Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@CrowVortex said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2741667#Comment_2741667
It's no different than Doctor with both calm addons and distressing proxy camping with DMS no? No unhooking with his shocks and blast to block gens. I don't see why everyone is singling out the Artist whenever DMS is brought up and asking to nerf her, when there's Doctor, Freddy and to some extent PinHead with his chain hunts that can use the perk pretty well compared to other killer's.
Static blast has restricted range and 60 second cooldown.
Artist's power has a 6 second cooldown, IIRC, and is global.
You can move to a different gen if you get Static Blasted and Doctor can't do anything about it without giving up the camp, but Artist can just fire a crow at your new gen to apply the same pressure.
EDIT: Also, @BlighTown , the topic you're referring to was someone playing the Artist, I believe, and they weren't crying about it, they were just expressing concerns about how powerful this combo is and how little you can do against it.
-
Survivors within the radius gain a 50% healing speed boost when healing without a medkit.
Unlocks the ability to heal yourself without the use of a medkit.
Just take medkits out of the equation and lower the value. Self-healing is now somewhat more efficient than someone else healing you to compensate for the time spent blessing the totem, but it's still considerably slower than current state and can no longer be stacked with a big medkit.
-
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2742202#Comment_2742202
That's a lot of words to ignore that tournaments need massive amounts of restrictions and bans on what survivors can bring just to try and equalize it out remotely, as well as playing on preselected maps that lean in the killer's favor anywhere from moderately to heavily.
Also ignoring that BHVR themselves is aiming for 60% kill rate.
Otz is not a good example. He has nearly 8000 hours and is extremely good compared to the average, and we all know how unreliable MMR is.
Re-read your own post.
In the exact same post, you're pointing at tournament level, top level plays, to imply the game's survivor sided, AND you discredit Otz's results because 'he's too high level'.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
-
@LoneSlinger said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2741591#Comment_2741591
I mean you also have to consider dcs affect kill rates
Those hackers that play pig and everyone spawns in with traps on their heads that insta pop affect kill rates
People that purposely troll after their team mates farm them affect kill rates
Killers that let the last one go after two dcs affect kill rates
Challenges for both killers and survivors affect kill rates
Again I'm restating what the other guy said that we can't take kill rates at face value
Deathslinger definitely didn't have a high kill rate yet for some reason was nerfed regardless
Oh, sure, but they're the only stats we have. And people claim the exact opposite of what the stats say without any kind of evidence to back it up, and that is taken in without any kind of scrutiny.
The only statistics we have suggest that killers are at an advantage.
@CyberDragoon656 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2741404#Comment_2741404
Ok so you will take the red rank percentage from a year a go and say things got better tell that to any deathslinger or Freddy main and a different tune will show those two got nerfed pretty bad and specifically in slingers case was both a lower % percentage killer a year ago and now can easily be considered one of the worst killers now, along with the fact that if we went off of the red rank list then nurse needs more buff since her average is under 50% even though she's always on the highest rank bracket however that's neither here nor there the statistics are flawed anyways cause many factors were not put into consideration along with boons being a major problem now both due to how the mechanic works and COH existing.
For the lightborne argument the fact that someone decided to make a video about it being non effective and a different website posting an article about it shows it wasn't a one time complaint yes the does suck but people equipped it for situational stuff.
Onto the camping and tunneling argument I never said it wasn't effective however the arguments against it usually are shown in one of two lights "camping and tunneling are not fun to deal with" and some form "camping and tunneling= no skill" I most likely am missing something in the middle but it's usually those two and like you have shown many CC in red rank and people on these forms admitted that at times they needed to camp and tunnel especially now due to how the perk meta is which yes is again more of a balancing issue along with the survivor perks being easily exploited such as bt being used as a barrier instead of an anti tunnel perk , DH's hit validation and COH atacking healing rates to the point where on xbox people can have 2 sec healing times but for the most part I never really see someone saying "let's remove camping and tunneling but include x or y to compensate it" it's usually just the first part which is why people including myself at times say it's unreasonable it's an argument where it's either "remove it or keep it" with nothing in between.
Now onto NOED and honestly survivors have no excuse now thanks to boons and how bad totem spawns can be , most hex perks are actually not that good as before (yes that is more balancing issues but it goes to show if a even noed and ruin which both are dethroned now because of perks like rancor and pop so unless you have a hex perk build you are basically handicapping yourself otherwise also for NOED specifically I have seen people try to say .
I will admit I haven't had much time with artist new perks however since boons never really go away and can only be delayed it might not matter.
As for complaints right now to be honest it's actually both for many reasons and it's not vague handwaving like you suggest it's the fact that due to how this game goes about the mentality of the community now both side do it one forum could just be people complaining, one can be legit back and forth ,some can do the second one but get over taken by trolls and so on, evidence for both can easily be picked up you can't say one side does it more than the other and even the responses I've seen that you say survivors get for trying to be reasonable can easily have the roles reversed on anything dbd related.
Also let's put one thing to bed even though I do respect otz and can agree that certain killers can be with out perks and addons and have the delay and still win I have to take the results with a grain of salt due to the rng centric nature of dbd and the fact he tweeted about there being a gap in certain killer tiers meaning some killers can't be viable thanks to bad basekits.
For your response for the question I asked about which side benefits more due to the bugs you only brought up bully squads but I was including perks and the map itself which right now most are survivor sided due to placement of pallets ,buildings and debris.
Ok so you will take the red rank percentage from a year a go and say things got better tell that to any deathslinger or Freddy main
Well, they did. Both of them got closer to 50% in their kill rates. Deathslinger might be under that line now, but it's especially funny that you mention Freddy since you, yourself, linked an image stating him to have the second highest kill rate at 59%.
Onto the camping and tunneling argument I never said it wasn't effective however the arguments against it usually are shown in one of two lights "camping and tunneling are not fun to deal with" and some form "camping and tunneling= no skill" I most likely am missing something in the middle but it's usually those two and like you have shown many CC in red rank and people on these forms admitted that at times they needed to camp and tunnel especially now due to how the perk meta is which yes is again more of a balancing issue along with the survivor perks being easily exploited such as bt being used as a barrier instead of an anti tunnel perk , DH's hit validation and COH atacking healing rates to the point where on xbox people can have 2 sec healing times but for the most part I never really see someone saying "let's remove camping and tunneling but include x or y to compensate it" it's usually just the first part which is why people including myself at times say it's unreasonable it's an argument where it's either "remove it or keep it" with nothing in between.
I have been saying for about as long as I've been on these forums that camping (I've been hesitant about tunnelling, but now feel fairly confident in saying that that applies too) is the lodestone of the game's balancing issues.
Here's the problem: You say that killers are forced to tunnel and camp in light of exploitative plays from survivors. But if you can still win perfectly fine by doing exactly that, then the game is balanced. It's not fun, but it's balanced. That was Otz's point: It's balanced in such a way that both sides have extremely un-fun strategies they can employ that are considerably more powerful than playing the game normally.
The issue that I'm trying to point out here is that there's a killer bias on the forums that makes it impossible to address this problem. Because while everyone's on board with removing BT collision, with nerfing CoH, with fixing DH's false positives (Which are supposedly getting fixed this PTB), with nerfing genrush and bully squads, try and suggest nerfing camping, tunnelling and slugging.
You will get so much backlash.
That's what I mean with that these forums want to maintain the current meta. Because without nerfing the OP, unfun strategies from killers, you can't reasonably remove the OP, unfun strategies from survivors.
Now onto NOED and honestly survivors have no excuse now thanks to boons and how bad totem spawns can be
Objectively: 'Doing bones' is the worst counter to NOED, unless you are in a 4 man swiffer, and even then it's highly questionable.
For your response for the question I asked about which side benefits more due to the bugs you only brought up bully squads but I was including perks and the map itself which right now most are survivor sided due to placement of pallets ,buildings and debris.
'It's survivor sided'
As evidenced by nothing.
You state they're survivor sided, but it's just as possible that they're neutral, and everything that isn't considered 'survivor sided' is actually killer sided.
Basically, there's four balance states...
1: Clean survivor - 50/50 - Clean killer
2: Dirty survivor - 80/20 - Clean killer
3: Clean survivor - 0/100 - Dirty killer
4 Dirty survivor - 50/50 - Dirty killer
What Otz said basically boils down to 'the game favours dirty play'.
But on these forums? Situation 2 is the absolute abomination that makes DbD borderline unplayable to killers.
Situation 3 is fine.
People just cling to the possibility that the game is survivor sided. Even though Otz can handicap himself with a blank loadout and wait 30 seconds to start, even though other streamers joined him on the experiment and mostly reproduced his results, even though there were camping experiments that showed excessively high kill rate returns, people still insist on stating that the game is survivor sided.
'But the game's only killer sided when we camp/tunnel/slug'
Then as long as those tactics exist and are available, the game is killer sided. You choosing to play sub-optimal has no bearing on the balance, right?
That's why people think it's a reasonable rebuttal to say 'bring small game, 4head' in response to NOED complaints.
I have been advocating for ages now for a mutual nerf: Slower gens, weakened genrushing, but in exchange, camping, tunnelling and slugging MUST be kneecapped. The game needs to forcibly steer towards a meta that makes the most optimal strategy NOT the most unfun one.
No bully squads (Innate lightborn after a flashlight save, maybe change sabotage as well, removal of map offerings)
No genrush (Slower solo speed with compensatory increased co-op speed so fastest gen speed =/= safest gen progress, better gen regression, removal of BNP)
No camping (Survivors teleport to distant hook when progressing to struggle state from first hook)
No tunnelling (Innate DS, disabled post gen 5)
No slugging (Survivors can crawl to a generator and once there, pick themselves up after fully recovering and performing a 15+ second standing-up animation)
As long as killers don't want to give up their OP strategies, you can't make survivors give up their own.
-
@Rivyn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2741272#Comment_2741272
Because kill stats take everything into account. Suicides, face camping, afk, memeing, etc. How can you accurately judge the health of a game when it's all lumped together, instead of pulled apart to be examined?
This kind of scrutiny doesn't really show itself when there's another 'survivors OP' claim.
Though it doesn't matter. Hook suicides, facecamping, afks, they're all part of the game as a whole and are factors in the overall game balance, to an extent.
-
Obligatory 'they played the whole game with three perks!'
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2741243#Comment_2741243
So how do you lunge at someone who is in a closet?
They're hardly using the perk in a 'bully the killer' capacity if they just hide in a locker...
-
@CyberDragoon656 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2741185#Comment_2741185
There are more examples but I figured maybe videos that go into it rather than showing more recent stuff of people who are killer mains quitting this game and going to something else like VHS.
As for the arguments for both survivors having reasonable arguments and the killer average first off its not way over 50% the most recent killer average that we got has the highest at 59% (cenobite) which by now thanks to COH is probably lowered and for the survivor arguments yes, some have reasonable complaints but how is it that those aren't really shown but ones that complain about camping and tunneling, noed and for a while lightborne are the ones consistently seen and the only worthwhile thing they use as an arguing point is that it's not fun to play against that. Meanwhile, you look at both tool kits and see that survivors have more broken perks than killer ATM.
You mention otz saying it's more around bad game design I agree on that however, who gets more out of it? Unless you are a killer with map pressure or have certain perks you're kinda screwed which like I said before not many do now the only killers still on top are nurse and blight and most other killers took a hit ot two or more with cases such as twins to the point where they are data that could be removed and no one would care.
Also wanted to add, for as much as you want to say killers are oppressing survivors take a little look around and you will see the exact opposite around the forums here.
The game is fubared at the moment but no matter who tries to say otherwise until something gets done it is survivor biased and even the way the devs go about their QnAs and hearing about multiple issues with this game, they usually are shown to be biased to one side especially with this new update.
As for the arguments for both survivors having reasonable arguments and the killer average first off its not way over 50% the most recent killer average that we got has the highest at 59% (cenobite) which by now thanks to COH is probably lowered
Things have likely gotten better, yes, but the argument that the game was leaning too much in the survivor's favour was around even when the devs released stats that stated that the average kill rate at red ranks was at a whopping 68%.
But even the current stats strongly suggest that the balance is leaning in the killer's favour, with the exception of the Trickster and Nurse. I mean, in most MOBAs, a 59% winrate would probably net you a hotfix nerf.
for the survivor arguments yes, some have reasonable complaints but how is it that those aren't really shown but ones that complain about camping and tunneling, noed (...)
You're missing part of the argument if you're referring to camping and tunnelling complaints as 'not reasonable'. When Otz showed that a killer with a blank load-out and a 30 second late start can consistently win matches, people were quick to point the finger at the fact that he was camping and tunnelling. This, in essence, is a tacit admission that these tactics are unreasonably powerful, to be able to more than make up for such a massive handicap. @Munqaxus and @KayTwoAyy ran their own experiments in regards to camping and they found it to be a very effective strategy.
The fact that you call complaints about camping and tunnelling unreasonable in light of mounting evidence that these tactics are, on average, too strong does highlight a little bit the reason why I think these forums are part of the problem.
NOED tangentially ties into that with how it interacts with camping/tunnelling, but it also highlights how stubbornly the forums refuse to take the survivor side seriously. I think it's either @Pulsar or @GoodBoyKaru who's commonly arguing against the tired old meme of 'do bones' and explaining why exactly 'doing bones' is an ineffective strategy, and yet there's still loads of people on these forums who are genuinely convinced that it's a good idea to pre-emptively do five totems to counter NOED.
and for a while lightborne
Which I think was one killer saying the last survivors they fought complained about it and then pretty much the entire forums agreeing that those survivors were stupid.
And it's not like the killer side doesn't have its own share of dumb complaints, like that time someone was getting salty over the healing speed boost on WGLF.
You mention otz saying it's more around bad game design I agree on that however, who gets more out of it?
On average, the killer. Because the killer can do this without consuming add-ons or offerings, and without having to coordinate a team. It's way harder to set up and run a bully squad than it is to plop your behind under a hook and stare down the survivor as you wait for NOED to pop. Kind of evidenced by the fact that in his three experiments, Otz only encountered one genrush squad.
Also wanted to add, for as much as you want to say killers are oppressing survivors take a little look around and you will see the exact opposite around the forums here.
That's a pretty vague handwave and I think it's not accurate at all.
The game is fubared at the moment but no matter who tries to say otherwise until something gets done it is survivor biased and even the way the devs go about their QnAs and hearing about multiple issues with this game, they usually are shown to be biased to one side especially with this new update.
Or, as I've been saying, the devs aren't survivor biased, the forums are just killer biased. Because if the average kill rate is still over 50% and killers can consistently win with a blank loadout and 30 second late start, we might be wrong about our perception of balance and the devs might have some insights we don't.
-
@CyberDragoon656 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2740924#Comment_2740924
this is only a little bit but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4oiwK5-TW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1eMK1LvFI8&t=1126s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PyBtGHjLY
Not to mention it's almost widely agreed upon that high MMR is survivor-sided because most of the time its SWF groups however Since there's not really anymore high MMR killers (for one reason or another) the matchmaking is borked and causes long time players to get paired up with people who can't even compete as well deterring any newcomers from continuing to play this game.
Also, take a look and I mean really take a look at the tool kits for each side and tell me why is it that while survivors will complain about NOED they have 2-3 meta perks that can tank hits/save them from error/reward them for ######### up.
Not to mention the fact that many flat out said that in order to even stand a chance at high rankings you have to camp and tunnel which leads to this game's best past time of dealing with toxic salty bullshit even more so if you one of the two viable options for high MMR the fact that you have to do a certain playstyle just to even keep up should be evidence enough to say it's survivor sided.
This is kind of what my point was. Your first video is purely theoretical and from the perspective of a killer who's definitely making mistakes.
The second video is timestamped at a discussion about hex totems and how survivors can clear totems without any risk. First off: That's incorrect. You're moving around a ton as survivor to find and get rid of the totem, and you're exposing your location once you're done, AND you're spending time that you should be putting into gens. Secondly: it doesn't prove that the current balance is survivor-sided at all, in fact, it barely has anything to do with it. If it's meant to be some indication of survivor-sided bias on the devs, it does a pretty poor job for the aforementioned reasons, and additionally: Why should survivors be put into a complete lose/lose scenario for the simple fact that someone picked a hex?
The third video is pretty funny, to be honest. 'Survivor's so easy', but all he's showing is loops. If you keep an eye out for the things that actually matter for this discussion, you'll notice that in game one, there's one survivor dead at three gens left. In game two, where he's massively outplaying a pig that's really not doing a good job, it shows one gen left to be done, two dead, the other two injured (One even down at one point) and both remaining survivors having RBTs on them, meaning there's a zero percent chance that that match is any less than a 3K. The last match is him running down a hallway while the killer is in chase with someone else.
Not to mention it's almost widely agreed upon that high MMR is survivor-sided
But that's not evidence. And least of all, it's evidence when going by these forums, because anyone that says anything to the contrary is likely to get lambasted by about half the community here.
I am a stubborn jackass, so I'll dig my heels in and stick to what I believe, but I wouldn't be surprised if a LOT of survivor players show up on these forums, voice reasonable complaints, and then get so much crap from the forums that they quit.
How did this conclusion come to be? Because in all this time, I haven't seen evidence. I even began to accept it as truth because it got repeated so many times, but since Otz tossed out his experiment that showed he could get over a 2K while playing -perkless- and with a 30 second AFK timer, I'm getting doubtful.
Not to mention the fact that many flat out said that in order to even stand a chance at high rankings you have to camp and tunnel which leads to this game's best past time of dealing with toxic salty bullshit even more so if you one of the two viable options for high MMR the fact that you have to do a certain playstyle just to even keep up should be evidence enough to say it's survivor sided.
No, it isn't. That's three tactics you can use to push things in the killer's favour, and apparently quite overwhelmingly so. The fact that those tactics are bad for gameplay health has no bearing on balance; They are there, and they are part of the game. They are encouraged by a lot of members of this community, they are vigorously defended by a lot of the members of this community too, so that is the balance as intended by the community and it's what has to be considered.
And the truth is that a competent killer can have a blank loadout and AFK for 30 seconds and still have an option to win consistently. How is that survivor-sided?
It's as Otz says: The game balances by pitching really unfun tactics against one another. That's not survivor-sided, that's just ######### design.
And it's not gonna budge as long as people keep saying 'the game's survivor sided', in spite of the kill rates being well over 50% and in spite of Otz and several others showing that killers can consistently win matches even while stripped of perks and add-ons.
'But Otz plays this game a ton!'
And if a survivor complains on the forums, they'll be told they need to 'git gud'. When anyone does well, they're just 'low MMR' and should shut up because their balance input doesn't matter. But as soon as Otz shows that killers can play better, the clamouring for balancing to only consider high MMR suddenly stops.
This community is an absolute nightmare, and honestly I can imagine it's a primary reason the game feels bad to play for many people. It's impossible to go any direction with this meta because the forums want to preserve it.
-
@CyberDragoon656 said:
So any other evidence that shows that the game is survivor sided should be ignored but just cause one video from otz which the stats he put out needs to be put into question and scott who barely plays killer now.
Not to mention both do not have the most recent patch and both are being paid to play this game so they have more time than most.
Has there been evidence showing the game is survivor sided?
-
I'd want the Hiss, mostly because that'd mean a Control chapter and the Oldest House would be a phenomenal setting for a map. Plus, Jesse Faden as survivor could be amazing too.
-
@NOEDENJOYER said:
No.
Killers only win at the top if they tunnel, camp and slug as much as possible. And guess who hates those playstyles the most? Survivors lol
That doesn't change anything though.
Tunnelling, camping and slugging are still available tactics. So with that in mind, killers are pretty much in complete control.
Until those strategies are addressed, survivors can't be nerfed.
-
@Swimming_Bird said:
Hex: Cold Fries made me laugh more than it should have.
Hexes of mild inconveniences sounds amazing.
Best I can offer this thread is a Hex: Cuse me
-
@Pulsar said:
Just for the record, the reaction to Peanits is probably precisely why we get very limited Dev interaction anymore.
That's a bit of a vicious cycle though, since people get more frustrated when they can't communicate their frustrations or they feel they aren't being heard.
If Devs only communicate once every few months, reactions are going to be worse than when devs communicate weekly.
Not saying they're under any obligation to change their approach, but just giving some advice.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2737766#Comment_2737766
My point of contention with, I guess I'll call it the tru3 agenda, is that the whole premise is trying a playstyle the game isn't intended to be balanced around and still using said playstyle to draw balance conclusions from it. He's basically saying "I don't want to have to play well at a macro level to win". Game management is 75% of killer skill at a high level when everyone has good mechanics.
This feeds into what Otz said though.
The balance at high MMR is basically propped up on strats that are awful to play against. Bully squads and BNP/Toolbox spam on one side, slugging, tunnelling and camping on the other.
You can either be competitive or have fun, and they're pretty much mutually exclusive.
-
@Pulsar said:
I don't think Boil Over is going to be meta but those SWF's looking to bully people really shouldn't be given that perk.
This is my issue with that buff as well. Boil Over's buff is not really going to be useful outside of dedicated bully squads. It's just a bad tactic from a design perspective.
-
@Vaimore said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2735373#Comment_2735373
SWF is not just OP, its cheating imo. Do you think its fair that 4 survs who have a total of 16 perks between them and a hivemind against ONE killer is realistically fair?? No! They all communicate and act like ONE entity the entire game. Taking turns on hooks, flashlight bullying, and Tbagging at the exit gates at the end of EVERY match. Its broken and unfair. I honestly think with all the playing I have done in this game, that they need to balance it back out. Killers are 1 against 4 people who can crash Gens out of a game in seriously no time at all regardless of killer set up. I am running ( on Legion ) Hex: Pem, DL, Than, and ruin. ITS STILL NOT ENOUGH!! Games are too fast and survs no longer fear any killers at all. DH is OP, but SWF is over the top.
Killers need 6 perk slots to make things a bit more competitive. Not every killer should feel like that have to be a pro/ veteran to get 1 kill a match.
You should probably play a bit more to get a better grip on the game.
Or play less, it seems to rile you up in a bad way.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2731983#Comment_2731983
That doesn't make either right.
I've been hit on hook before the first gen has been done a ton.
Every Bubba I've played against facecamps.
I don't anyone on either side is having fun atm.
I don't anyone on either side is having fun atm.
And neither side wants to change that.
-
@Phasmamain said:
Removing a method to be racist is still a good thing though
I don't know if the mask can be qualified as such.
Anyone who doesn't know about the controversy surrounding the mask wouldn't be affected by it, would they?
But conversely, and this is part of why I'm uncomfortable with this decision: That controversy could easily repeat. All it takes is some jack-ass singling out a new thing, stating that people are using it to be racist, and suddenly that new thing carries on the same problem of the mask.
In terms of what's doing the actual damage, I'd say the order goes: Cosmetic < < Rumination on the cosmetic < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < The actual racists.
-
@landromat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2735373#Comment_2735373
no, just difference
That's a shame. That still tells us very little. Did they specify 15%, additive or multiplicative? Because that's also a huge difference. I would assume additive (For example: solo is 30, swiffer is 45), which would make it a considerable gap.
There's probably a few swiffer-oriented nerfs that you can make in regards to save tactics, while making some buffs that only help solos, like the action UI they're testing out.
-
@Hoodied said:
15% difference means that solos are bad as well, which OH WAIT THEY ARE!
That depends.
If solo's at 50%, Swiffers are at 65% and thus OP.
If swiffers are at 50%, then solo's are at 35% and thus UP.
It's possible that Swiffers are OP and solo's are UP, it's possible both are UP, it's possible that both are OP, it's possible that one is perfectly balanced and the other is OP/UP.
Did they specify escape rate for either Solo or Swiffer?
-
@Nameless said:
Calm down. At least we had another Pig nerf. It's been too long, I was almost losing hope that the devs wouldn't keep the Pig nerfs going.
Didn't Pig only get buffed this patch?
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2735049#Comment_2735049
Something else that should be mentioned here is that at least some of the devs were not even aware of the connection to NFTs and basically found out the same way the community did.
That is also a very fair point, some of the DbD artists were basically tricked into producing NFTs.
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2734906#Comment_2734906
Ok the point is that BHVR or dbd had no connection to this NFT. BHVR didn't make it, nor did they get any money from it, you also didn't buy an NFT when you bought the chapter, nor did you "support" it. When you bought the Hellraiser chapter all you did was buy a DLC for dbd, just because the model for the NFT is the same doesn't mean that it's connected in any way other than being a licensed model that basically anybody can use.
'BHVR didn't make it'
That's not true, according to their own twitter. They stated that they actively participated in the NFT creation.
'They might've been contractually obligated to say that'
Then that's not a contract they should've signed.
-
Not before CoH is nerfed down.
-
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733588#Comment_2733588
"or you can just remember where the dulls are and check at the end when noed activates. Don't want to do either? Just leave."
"or you can just remember where the dulls are and check at the end when noed activates. Don't want to do either? Just leave."
-Put it twice so this time maybe you'll read it at least once. Also seriously, if the killer is standing still, camping a hook. That's the easiest possible time to find totems to either note or destroy/boon as you see fit. Camping is the exact opposite of applying pressure.
You said that I can't count survivors having 16 perks as a team, because they don't keep them when they die, I pointed out how ridiculous that idea is. That's not moving any goalposts. You seemed to be saying that if a perk can be removed it shouldn't count, which considering we're discussing a hex here, is absolutely hilarious.
NOED doesn't have a design problem, is my point. Making it activate in any way at the beginning of the match would definitely introduce one, however.
Put it twice so this time maybe you'll read it at least once.
That's all well and good, but that's not going to work if you finish gen five and then the killer spots you. He's still going to get the chase halved.
'Just leave' is forgetting that the killer has two spots to patrol (With 4% bonus movespeed) and the survivors still have to open the gates.
You're oversimplifying an incredibly nuanced game.
Also seriously, if the killer is standing still, camping a hook. That's the easiest possible time to find totems to either note or destroy/boon as you see fit. Camping is the exact opposite of applying pressure.
It's the easiest possible time, sure, but you do guarantee that your team doesn't win if you do so. You have 120 seconds to finish all gens, open the gate and get out, otherwise the killer will move on to the next target. If they have NOED, they might just slug for the 4K, because you can't do both the gens and the totems in 120 seconds. It's one or the other, and either way you lose out.
You said that I can't count survivors having 16 perks as a team, because they don't keep them when they die, I pointed out how ridiculous that idea is. That's not moving any goalposts. You seemed to be saying that if a perk can be removed it shouldn't count, which considering we're discussing a hex here, is absolutely hilarious.
Then you're massively misunderstanding what I said.
You said 'It's one perk slot out of 16'. I pointed out that 1 perk slot out of 16 isn't going to be enough, because it can be shut down by the killer chasing the one who has the perk, meaning you need another one with that perk to pick up the slack. In solo play, this generally translates to 4 out of 16 perks being used up for what you're suggesting.
NOED doesn't have a design problem, is my point.
And that is where we fundamentally disagree.
-
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733092#Comment_2733092
1. If the argument is solely how "fair" it is, then that's easy. It's perfectly fair. It's a perk in the game, and to use it you have to essentially be short a perk all match. It has multiple different forms of counterplay, and can be removed entirely from the match.
So yes, it's fair. The rest comes down to the semantics of what counterplay is best to employ. You can take a bit of extra time (when survivors set the pace of the match, and aren't actually pressed for time at any point outside of the egc) or you can just remember where the dulls are and check at the end when noed activates. Don't want to do either? Just leave. If the killer is so good at pressure despite being handicapped all match by being down a perk that you can't even think about totems, guess what? That means he earned that noed activation.
2. The fact that death removes a perk doesn't really change the fact that the survivor team gets 16. That's just how asymmetrical games work. One side starts off at an advantage (generally the team with more players) and the other has to whittle down that advantage (usually by killing the other team). That's what makes it fair for killer players. Losing the advantage when your team is killed off is literally a defining characteristic of the genre, so I don't know why you want to pretend it's a brand new concept.
3. NOED activating at the start wouldn't make it more fair, it would make it useless and still manage to piss off survivor players. At the beginning of the match, when the pendulum is fully in the survivor side, it's far too easy to clear, and yet at the same time I can't see a world where starting the match exposed, with a killer who has a speed boost, is going to be seen as fair by survivor players. They already claim now that noed gives "free" kills when it activates, removing the ability to stop it from activating just makes that perception worse.
So yes, it's fair. The rest comes down to the semantics of what counterplay is best to employ. You can take a bit of extra time (when survivors set the pace of the match, and aren't actually pressed for time at any point outside of the egc) or you can just remember where the dulls are and check at the end when noed activates. Don't want to do either? Just leave. If the killer is so good at pressure despite being handicapped all match by being down a perk that you can't even think about totems, guess what? That means he earned that noed activation.
That's the point: It's not really fair.
It's not 'a bit of extra time', it's quite a lot. Especially when survivors cannot communicate. 'But then bring small game': okay, but then the cost is quite a bit of time, plus up to four perk slots.
The idea that survivors aren't pressed for time is also completely dependent on the match and the other players, including the killer.
The problem is in the supposed counterplay. Doing those five totems is a huge investment when survivors aren't by default equipped to deal with it. And it doesn't even help them that much if they do get all five. If they get all five, and the killer has NOED, it's bad, since it's heavy slowdown. If the killer didn't have NOED, it's worse.
That's why I stated that, paradoxically, NOED would be more fair if it was active from the start.
And there's also a major problem with 'good pressure = earned NOED activation' in that camping exists.
The fact that death removes a perk doesn't really change the fact that the survivor team gets 16. That's just how asymmetrical games work. One side starts off at an advantage (generally the team with more players) and the other has to whittle down that advantage (usually by killing the other team). That's what makes it fair for killer players. Losing the advantage when your team is killed off is literally a defining characteristic of the genre, so I don't know why you want to pretend it's a brand new concept.
You're moving the goalposts.
You stated that the survivors have sixteen perk slots available and they need only one to slot in Small Game. I pointed out that that is not true. Now you've turned the discussion around to face off against some strawman where you seem to think I'm opposed to the idea of a survivor's perks ceasing function when that survivor dies.
NOED activating at the start wouldn't make it more fair, it would make it useless and still manage to piss off survivor players. At the beginning of the match, when the pendulum is fully in the survivor side, it's far too easy to clear, and yet at the same time I can't see a world where starting the match exposed, with a killer who has a speed boost, is going to be seen as fair by survivor players. They already claim now that noed gives "free" kills when it activates, removing the ability to stop it from activating just makes that perception worse.
It would fix one of NOED's design issues, was my point.
-
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2733059#Comment_2733059
BT and DS are meta because survivors love unsafe unhooks, let's be honest there. That's not even from playing killer, playing solo taught me that, they don't look around, they run over traps, sometimes they come in while being chased. That's not bad game design, that's dumb plays.
70 seconds to remove all totems. Much shorter to just identify them. Again, this is time taken by the side that literally dictates the pace of the match. Also, seriously doesn't take much communication, I play solo literally 99.9% of the time, comms are a crutch for players without situational awareness.
Yes, the perk doesn't work as well if the person carrying it is killed. So, like all perks.
BT and DS are meta because survivors love unsafe unhooks, let's be honest there.
No, it's because camping and tunnelling are incredibly effective. If survivors are going for unsafe unhooks, you can bet they won't pull you off the hook with BT in their pocket.
And while I definitely agree that BT is bad in that it encourages unsafe unhooks, it is still an anti-camping measure. And DS especially.
70 seconds to remove all totems. Much shorter to just identify them. Again, this is time taken by the side that literally dictates the pace of the match. Also, seriously doesn't take much communication, I play solo literally 99.9% of the time, comms are a crutch for players without situational awareness.
We're not talking about identifying them, the discussion was about the alleged counterplay of 'do bones'. Yes, identifying and checking is better, but that doesn't mean that 'do bones' isn't a terrible idea.
We're also not talking about how powerful NOED is, just about how fair it is, and specifically, that it would be, paradoxically, more fair if it was active from the start.
And survivors setting the pace is not a black-and-white scenario. A killer applying good pressure will absolutely dictate the game's pace. Not to mention campers, who literally state 'you have 120 seconds or else I kill another one'.
Yes, the perk doesn't work as well if the person carrying it is killed. So, like all perks.
Yes, but that does throw a spanner into your argument of 'You've got 16 perk slots across your team so just one isn't a big deal'.
-
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2732875#Comment_2732875
I love how in these discussions people try and act like this is a 1v1 game.
70 seconds spread amongst 4 people, specifically the side that chooses how fast the match is going via gen speeds.
16 perk slots for just 1 person to bring something other than BT/DS/DH/COH
Perhaps the meta is so stale because survivors would rather claim something is "unfun" "unfair" or "op" rather than swap a meta perk for one that would help with their specific issues.
It isn't about fixing bad game design, I personally find that once you know the 10 possible spawn points on each map for totems, the perk becomes superfluous, but if remembering 10 places is too much, they gave you a perk.
Yeah, it's 70 seconds spread amongst 4 people, -disregarding the time it takes to find the totem-, and due to the way the counterplay works, it does NOT require a perk slot. AND those four people need to coordinate amongst each other.
16 perk slots for just 1 person to bring something other than BT/DS/DH/COH
This is also a really bad take, because that one person is usually me. And what happens when I get chased? That's right, the perk is useless, not just to me, but to everyone!
Perhaps the meta is so stale because survivors would rather claim something is "unfun" "unfair" or "op" rather than swap a meta perk for one that would help with their specific issues.
Look at the list you put up. Half of that list is already there specifically because they're perks -that help with specific issues-. You want to make it 3/4. Pitch in UB, you're at 4/4.
The meta is stale because, outside of DH and CoH (Which does deserve nerfing), most of the survivor load-out is there specifically to counter design issues. This whole attitude of 'just bring X perk' is exactly what this meta is. You're advocating for making it worse by locking in another band-aid perk.
DS, in its current form, is one of the worst perks in the game. It is not particularly high value, it has a very steep cost to use, and it is incredibly easy to counterplay. And it's still being picked all the time, simply because tunnelling is so overbearing that you need DS if you don't want to risk a killer that just tunnels for an easy win.
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2732875#Comment_2732875
This isn´t a single player game, where 1 person has to do everything alone (unless you are the killer). So your calculation is simply wrong.
I don't know how this argument has anything to do with that calculation. 14 x 5 = 70. That's 70 seconds of slowdown.
@AngyKiller said:
Survivors Running META Perks On All 4 & Purple Toolkits To Bang Gens ASAP, While In A 4-Man SWF: NoED is unfair because I don't want to get off my gens & do bones. Why can't I just counter it on 1 totem before it ever pops?
Just. Do. Bones. NoED is fine. It's a perk that does not activate until the gates are powered, so it needs to stay hidden until the gates are powered.
Asking for it to be nerfed because 'SoloQ's don't get the information SWFs have' is 1) Screwing Killers because SWF and 2) Making SWFs stronger. No.
Just. do. Bones.
Doing bones is literally your worst option. 99% of the time, you WILL end up making things worse for yourself and your team. Leave the totems and try to bait NOED into one that's near you.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2732297#Comment_2732297
Yeah, I never played Dark Souls. 🤷♂️
If you do intend to try Dark Souls 3, make sure you install the Blue Sentinel mod first. It's a mod that protects you from hackers.
Even the DS community is better at warding cheaters than BHVR.
There's a lot of people that like to glamorise how hard Dark Souls is, but I found DS3 (The only one I've played) to be quite manageable. And if you want an easier time, you can always team up with a friend.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2732799#Comment_2732799
What very strong slowdown? Cleansing a totem takes 14 seconds.
NOED isn´t the issue. Survivors only hugging gens and ignoring everything else is the issue.
14 x 5 = 70 seconds, not counting time spent looking for them, which can be doubled up if survivors look around areas where another survivor has already cleansed a totem.
Thana gets you 80 seconds if you maintain 4 injuries for all five gens. And Thana costs a perk slot.
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2732799#Comment_2732799
If only there was a perk to take that would show you how many totems remain on the map. Maybe one that helped you find them as well...
Right, we get four perk slots and a variety of perks, not so that we can choose and customise, but so that we can acquire a strict set of perks used to fix bad design and literally never change them.
'Why is the survivor meta so stale!?'
-
@IMhereRUN said:
Don’t get me wrong, NOED is a big crutch…I’m not a fan if using it or versing it.
However, I’m also a realist. Understand the best counter to crutch perks, is crutch perks. NOED is usually used by newer players, or players that need to regain the momentum they lost during the gen-phase of the trial to survivor crutch perks.
How many Dead Hards extended chases? How many BT’s allowed rookies to farm each other off the hook mid-chase and get away with it? How many DSs were used to prevent hooks (yes, this still happens without tunneling, just less popular). How many Deliverances/Kobe, or many slug self-pick up perks allowed survivors to recover? All these action robbing the killer of the momentum he earned, that’s designed to force another survivor to help.
Also, bare in mind…NOED isnt a free down, it’s not a free hook. You still have to be found, chased down…AND M1 only.
If that’s not enough to say NOED is fine…how about the fact that it can be deactivated, even before getting value? You don’t think a killer would spend 15 seconds in a game doing some secondary objective to disable Dead Hard if they could?
Like it or not, NOED is just a killer crutch perk (the ONLY killer crutch perk btw), that is used to regain momentum they already earned in the trial, that was robbed by survivor crutch perks. I don’t like it, most people don’t…but the only people that can legit claim it is “unfair”, are the people never using survivor crutches.
How many Dead Hards extended chases? How many BT’s allowed rookies to farm each other off the hook mid-chase and get away with it? How many DSs were used to prevent hooks (yes, this still happens without tunneling, just less popular). How many Deliverances/Kobe, or many slug self-pick up perks allowed survivors to recover? All these action robbing the killer of the momentum he earned, that’s designed to force another survivor to help.
DH I can understand, the BT bodyblock has to go, but if you're still complaining about DS, you smashed your face into it, and Deliverance is also a terrible one to complain about. It is incredibly unlikely to fire and overall not that helpful outside of swiffers.
Also, bare in mind…NOED isnt a free down, it’s not a free hook. You still have to be found, chased down…AND M1 only.
It's not M1 only. Some special attacks won't work, but a ton of killers can use their power as normal. Spirit and I think Nurse can still smack you coming out of their power to instadown you, for example. Pinhead and Clown can still slow you down and get their slug on.
If that’s not enough to say NOED is fine…how about the fact that it can be deactivated, even before getting value?
This is what a lot of people don't realise: No, it's not possible for NOED to be deactivated without it getting value. Because the counterplay is, most of the time, so involved that it's already getting value from that. And the instadown isn't the only value.
Only if you are immobilised from fifth gen being done to the moment the hex goes down do you not get value out of NOED. If it doesn't pop up at all, you got a ton of value out of it. More than you would've gotten out of Thanatophobia, for example.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2732683#Comment_2732683
Then you´ll feel bad about not cleansing all 5 totems or taking a perk like Detectives Hunch.
There are 4 survivors and 5 totems. If every single survivor takes out 1 totem and tries to cleanse a second one, then NOED will never be a problem.
It will never be a problem if four randos with zero comms coordinate that effort.
Unless, of course, the killer didn't bring NOED, giving them very strong slowdown without needing a perk slot.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2732600#Comment_2732600
Well, its not like all survivors instantly drop dead once NOED activates. You still have to cleanse only 1 hex perk. So simply wait for the first hit after the gens are completed and if you get exposed, then start searching for that hex. Chances are, it spawns in a ridiculously easy to see spot.
Sure. Unless you invested in the alleged counterplay, and all the easy-to-find totems are gone.
Same if someone else did as these forums like to instruct.
And even if no one went for any of them, what if it just godspawned anyway?
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2732460#Comment_2732460
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2732481#Comment_2732481
And starting the match while being exposed?
Are you sure about that?
I mean, it'd also drop to just one totem, so it'd be at least cleansable.
But you're missing the point. The whole counterplay is a major investment that massively backfires if the killer turns out not to have NOED. That's a part that's unfair that would technically be fixed if NOED was active from the start.
-
@Tsulan said:
So... would you be happier if NOED was active during the whole match?
In a really twisted way, it would be more fair. Heck, baseline NOED would be more fair than its current iteration.
The fact that it's declared after its supposed, time-intensive counterplay is part of the problem, since it makes the counterplay a risky investment.
-
@ShinobuSK said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2730998#Comment_2730998
Its about using Flip flop or tenacity and crawl under the pallet. Noone would walk into pallet while carrying survivor but Power struggle value is from forcing pick up while surv is already under the pallet getting ready
It wouldn't be Flip Flop OR Tenacity, it'd have to be both, since Tenacity doesn't give you wiggle progress, and Flip Flop doesn't allow you to recover while crawling. That's a three perk build with a small chance of getting you free, which is blown if the killer just picks you up immediately anyway.
There's a reason Power Struggle was literally never used. The change made makes the whole build around it slightly more likely to work, but it's still unbelievably unlikely to ever fire.
That's not a bad thing, of course, Power Struggle is a really bad idea for a perk, IMO, but this tiny buff isn't going to make it work.
-
@Irisora said:
And more huge buff to survivors. This is silly and pitiful, killers buff are always minimalistic while survivors buff are huge.. just look at this patch notes, boil over and power struggle will be a big problem. Glad im not playing this game anymore.
And why the hell nerf Nemesis zombies? The devs LOVE to ruin killers fun.
boil over and power struggle will be a big problem
Don't make me laugh. Power Struggle will continue to be a joke. No killer carrying a survivor will ever walk under a pallet.
-
@Exxodus21 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2730841#Comment_2730841
That's like comparing apples to some fictitious fruit that would never exist.
Not in regard to the argumentation. If you fail to consider anything but the fact that it can be disabled, you're missing a ton of context that relates to how powerful something is.
The alleged counterplay to NOED is part of the problem.
-
@Exxodus21 said:
NOED is fine. Any perk that can be completely prevented from being used certainly doesn't need a nerf.
In disregard of any judgement of NOED's power level: That argumentation is very flawed.
If survivors had a perk where, if the killer doesn't run 3 laps around the entire map within the first 3 minutes, all survivors become permanently invulnerable, that perk would be busted and need a crapton of nerfs, even if it can be fully disabled.
-
These kinds of topics always turn volatile...
But I have to say, I think this is pretty... Low effort, I guess? Just getting rid of the mask won't get rid of the harassment, I suspect. Stricter moderation has been required for a very long time now, and this just feels hand-wavey.
I also don't like this approach as a precedent. If racists organise somewhere and choose a different cosmetic or aspect to rally around and make into their new symbol, will that also be removed?
-
@NoelleMina said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2729263#Comment_2729263
You’re not understanding.
Some Smartface Bubbas were harassing black creators and people who played black characters.
They’re the ones who used it to re-create the whole blackface problem and target people with it.
Unless elves are real, there’s a good reason this cosmetic is being removed.
Surely the cosmetic isn't the problem here, though?
I think there's bigger issues with that behaviour than the racist's wardrobe.
-
@cantelope said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2728892#Comment_2728892
DS and BT are to easily used as bodyblock perks to get them for free. Having an unhooked survivor block two hits and know you can't touch for 60 seconds every first unhook would be miserable. Even now if survivors see I'm going for the rescuer they start trying to bodyblock without bt and ds, only loud chirping to protect them.
All it would honestly do is encourage these sloppy rescues and punish the killer for it. Especially when you get survivors who will throw the entire game to get you to set off DS because... I guess it's supposed to be funny? But I've noticed a trend in survivors who seem genuinely angry I didn't tunnel them and start desperately trying to get me to trigger it.
BT is too powerful as a bodyblock perk, that much is true, but DS is not. BT should generally lose collision for the duration of the endurance effect.
But even with that change, I don't think BT should ever be baseline. It's a perk that accentuates unsafe unhooks, and that shouldn't be encouraged. DS, on the other hand, should be made baseline, with the singular adjustment that it cannot fire after the fifth gen is done.
DS is also quite bad as a bodyblock perk, since you can simply down the blocker and leave them slugged, which'll end up costing the survivors more time than the killer.
-
@SunsetSherbet said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2727854#Comment_2727854
Tru3 did this exact same test and got 0.98 average.
0.98 average on what? Otz did three experiments.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2725343#Comment_2725343
My argument is that tactics are not always used and that you see other tactics used if they are viable. Having more options means you encounter different types of play and therefore diminishes the impact of one specific one. That is just how numbers work.
Camping is part of the game and as long as the developers are not going to remove it by their accord, it will stay. Dismiss this fact as you please, but it isn't going to change the fact that they are the ones who are in control. The direction and gameplay they set out is on them and it appeals to some people whether you don't like it or not.
I live in a reality and make arguments based in that. If you want to live in a theoretical environment where the creators statements have no meaning, it just isn't realistic.
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2725343#Comment_2725343
An appeal to authority would be "the game devs have said they won't fix it, so it's good" not "the devs have said they won't fix it, so they probably won't fix it" that's just acknowledging the reality of the situation. If the game developers don't want to change something, they won't. Since they've repeatedly said they don't want to remove proxy camping, it's reasonable to believe they won't remove proxy camping. This isn't a value judgement on camping, just acknowledging the reality that nobody is going to force the devs to change a mechanic they don't want to change.
It is still an appeal to authority because you are framing the discussion within limitations set by said authority, when those very limitations could very well be wrong.
I get what you are saying, but these forums are here for feedback on the current state of the game, and presumably, the devs' stances are informed by the feedback provided. If we stop giving our feedback because we think that the devs disagree, then the entire forums can be closed off immediately because there's no point.
If the devs are making a mistake, these forums and these types of discussions are where this is pointed out.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2725227#Comment_2725227
My argument is based on the aspect that other strategies are made less effective by the introduction of aspects to the game like circle of healing, which you have not disputed at all. If you have less options, the remainder ones are more prevalent. There is logic behind what I am stating, rather than what you base your counter argument being namely your subjective opinion.
The fact of the matter is that people play for their enjoyment, results are just part of the equation and yes there are people that will adapt a more effort, lower result strategy is it is significantly more fun to do and yield enough rewards to be worth it. It is not a 100% conversion rate and I never claimed it was, yet if more people play those styles than that means the pool has a bigger diversity you encounter and therefore you come across campers less. This is all simple math, why do you still see blights aren't camping? According to your the stronger their other skills are the more powerful camping becomes and therefore they should all camp. Yet we get complaints about Blight using the tinkerer/ruin/undying build with their best add-ons to rush across the map. It is more difficult to do that than camping. The argument people will not utilize other strategies if they are viable is not based in reality.
I state that it isn't going to happen, because the game is 5 years old and the developers recently stated that they have no plans of getting rid of proximity camping. They specifically are trying to address face camping, therefore a premise and solution that gets rid of it all together is not realistic. I am simply stating a more realistic approach to addressing the frequency that one comes across these tactics as a solution rather than stating either rework the fundamentals of the game out of some ideological stance.
The argument people will not utilize other strategies if they are viable is not based in reality.
How is it not based in reality? At every stage of this game, there's been camping. No matter the circumstances of the game and its balance, camping exists. That is the underlying problem.
I know what you are trying to argue, but there's no proof of your argument. You're arguing that 'Blights don't camp', but we don't know if that's actually true. By your reasoning, Nurses shouldn't camp, and I've seen that one happen.
There's no hardline, singular truth to this matter. It's not that people ONLY camp because they have no other alternative, and it's not that people will ONLY camp if that is the most effective strategy. But ultimately that matters little, because every balancing decision made will have to be considered from a perspective that includes and accounts for camping.
It is hamstringing the game's balance. It is bad for gameplay. The mere fact that it exists is hurting DBD (And not just Survivor's side, either).
It needs to be crippled.
I state that it isn't going to happen, because the game is 5 years old and the developers recently stated that they have no plans of getting rid of proximity camping. They specifically are trying to address face camping, therefore a premise and solution that gets rid of it all together is not realistic. I am simply stating a more realistic approach to addressing the frequency that one comes across these tactics as a solution rather than stating either rework the fundamentals of the game out of some ideological stance.
This is an appeal to authority. The devs are not omniscient gods of game design, and I think -everyone- here knows that. It's not a good idea to reaffirm their stance by referring to them during a discussion about whether their stance is solid or not. Their opinion is not an argument.
-
It's just "blink to where survivor is, get hit". Shouldn't there be a bit more thought for the strongest killer in the game?
I think you should play a bit of Nurse before you make a statement like this. The power is far more complicated, and if it was as simple as you say it is, we'd be seeing far more Nurses and far more complaints.
In reality, her power has a very loud call-out, which gives survivors plenty of opportunity to work against it. You can double back, for example, because the longer the charge is held, the further it blinks.
Additionally, removing the ability to go through walls but giving her 110% would ironically remove one of her best counterplays. I once lost a Nurse's chase completely by ducking around a corner and stopping on the spot once I saw the Nurse charge her power. I ducked back around the corner when she fired and she blinked to where she projected I'd be if I'd kept running, thus losing me completely.
Lastly, I think Nurse is the killer that should be touched the least. It's a very fragile, lightning-in-a-bottle situation with her balance and I think she's generally regarded as a really good part of the game.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724740#Comment_2724740
It does matter for the argument, as to point out the obvious is that camping has always been in the game and has always been powerful this isn't something that changed overnight. Yet somehow we are seeing it more and it is therefore deemed a bigger issue. It is not a question if killers will gravitate to other playstyles, because they did so previously and the problem is that those strategies are no longer viable. That caused many people to quit playing killer or adapt to the remaining options, for many that included camping. I am not claiming that every single person will not camp, but it will be less people overall in the pool and therefore the likelihood of encountering it will be significantly less if you provide other options to people. More options, mean more diversity and that means less encounters with camping killers.
People mainly have an issue with things they don't like if they come across it all the time, so yes the frequency of it is important. There are many powerful things in the game that aren't constantly complained because they aren't seen very often. The other night I came across an extremely strong sabotage SWF squad and got my ass handed to me; it was incredibly powerful, it was neigh impossible to hook them and it was one of the most frustrating games of DBD I have ever experienced. Yet it isn't deemed a problem, why? Because though it was strong, powerful, frustrating and all round an unfun experience... it is extremely rare to encounter. We have more complaints about Blight add-ons than Nurse's with 3 blinks, why? Frequency of being seen.
How powerful do these other strategies need to be? They need to be viable to a degree that they are going to be able to perform on a consistent basis to where it is entertaining to actually play. It doesn't need to win all the time, but it does have to feel like you are in control of the outcome and that you stood a chance purely based on your own gameplay. This is why the very strong killers are still played as well, they can perform based on their own input.
You are cherry picking, as it is among the options, you just flat out ignored it or didn't understand the options presented - I just don't think it is likely to happen: "You can technically nerf camping, tunneling and all the non-fun strategies yet that would mean that severe nerfs would need to be made to the survivor end most likely along side with it and I doubt the community would be up for that or severe ground breaking game rework and that isn't going to happen."
"That is why I believe the better solution would be to elevate and provide tools to killers to make those other options more attractive or at least similar in viability"
Yet somehow we are seeing it more and it is therefore deemed a bigger issue
It's not a bigger issue for me. It's always been a big issue.
And it still doesn't matter what its prevalence is. The fact that killers have a loaded gun trained on the game's head and can pull the trigger whenever they like is a fundamental problem. Every patch, if anything is changed in a way that a killer doesn't like, there'll be a topic cropping up titled 'X change happened, so now I'm just gonna camp'.
And your argument is based on the presupposition that camping has indeed increased in frequency, which isn't proven.
My argument is based on the idea that camping is a problem, in general.
People mainly have an issue with things they don't like if they come across it all the time, so yes the frequency of it is important. There are many powerful things in the game that aren't constantly complained because they aren't seen very often. The other night I came across an extremely strong sabotage SWF squad and got my ass handed to me; it was incredibly powerful, it was neigh impossible to hook them and it was one of the most frustrating games of DBD I have ever experienced. Yet it isn't deemed a problem, why? Because though it was strong, powerful, frustrating and all round an unfun experience... it is extremely rare to encounter.
Swiffers are practically constantly complained about. And I suspect sabos aren't complained about because they're far more counterplayable than camping is.
We have more complaints about Blight add-ons than Nurse's with 3 blinks, why? Frequency of being seen.
And the quality of skill, and again, counterplay. Nurse and Spirit actually have somewhat similar powers, but Nurse receives far fewer complaints, because outplaying a Nurse buys you a ton of time, whereas outplaying a Spirit nets you absolutely none.
And, again, this is arguing on the assumption that camping has increased in frequency, or that complaints about camping have increased in frequency, neither of which are proven. Camping was very commonly complained about for as long as I've been on these forums.
How powerful do these other strategies need to be? They need to be viable to a degree that they are going to be able to perform on a consistent basis to where it is entertaining to actually play. It doesn't need to win all the time, but it does have to feel like you are in control of the outcome and that you stood a chance purely based on your own gameplay. This is why the very strong killers are still played as well, they can perform based on their own input.
I get your argument. I just disagree with the premise that killers will just swap to another, higher effort, lower reward strategy. And I also disagree with the idea that this will resolve the problem. Any changes you make will have to fit within the very narrow framework that is left by the one singular condition: It cannot buff camping in any way.
I think it's much, MUCH healthier for the game to cripple camping and free up design space to make killers more viable in its absence.
You are cherry picking, as it is among the options, you just flat out ignored it or didn't understand the options presented - I just don't think it is likely to happen: "You can technically nerf camping, tunneling and all the non-fun strategies yet that would mean that severe nerfs would need to be made to the survivor end most likely along side with it and I doubt the community would be up for that or severe ground breaking game rework and that isn't going to happen."
I don't consider 'And that isn't going to happen' to be the closing statement for a legitimately presented option.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724643#Comment_2724643
You are missing the point, the tools given to survivors specifically decrease the efficiency of other strategies that killer used. That does directly correlate to why camping is more utilized, as the options for killers decrease they will pick from what is remaining. If you enjoyed the hit and run play style for instance, circle of healing is a direct reason to adjust your strategy to a more camping and tunneling style.
Camping has always been in the game, even when as you stated survivors were even more powerful. Whether the game is more survivor favored or to what degree is irrelevant. The question is why is it increasing now? It is about where the tools and gameplay of survivors and the game in general to how viable certain strategies are for killers. If you increase the variety of playstyles you come across and more to choose from the chances of face those you don't like decrease. Yet if the game decreases the options, you come across more and more the same ones and if you don't like them... you end up with this.
MMR is not to blame, it simply means that people face each other based on different criteria. It however is causing the issues and tactics that are viable to be made more visible.
You cherry picked out of my entire post and ignored that what options I have mentioned as possible solutions which included your own. Yet the idea that a whole rework is the only option is simply not true.
You are missing the point, the tools given to survivors specifically decrease the efficiency of other strategies that killer used. That does directly correlate to why camping is more utilized, as the options for killers decrease they will pick from what is remaining. If you enjoyed the hit and run play style for instance, circle of healing is a direct reason to adjust your strategy to a more camping and tunneling style.
That doesn't matter for the argument though. Camping is still far too efficient a tactic to be fixed by making other tactics just as effective. Sure, you could remove CoH entirely, it doesn't suddenly make camping not an appealing strategy.
If you increase the variety of playstyles you come across and more to choose from the chances of face those you don't like decrease.
And if a killer has a 10% chance to immediately kill a survivor on M1, and is then nerfed to a 5% chance, there's a decrease in the likelihood of an RNG driveby.
But it's still going to happen and it's still going to be a problem.
It COULD be that killers will gravitate to other playstyles. But there'll still be camping, with zero guarantee that camping will become less of a problem. And as Kay has illustrated in the post above yours: How powerful do these other strategies need to be to compete with camping?
You cherry picked out of my entire post and ignored that what you state is one of the options I have mentioned. Yet the idea that a whole rework is the only option is simply not true.
No, it's not among your options. Because that is the fundamental disagreement you and I are having: I believe camping must be kneecapped in order to make any progress. You believe that camping will go away if killers just get buffed enough.
-
Had one Wraith absolutely lose it in end-game, being upset beyond belief because our swiffer brought in keys and a map. That's why he facecamped, and hit on hook, nodding and everything. He raged in post-game chat for our audacity.
Except I was playing solo as dumpster-diver David (Ace-in-the-hole, Plunderer's Instinct, Streetwise, Built-To-Last, since replaced with Appraisal) and I'd pulled a map out of the first chest and a broken key out of the second.