically has a good chance of DSing the killer into a reset since everyone thinks its a trash perk now and it is less expected.
You mean it's a problem that DS can be used if the killer makes the mistake of activating it? That's like complaining about getting instadowned for triggering Haunted Grounds.
All the survivor has to do is not make it obvious they have DS (bonus points if they OTR bodyblock the killer before using the DS) and they are costing the killer valuable time while the other 1-3 survivors are slamming gens.
And all the killer has to do to avoid it is NOT pick up the person that was unhooked recently. If you chase after someone else and a recently unhooked survivor comes in to try and draw your attention, it is immediately, blatantly obvious they have DS active. If you ignore them and chase and down your original, non-DS target, then you can switch to the person with DS, because it will likely time out before you can down them.
Unless you're getting two downs in under 60 seconds, in which case you're winning anyway.
Also something to note about the scenario is that you are assuming 3 survivors can be on gens the whole time after an unhook has taken place, which would require one to go for the save (and presumably one more in chase) which is the important distinction: its an efficiency "reset" after the snowball macro effect has started (survivor hooked and needing rescue.)
You still need that for your scenario too, though.
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3571391#Comment_3571391
You're projecting. Nowhere did I say I'm upset. I'm merely stating that the spinechill TR detector was moved to basekit. Also, a visual TR option has not been in the game since day 1. At this point I think you're just trolling, lol
Spinechill only had TR detection for a short while, while they were developing visual TR, for the express purpose of fulfilling this role. And even then, Spinechill has additional functionality on top of it. Again: Spinechill offers MORE info, plus an action speed boost. Survivors got neither. Spinechill didn't get made basekit.
TR detection has been in the game since day one. It's the entire purpose of the TR.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3571391#Comment_3571391
They absolutely can when only one person is in chase, and the other 3 are working on gens (On comms to coordinate the strategy.) Part of why Deliverance is strong is because it can be used to remove one person from going for the unhook, its a similar principle. Like I said, its something that is more effective with SWF, since they can tell each other to stay on gens while the OTR/DS user can bodyblock a hit and either run away (having bought space, which allows either them or the original person being chased to glue to a gen) or force the DS accordingly (much more difficult with the reduced duration, but can still be used to purposely go down next to a pallet.) Two people not needing to detach from their gens is a net increase in efficiency while the one can even get tunneled on purpose (crazy, I know) to get the third person out of being chased and bolster efficiency back to 3 people able to work on gens (like the beginning of the game, aka when survivors are strongest efficiency wise.)
Just to reiterate, again, this is something you don't really see with solos, but rather SWFs you face at 3am on a weekday. The less macro game that the killer has (both in their kit and as a player) the more effective it is.
They absolutely can when only one person is in chase
Okay, but if there's only one person in chase, and it's the one with the active DS...
That's tunnelling.
That's not an 'offensive use', that's the perk fulfilling the express purpose it was shaped for.
the OTR/DS user can bodyblock a hit and either run away (having bought space, which allows either them or the original person being chased to glue to a gen) or force the DS accordingly
I will agree with you on OTR, that one is a problem. It's part of why I hate the move from DS to OTR as it's literally worse for both sides of the fence. OTR actually has offensive use, which is worse for killers, and it can be disabled by tunnelling harder, which is worse for survivors. Baffling design decision, honestly.
But for DS, this doesn't work, because the survivor wastes their own time more than they do the killer's. And no, there is nothing you can do, short of hacking, that can 'force' a DS. If a survivor throws themselves at you, all you have to do is not pick them up and continue chasing your original target. The downed survivor will be incapacitated for a while, and unless they have UB, they will need to be picked up by someone else. It's major time loss for them.
Two people not needing to detach from their gens is a net increase in efficiency
An increase over what, though? Because without the gambit you're describing, I'm counting three people not needing to detach from their gens, not two.
From what I understand, you're describing a situation where Survivor A unhooks Survivor B, while C and D are on gens. Killer chases A, then B either gets healed first and then tries to block the killer to try and draw aggro, or blocks the killer immediately. In this situation, though, as long as the killer doesn't actively change target to B, that's a persistent 2 survivors on gens.
But if A unhooks B, and B goes to repair gens, the killer is just in a chase with A while there's 3 survivors on gens. So I don't know where this net increase in efficiency supposedly comes from.
-
@Caiman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3570867#Comment_3570867
Yes it is. Sounds can be covered up or not noticed. They can be quiet or ambiguous. A giant blinking red light on your character? Extremely noticeable, no room for ambiguity, it is more reliable and more practical than the audible terror radius. It's why every major content creator uses it despite few of them being hard of hearing.
You can theoretically also miss the visual indicator, it's about as hard to miss as the TR.
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3570867#Comment_3570867
It's a big difference, enough of one I assume you're just being sarcastic (also deleted any semblance of stealth from Onryo). There's a reason every competitive player and every streamer turns it on. With that in mind it doesn't change the fact that it was made basekit.
You can't be serious. You're upset that survivors have a TR indicator, which has been in the game from day one?
It's also not basekit Spinechill still. Spinechill gives way more info AND an action speed boost.
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3570889#Comment_3570889
By using it offensively, it makes it so the rest of the team can make up for said missing efficiency. One being a nuisance so that attention is removed from 1-3 others. The obvious downside is that they become a target for tunneling once DS/OTR are out of the way. It also has less of an impact when not in a swf, since its harder to convey that you're purposely wasting the killer's time (and the rest should be taking advantage of that)
They can't make up for it. Two people cannot work as efficiently as three people. A survivor literally doing nothing is lost efficiency no matter what.
Also, sidenote, @scorpio : I'd quote your post, but it's on another page, so I can't. Anyway: You can't have DS disable on someone else getting hooked, it'd create a 'tunnel-for-free' scenario if the killer camps the hook and puts the unhooker on it before tunnelling the first survivor again.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3570653#Comment_3570653
Spinechill was made basekit. The perk was also buffed to entirely eliminate stealth killers as a threat. You're notified the killer is near, period. No line of sight needed.
What're you on about?
Are you talking about the visual terror radius? Because that's no different from the aural one.
-
I always thought WGLF was David kicking a very wrongly shaped ball...
-
@TransverseCaster said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3568410#Comment_3568410
That's not remotely true. Old DS was used as a weapon. If you, as a killer, knocked a party too fast then you would be punished for playing that well. In conjunction with the automatic in-built Borrowed Time and hook reforms it would be entirely too punishing. It was punishing then it would be worse now.
DS could not be used as a weapon because its activation condition was entirely up to the killer. All you had to do was not pick up the survivor that got pulled off the hook in the last 60 seconds before they performed a conspic action.
I've been hit by DS -once-, and it was an obvious bait that I fell for. Entirely my fault. I've never been hit by DS again afterwards, and not for lack of trying.
DS needs to go back to 5 seconds of stun.
-
@The_Daydreamer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3569499#Comment_3569499
Based on Nightlight CoH is not even under the Top 10 most used Survivor Perks. It has right now a pick rate of 2.55%.
I want to add that Nightlight does not reflect the whole state of the game but it does help to get a grasp of what to expect. Additionally I still don't think that most boons are weak, it's just that some are not practical. CoH requires another survivor to heal you which most of the time will not happen in Solo Q. Even in SWF you have better perks.
Shadowstep and Exponentiell are fine, only Dark Theory is just terrible.
The big Issue I see with Boons is that they all share the same paremeters, like someone else already stated on the forum. If boons would have different Range Parameters, values etc. they would be much stronger. But sadly they dont.
To get back to the topic: I think this idea is really bad and would only hurt boons. I don't see why you survivors should recreate a totem, that can be a potential threat to them plus you are wasting so much time in a meta where you have to push gens.
The big Issue I see with Boons is that they all share the same paremeters, like someone else already stated on the forum. If boons would have different Range Parameters, values etc. they would be much stronger. But sadly they dont.
That may have been me, it's my go-to talking point whenever boons are being discussed!
Shadowstep and Exponentiell are fine, only Dark Theory is just terrible.
I will say that I think Fussy is right on the money about Exponential, and I don't think it's fine. It's atrocious for those 1v2+ chases where you can't pick a survivor up because there's another survivor or two orbiting around you, waiting to hook deny. Exponential produces a lose-lose situation in those cases.
Then again, I think this could be fixed with range parameter meddling, as it would be far less of a problem if Exponential had a very diminutive range, meaning the downed survivor would need to crawl to the boon to get its effect.
-
@fussy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3569507#Comment_3569507
Yes, I've already had this kind of debate here. Everything you said is sometimes true, and sometimes just a theory. Often boon in main easily covers most of the middle of the map and you don't have to run somewhere far away. Quite often you already find yourself close to its radius and you don't have to waste time to reach it. But sometimes you put it on the edge of the map, and all action takes place on the other side, and of course nobody will run in boon area. And it's just as normal as not using hex for the whole game or lose it in first 20 seconds.
Power Struggle doesn't win games for survivors just because it exists in the match. And CoH does.
I also love to play hit and run since not so many people run it. And in matches with CoH you can easily mention how it even stronger than before against this playstyle. 3 people could be healed in 12 seconds in 2024, and some guys ask buffs for it. It's as funny as it's dumb.
But if you're putting it up in the middle of the map, it's also far easier for the killer to snuff it and it's easier for the killer to interrupt your blessing.
Power Struggle doesn't win games for survivors just because it exists in the match. And CoH does.
Power Struggle can break a snowball and kill momentum as hard, if not harder, than CoH.
-
@jonifire said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3569472#Comment_3569472
The survivor boons could be made stronger under the condition that the killers could distroy it and the survivors need some time to repair it and then bless it again.
So behavior could bring back circle of healing with 50%+ and self care.
That definitely won't work, because the power required to make boons viable with that kind of drawback would upset killers too much.
@jonifire said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3569472#Comment_3569472
Why is it a nerf?
Currently, a snuffed boon takes 14 seconds to re-bless. Your suggestion changes that to 44-54 seconds. That is a colossal nerf.
@fussy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3569458#Comment_3569458
Strong again? In what world they are weak?
CoH still stupidly strong, 8 sec healing = doesn't matter how much pressure you made as killer. And please no "in soloq blablabla" bullshit. It literally was buffed with auras for solos, and it still one of my most used perks in soloq. It's still "1 perk that won the game", especially on some maps and against some killers. Yeah, you don't get value from it every game, but you shouldn't.
Shadow Step does its work perfectly well, what do you want from it? Auto gen repair in boon radius?
Exponential is situational, of course, but it literally broken in sfw and favourite perk for bully squads already. How would you buff it? And why?
Dark Theory is only boon that need slight buff. 5% to vault speed i think. You can make it 3% instead of 2%, if killers will have Shattered Hope basekit. And after MFT nerf, of course.
CoH still stupidly strong, 8 sec healing = doesn't matter how much pressure you made as killer.
You got free pressure from CoH being set up, and it's not 8 second healing unless the injury and heal both happen in the boon radius. Any travel time to and from the boon gets deducted from the healing efficiency. And if someone has to wait for a teammate to show up, that takes a ton of time out of the efficiency, which is why people rightfully claim that CoH is kind of useless for solos and decent for swiffers.
It's still "1 perk that won the game"
That's like saying that Power Struggle is OP because someone got out with it one time.
-
@jonifire said:
The killer could decide if he distroys the boons or just unblesses them (like right now).
When he distroys it the survivor can spend another 30-40s to repair it and then afterwards bless it. So the boons could be strong like before.
Or they make a extra perk for survivors to repair the boons.
This is an extremely heavy nerf to a set of perks that are currently not strong enough to be viable. How does this make boons great?
-
@SirCracken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3569006#Comment_3569006
The solutions you proposed are coming at the problem from the wrong angle.
You're thinking "How can we make tunnelling not as punishing for survivors" instead of "How can we reward the killer for not tunnelling"?
Just look at the perk Pain Resonance. It's easily one of the most powerful and most used killer perks in the game. And you can only get maximum value out of it if you don't tunnel.
I think that having a base-kit mechanic added that buffs the killer in some way if they get fresh hooks would be a good way to make tunnelling not as optimal. The buffs could be killer specific as to avoid making the meta killers too strong.
For example:
- Blight's next rush, (Not his subsequent rushes!), after getting a fresh hook is 10% faster and has 15% more turning control.
- Trapper's next 2 beartraps after getting a fresh hook are placed instantly and he receives a 10% Haste effect while someone is caught in his traps, and for 10 seconds after they are freed or picked up.
There's a lot more to making tunnelling no longer the most optimal way to play killer, but I believe this change would be a good start.
You're thinking "How can we make tunnelling not as punishing for survivors" instead of "How can we reward the killer for not tunnelling"?
Balance being where it is though, you can't buff non-tunnelling to be more than competitive with tunnelling without increasing the winrates for killers, which are currently roughly on par with survivors.
You'd have to pair it with nerfs to tunnelling anyway.
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3568950#Comment_3568950
You prefer getting hooks over preventing unhooks and that's cool. Some people prefer to be defensive and prevent unhooks over going for more hooks. Both have merits and are valid ways to play under the current system.
You've actually been very clear that you do not believe killers should play in a defensive style and that you don't want to use your perk slots on perks that would actively help you with the situation you don't like. So it seems pretty clear that you don't want camping of any sort, not have to use perk slots or learn how to deal with a proxy scenario, and more direct innate info on what the killer is or is not doing.
I clearly don't think BHVR is beyond reproach, but I also don't believe removing proxy camping is good for the game and that currently it seems like the devs don't feel like it should go either. If they change tac and completely remove it I'm going to call them out for making another bad decision in the same vain as the way they handled the Skull Merchant rework. While I'm not a hyper defensive player I believe that people who are should have that ability to do so especially in a game as limited as this. Not everyone wants to chase constantly and hate that the community often seems to only value chasing and trash people who don't play in a chase centric manner.
Survivor meta being extremely stale hasn't really changed, the current meta has almost cycled around to just being the 2017 meta all over again. So, as far as I can tell survivors haven't lost any strategies simply due to swapping out a few perks since by and large they've been using the same ones forever. There was low variety pre 6.1 and there is still low variety post 6.1 because build variety is far and away the least valued thing on either side of this game even when it could literally improve folks odds. Do you have to pick up the perks every game? No. Should you at the very least put one of them sometimes? Yes.
I want people to actually just play the game they have and really learn how to make it work for them rather than constantly throwing a hissy fit and begging for changes. With exception of accessibility features it would be nice if folks stopped asking for major one sided changes to the game for a while. Like the AFC change hasn't even had time to breathe and folks to just play the game yet y'all are already wanting to mess with killers again. AFC was necessary, but damn it sucks constantly seeing folks trying to push for more heavy handed restrictions on the way people play the game.
You've actually been very clear that you do not believe killers should play in a defensive style and that you don't want to use your perk slots on perks that would actively help you with the situation you don't like. So it seems pretty clear that you don't want camping of any sort, not have to use perk slots or learn how to deal with a proxy scenario, and more direct innate info on what the killer is or is not doing.
I don't think it's good for the game that survivors are obligated to use perks as stop-gap measures for flaws in game design. Imagine if scratch marks were a killer perk, that'd be the same kind of issue.
I don't care about info on what the killer is doing, that is something you spun up.
I clearly don't think BHVR is beyond reproach
Then why did you call me unreasonable for disagreeing with them?
Do you have to pick up the perks every game? No. Should you at the very least put one of them sometimes? Yes.
Yes, you do need to pick them up every game. At the very least, it needs to be so ubiquitous that it pushes killers off. But that's never going to happen because Bond isn't going to magically fix the problem and render camping non-viable. For that to work, you'd need to have an extremely harsh punishment, like what DS was to tunnelling before it was randomly axed.
Bond doesn't do that. It may facilitate an attempt at counterplay, but does not guarantee its success. Failure to execute the counterplay will likely result in a 4K, too.
All of this, I must once again point out, to counter a killer standing still and staring at a hook.
I want people to actually just play the game
Then stop arguing in favour of a 'strategy' whose primary goal is to ensure people DON'T get to play.
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3568832#Comment_3568832
The game doesn't only consist of defensive play in that regard there is not problem.
The killer is still engaging with the game when in proxy, but they are doing so from a dominant position. Yes, you will be expected to work under less than optimal conditions to circumvent the dominance of a proxy camp. Yes, it requires players to act in a coordinated manner and the game gives you limited tools to coordinate. It's on you to figure out how to make that work because as I keep saying just giving you more things will not improve your experience solo play.
Each survivor has 4 perk slots and every game requires 4 survivors to start and 1 killer. 4 x 4 equals 16 as opposed to 4 x 1 which equals 4. If even one person brings Bond at the very least that person can move in a more coordinated fashion with their teammates when I was playing survivor having it made a huge difference. I've only been out of the game for 2 weeks at this point so I know that hasn't changed.
If you want to have exact info on what the killer is doing at all times then you're gonna be outta luck. You get a decent amount of the time if you want to run perks like OoO, Alert, or Wiretap. That's the thing though you need to prioritize what you want in your build and if you don't want to run info perks then you're not getting the benefit of info and the game shouldn't change to just give it to you for free.
BHVR is far from flawless and I never claimed they were flawless so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The way you're approaching this makes you seem unreasonable and it's not because you disagree with me. It's because what you want is just literally bad for the game.
If 11 meters is not functionally different than 2 meters then what is? What's the exact range in which the killer should be allowed to contest a save then? We know 1-2 is nearly impossible and you seem to think 11 is still nearly impossible so what's the measurement in which contesting a hook is fair for both sides? What's the number that makes sense for 1 killer to be able to engage in defensive play against 1-3 players when trying to progress their objective?
Tell me what you consider good defensive play in this game since proxy camping is such a scummy thing in your eyes. What can a singular killer do that serves as a reasonable and proper defense against up to 3 opponents.
The game doesn't only consist of defensive play in that regard there is not problem.
It does if the killer wants it to. That's the problem.
The killer is still engaging with the game when in proxy, but they are doing so from a dominant position. Yes, you will be expected to work under less than optimal conditions to circumvent the dominance of a proxy camp. Yes, it requires players to act in a coordinated manner and the game gives you limited tools to coordinate. It's on you to figure out how to make that work because as I keep saying just giving you more things will not improve your experience solo play.
We don't need to be given anything. Camping should just not be a thing. The game should not allow a player to stop engaging with the game, and in turn, force everyone else to stop engaging as well.
Each survivor has 4 perk slots and every game requires 4 survivors to start and 1 killer. 4 x 4 equals 16 as opposed to 4 x 1 which equals 4. If even one person brings Bond at the very least that person can move in a more coordinated fashion with their teammates when I was playing survivor having it made a huge difference. I've only been out of the game for 2 weeks at this point so I know that hasn't changed.
But you said the killer only has one opportunity and the survivors have sixteen. Neither of which are correct.
If you want to have exact info on what the killer is doing at all times then you're gonna be outta luck. You get a decent amount of the time if you want to run perks like OoO, Alert, or Wiretap. That's the thing though you need to prioritize what you want in your build and if you don't want to run info perks then you're not getting the benefit of info and the game shouldn't change to just give it to you for free.
So survivors have to pick up these perks on every single game on the off chance that the killer can't be arsed to play the game, in order to pull off a difficult gambit that hands the killer the win if it goes wrong.
You talk about the removal of strategies being a problem but you don't seem to pick up on the fact that these kinds of band-aid perk solutions do the exact same thing to survivors. Pre-6.1, there was almost NO variety in perk builds for survivors precisely because of this issue.
BHVR is far from flawless and I never claimed they were flawless so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
That's what an appeal to authority is. Your argument is that the game is purposely keeping camping in, therefor it is unreasonable to argue that it should change. This argument ONLY holds merit if you believe that BHVR is beyond reproach. Otherwise, it's worthless.
If 11 meters is not functionally different than 2 meters then what is? What's the exact range in which the killer should be allowed to contest a save then? We know 1-2 is nearly impossible and you seem to think 11 is still nearly impossible so what's the measurement in which contesting a hook is fair for both sides? What's the number that makes sense for 1 killer to be able to engage in defensive play against 1-3 players when trying to progress their objective?
Because the functional difference is in what the killer is doing. If they actually go after a survivor, that's fine. But if they sit on the hooked survivor with the express intent to deny any attempt to unhook, that's not. And I don't care at what distance they do this.
Tell me what you consider good defensive play in this game since proxy camping is such a scummy thing in your eyes. What can a singular killer do that serves as a reasonable and proper defense against up to 3 opponents.
When I hook a survivor, I go looking for the next. Along the way, I will keep an eye out for anyone trying to get a rescue. I just want to get downs and hooks, not prevent unhooks. And I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the same of other players.
Getting hooks, over preventing unhooks.
It's because what you want is just literally bad for the game.
You've made like 4 or 5 claims about what I want without even asking.
-
@sizzlingmario4 said:
As long as boons are in the state they are, I'm perfectly happy that we haven't gotten any new ones in over a year.
The problem is their core design holds them back too much and ultimately I think it comes down to this: there's no fair way to buff them as long as they are unlimited in nature. I still think in order to make boons better there needs to be some form of permanent counterplay to them, whether that be basekit Shattered Hope (without the aura reading) or something else, and then rebalancing the existing boon perks with that in mind (or at least the weaker ones). In other words, snuffing a boon totem needs to be actually worth the killer's time, and no boon can have an effect that is too oppressive far away from the killer because the killer doesn't have time to go actively search out a boon totem far away from the action. That was one major component of why the old Circle of Healing was so broken, but the others don't really have that problem in their current state.
CoH is still a good perk, btw. It's just not free self-resets for the entire team anymore with self-healing speeds faster than the current medkits, which was absurdly overpowered. But most of the other boons right now are not really that good or are too situational, but at the same time wouldn't be fair if they weren't. So they're in a bad spot and I don't think they can really be individually fixed by only adjusting the perks directly.
The problem is their core design holds them back too much and ultimately I think it comes down to this: there's no fair way to buff them as long as they are unlimited in nature. I still think in order to make boons better there needs to be some form of permanent counterplay to them, whether that be basekit Shattered Hope (without the aura reading) or something else, and then rebalancing the existing boon perks with that in mind (or at least the weaker ones).
That really cannot work. The amount of power that would have to be on those boons would have to be so excessive, killers would blow a fuse immediately. Probably rightly so.
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3568612#Comment_3568612
Proxy camping is still playing the game. Defensive play is still play whether you like it or not. Facecamping wasn't playing the game and it has been addressed and now it's on you to learn how to circumvent the non-deviant defensive play. Period.
Facecamping took away survivor options entirely, but proxy camping does not it just limits them which is last I checked the entire point of defensive play. You're not defanged whatsoever just limited and may need to yes, expend precious resources such as a perk slot to mitigate the potential. Killers have to make that same decision when it comes to builds and they can only make it once per trial. Across all survivors that decision can be made up to 16 times and realistically only 1 of you needs to make it once to get the effect. If you want the information put on the perk.
You are trying to dictate what is and is not acceptable play based on your own preferences even if the face of that fact the game has been purposely allowed to maintain the option of proxying while removing the ability to face camp. You are the unreasonable one.
Survivors don't have to gain telepathy, but they should learn game awareness via shock horror, using the tools they have access to. So many survivors still don't know how to read the HUD and don't even try to pay attention to it when it does a ton a heavy lifting for you on both the condition of your teammates as well as the general things the killer could be engaged in. It tells you when someone is being chased and when they aren't being chased with relatively good accuracy. If someone isn't being chased and someone is on the hook and you've not encountered the killer's TR for a while you can guess the killer is probably near the hooked survivor.
Camping has issues, but the worst offending issue is now mechanically far less viable than before. To completely remove camping in its entirety would require a complete change to the killer objective which also necessitate a complete overhaul a lot of killer perks, some powers, and potentially map design. While I want the game to see drastic overhauls in some areas doing that would be better left to just making a new game due to the scale of work involved.
That still won't truly solve your problem even if it happened though because again, your teammates will be what they are no matter what mechanical changes or advantages are added to the game. Killers will just find another way to facilitate defensive play because to remove every single defensive strategy from a pvp game is exactly how the game dies as no one wants to play a game where they aren't allowed to defend against their opponent or only allowed to approach the game in a singular way no matter the circumstance.
Proxy camping is still playing the game. Defensive play is still play whether you like it or not. Facecamping wasn't playing the game and it has been addressed and now it's on you to learn how to circumvent the non-deviant defensive play. Period.
No, it hasn't been addressed. Because someone standing 11 meters away versus 2 meters away is not a functional difference.
Killers have to make that same decision when it comes to builds and they can only make it once per trial. Across all survivors that decision can be made up to 16 times and realistically only 1 of you needs to make it once to get the effect. If you want the information put on the perk.
I don't know when you quit but I'm pretty sure both killers and survivors have only four perk slots, not 1 and 16. And no, you still need 4 perks to get the information you're banking on.
You are trying to dictate what is and is not acceptable play based on your own preferences even if the face of that fact the game has been purposely allowed to maintain the option of proxying while removing the ability to face camp. You are the unreasonable one.
I'm the unreasonable one because BHVR is literally flawless and never makes mistakes, ever. I'm sure that's a very reasonable position to take.
Survivors don't have to gain telepathy, but they should learn game awareness via shock horror, using the tools they have access to.
The tools being: The HUD and literally nothing else.
So many survivors still don't know how to read the HUD and don't even try to pay attention to it when it does a ton a heavy lifting for you on both the condition of your teammates as well as the general things the killer could be engaged in. It tells you when someone is being chased and when they aren't being chased with relatively good accuracy.
Congrats, none of that helps if the killer is camping, because that's indistinct from the killer seeking.
If someone isn't being chased and someone is on the hook and you've not encountered the killer's TR for a while you can guess the killer is probably near the hooked survivor.
The problem is:
for a while
That's too late. You're on a strict time limit to get this stuff done, on top of everything else.
Camping has issues, but the worst offending issue is now mechanically far less viable than before.
Is it? Because it still requires tremendous investment from survivors to counter it, while requiring zilch from the killer. And if the survivors mess it up even the slightest bit, it's likely to snowball into a 4K on the spot.
Killers will just find another way to facilitate defensive play because to remove every single defensive strategy from a pvp game is exactly how the game dies as no one wants to play a game where they aren't allowed to defend against their opponent or only allowed to approach the game in a singular way no matter the circumstance.
And a game consisting of only defensive plays is no fun for anyone either. That's the problem.
-
@egg_ said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3568677#Comment_3568677
The ability to self heal indefinitely is one of the strongest aspect survivors can have, so no, just reducing the radius of coh was not going to be enough. That perk needed to go
Self-care OP.