Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2723035#Comment_2723035
It isn't a chicken or eggs situation. It is the viability of the other strategies and how these have become weaker by what has been given to survivors. People want to be able to win, so either they adapt or leave. MMR system has not changed it, just makes it more visible.
You act like the only way is to have a full overhaul, yet there are ways to give killers tools without it being a net profit for camping. Mechanics that incentivise killers to move away from the hook, look at devour hope as an example of such a mechanic.
It is the viability of the other strategies and how these have become weaker by what has been given to survivors
Which is predominantly nerfs. Over time, survivors have become much weaker than they used to be, but people are more convinced than ever that the game is survivor-sided. That's not to say that it isn't, but it IS to say that it isn't causally linked to why camping is now considered as much of a problem.
The only thing that could be said for it is MMR, but I doubt that system's robust enough to actually function, considering how horribly lacking in nuance it is.
You act like the only way is to have a full overhaul, yet there are ways to give killers tools without it being a net profit for camping. Mechanics that incentivise killers to move away from the hook, look at devour hope as an example of such a mechanic.
Sure, we could give killers a speed boost for X seconds after hooking, like Devour Hope does. But as long as camping is a low-effort strategy with good results, that's not going to dissuade people from camping, is it?
Look at the experiments done by @Munqaxus and... Was it @KayTwoAyy ? Averaging over a 3K. Sure, we can shoot for a balanced 2K with a non-camping playstyle, but that's still going to leave camping as the undisputed best strategy. And then we circle back around to 'let's just hope killers will be nice'.
I'd rather kneecap camping while buffing chase and/or nerfing gen speeds.
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721552#Comment_2721552
I would like to see the problem fixed. It was also two different tests btw.
What you're failing to consider is that the problem of camping is made up of a lot of facets that have to be considered and accounted for. Player behavior isn't going to just change, people who actually want to never change from its current state aren't easily discouraged from what they do. People who rely on it as their go to tactic would be willing to adjust if there was still some semblance of that exists. Defensive players' ability to play the game should be respected and so much of DBD already does the exact opposite in both killer design and balance. The players who don't camp are by far still the majority of killers, but if you create a punitive system that overly messes with general way the game plays then you actively hurt the play experience for the group of players you want others to be more in line with.
DBD is far from the most complex PVP game. How you've come to that conclusion is beyond me considering the wealth of PVP games in general even some of the games found in this specific genre. DBD's biggest strength is that it isn't super complex and it's also one of its worst weaknesses. Camping is an inherent design flaw, it hard to correct without making major changes. You're literally making adjustments to a cornerstone of the gameplay, it is literally the killer objective. The changes you make to it may seem small, but the consequences are usually much greater. The devs have had five years to workshop and test potential fixes, publicly we got to test some of those ideas. Who knows how many others didn't even make it out of the drafts that we won't hear about until some dev stream another two years from now?
To make a holistic solution to the problem you have to be willing to look a core gameplay element and say, "Maybe it is time to rethink how killers complete their object and how survivors and killers interact in general."
That is unlikely to happen as it would mean actually injecting more complexity into the core gameplay. Camping doesn't exist in a vacuum and is a symptom of larger issues that if the larger issues are addressed camping would naturally taper off and both sides would be better off for it.
I would like to see the problem fixed.
You say that, but you were one of two people to respond to the aforementioned thread suggesting a fix...
And your arguments against the fix, on both sides, boiled down to 'this would make camping difficult'. How is that a reasonable argument against an anti-camping suggestion?
To make a holistic solution to the problem you have to be willing to look a core gameplay element and say, "Maybe it is time to rethink how killers complete their object and how survivors and killers interact in general."
Sure, you could try to fish for a more complicated solution. But in the meantime, at least consider other options put forward instead of outright dismissing them with a 'can't be done' attitude.
Camping doesn't exist in a vacuum and is a symptom of larger issues that if the larger issues are addressed camping would naturally taper off and both sides would be better off for it.
I have a sneaking suspicion, but go on, what is the 'larger issue' that you think would fix camping if addressed?
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2723051#Comment_2723051
I'm just giving you my experience and opinion. Zero kills in most games, fast gens, boons, loops, just a few reasons why I say the game is survivor sided.
Please don't assume to think I'd be of the opinion that 4k'ing 80% of the time would easily a survivor sided game. Quite frankly that is a ridiculous assumption to make.
What you are correct on is that yes. If the game was fairer I would stop camping. Because I never used before it wasn't.
It's not up to me to say what and who you should trust. But nerfing camping and doing nothing to survivors is ludicrous, and just further proves the survivor bias.
May I ask. What Isyour solution?
As I mentioned in my response to Kalinikta: Both need to happen at the same time. Baked in gen-slowdown, coupled with anti-camping measures.
Something that came forward in this thread was the idea of having a survivor teleport to a safe hook if they progress to struggle from first hook. This would make camping possible, but not for an entire survivor. It would also not be abusable, because there'd be no way to get a 'free unhook', it'd always cost a hook-state.
At the same time, things like improved gen regression (For example: A regressing gen requires passing X successful skillchecks before it will no longer regress when let go of, innate Corrupt Intervention) and anti-bully squad measures (Innate lightborn for X seconds after being subjected to a flashlight save, BT removes collission for duration of Endurance) should be implemented to give killers more breathing room and protection from similarly frustrating tactics from the other side.
Basically, I'd want an overhaul that arms players against the most frustrating things they can encounter from the opposite side. Both sides, simultaneously, not one without the other, or one with a vague promise of dealing with the other later.
One big patch.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2723035#Comment_2723035
Think this is a really interesting take, and refreshing to see all relevant points. Mot sure if I fully agree work your core point. Let me explain.
For myself, I quite enjoy camping now. I only started doing it because of how survivor sided the game become. But the reason I enjoy it is because I enjoy getting kills in the game. I don't enjoy constantly being looped, getting zero kills, and being teabagged. Therefore currently camping gives me the most fun playing killer.
Would I stop camping, if for example chasing was nerfed. Or the killer experience was re balanced. 100% of course.
All things being equal camping is not the most fun way to play killer. But things are not equal, and currently I believe it is. Kills = fun.
Maybe you would. But you might also not stop camping.
You state that you are camping because the game is too survivor sided. But what is 'too survivor sided' to you? You are in charge of that definition. Maybe you have a perfectly reasonable mindset where averaging 2 kills registers fine to you.
But there's also a very good chance that you'll feel the game is survivor sided if you don't 4K at least 80% of the time. After all, the human brain is hardwired to remember bad experiences really well, and more easily disregards good experiences.
I am just not a fan of disarming survivors only in this stand-off on the vague promise that the other side will also drop their weapon at some point. I just don't trust this community to be as objective or merciful. And in all honesty, posts like yours strengthen my position in that regard: If it was truly a case of 'I only camp because the game is too unfair without it', then you'd have no objection against removing camping as long as the game is fair without it.
But the suggestion of nerfing survivors in tandem with addressing camping always nets a surprising amount of resistance. So I don't trust people to stop camping just because they don't 'need to' anymore.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722745#Comment_2722745
Design meets function
I studied actual game design and I actually agree with your usage of Frank Lloyd Wright. You indicate that the game should be entertaining, if it misses that objective people will simply stop playing the game. While fun is subjective it is hard to grasp and quantify in that sense. Yet here is where we differ as I do indeed look very much at the Why, as in my studies and also stated by the developers it is the primal query to adapt the form to meet its function to create the harmony that one wants to create.
The Meta and MMR
The meta of DBD did actually undergo a small shift with the introduction of boon totems, making older strategies that people enjoyed to do as a killer and I assume we will agree upon were less bad to face as survivor. Strategies like hit and run and gaining partial pressure along the whole team by injuring them has been pretty much completely nullified. All this is simply highlighted and emphasized with the MMR system, as you indicated the meta hasn't changed much. These slight changes and the exposure to teams more on your level and above, less weak links, showcase that the game pushes us towards as you state: Adapt and learn the best strategies. To be honest, most games over time results in people needing to optimize their play at least to a certain amount. Meta's aren't actually something that is dictated by the developers of games, they are the result of the players choices and the boundaries that were setup by the developers.
The results, the why and the resolutions
Now this is where our views start to differ and this is because I emphasize the why? It is part of the basic principles when actually designing games (which is also said by the developers in their Q&A) and is how you can determine whether the form and function are harmonious, where to adapt it to make it more that way or why it isn't behaving as you want.
Lets reiterate the three points you brought forth:
- Killers are more often camping and tunneling, adapting and playing by the best strategies possible.
- Killers have other options, yet are not deploying them and instead if they do not enjoy the above said practices are switching sides/stop playing. Those options as indicated by you would mean that they should give up on trying to win, which actually defeats one of the functions of a game; people don't play to lose.
- Survivor queues go up and the pool of killers are more often using either the strongest killers and combinations or applying the above mentioned strategies. Therefore the games are less entertaining and as a result less harmony is achieved between the form and function.
What does this mean though? Camping isn't fun for either side, so why is that what people gravitate towards? That statements of people not enjoying playing in a camping style might actually be true and yet instead of utilizing other strategies we are seeing people stop playing killer instead or only play Blight, Nurses and specific combinations of extremely strong elements. Those that do enjoy that style or do not mind utilizing them keep playing and therefore the survivors are more likely to encounter these select styles of play, because that is what is in the pool of killers the rest left or adapted to these styles.
Now, they can nerf these strategies and make them less fun and entertaining to do, because lets face it stop trying to win and standing no chance isn't fun and why they aren't playing killer. That is why most people don't simply play 'nice' or 'fun' and just lose over and over again. You don't need to win every game, you can even lose more often than win, but a key part of the entertainment and joy of games is that you believe you stood a chance. That is part of the function.
Lets say they nerf camping, does this solve the problem? No, it just makes it worse. As now the people that used those tactics are in the same boat as all the others. The best strategies will be reduced to play specific killers with specific load outs and tunneling, give up on trying to win or quit the game. You can try and force it on people, but the problem with that is - if they are not playing because they don't like camping and tunneling just making that worse isn't actually addressing the problem to get them back. All it does is push those that adapted to those styles a bigger reason to also stop playing killer.
The why is important here, because just making the side that people already are abandoning less fun for those that are left... isn't creating more harmony, it is actually the polar opposite. It is why I am in the camp of incentivize and promote more desirable forms of play that people do enjoy playing. Give those killers that would prefer to not camp and tunnel viable options that can compete and be at the same level of these strategies without the need to whip out a specific killer. Will that mean that you never come across a camper again, no... people that genuinely enjoy that experience will still do so. Yet by the premise promoted by those like yourself, that isn't most people and those that don't actually enjoy doing it will gravitate towards the viable strategy they do like playing. Not only will those that adapted to use these strategies maybe diversify and use other strategies, it will most likely bring back many of those that quit because they don't like camping.
It doesn't matter to much if this is done in the form of perks or base game changes. A meta isn't telling them how to enjoy the game it would be simply providing tools to play as they enjoy. If off meta, optimized, best strategies are to even be played the gap between the power levels needs to be something more reasonable. This is something that is currently lacking, people don't feel that they have those options to begin with. They feel that the game is pushing them to camp and tunnel to even stand a chance, that they are being told play like this or don't play at all to win. One of the major design issues that they have created themselves is that the difference between the best and even simply average setups is enormous. If one side brings the meta and you don't, good luck!
Don't get me wrong here, I would prefer base line changes rather than perks on a personal level yet I doubt they will change the amount of impact perks have on the game, as that is the route they took long ago. 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, as also indicated by Coconut in his video.
What does this mean though? Camping isn't fun for either side, so why is that what people gravitate towards? That statements of people not enjoying playing in a camping style might actually be true and yet instead of utilizing other strategies we are seeing people stop playing killer instead or only play Blight, Nurses and specific combinations of extremely strong elements. Those that do enjoy that style or do not mind utilizing them keep playing and therefore the survivors are more likely to encounter these select styles of play, because that is what is in the pool of killers the rest left or adapted to these styles.
This is a 'chicken and egg' situation though, and this thread stresses how linked these two problems are.
Camping is effective. It is not unreasonable to assume that it is the most effective strategy. It could very well be that killers are pigeonholed into this strategy due to rising performance thresholds from survivors becoming more skilled or being buffed.
However...
The vast majority of solutions to 'survivors OP' will likely end up making camping stronger. We could make survivors weaker in chases, but that also means that the first chase is going to be shorter, making camping more effective. We could slow gens down, or add a second objective, but that also means that survivors can't clear everything out in the time limit set by camping. You could try to hinge it on a non-camping aspect, such as making it count the number of survivors hooked, but unless it disregards the first, it'll also buff camping.
I'm of the opinion that if survivors were nerfed in any way that empowers camping, no matter how tangentially, the problem wouldn't be resolved. Killers would continue to camp for an easier time and an easier victory. If their intent is to troll, they've been given more power.
I firmly believe that camping is a lodestone for balancing issues. As long as it exists, it will hinder a lot of improvements to the game. My ideal is to have both sides addressed simultaneously. One big patch that weakens the strongest killer strats but buffs killers overall. The aforementioned meta perks (I usually refer to that as 'the perk tax') could probably be integrated into the basegame in some form to improve it, like innate Decisive Strike and Corrupt Intervention.
It just feels unreasonable to assume that, if survivors get nerfed and/or killers get buffed, camping will dissipate, as this community isn't kind, and gamers will always gravitate to the path of least resistance.
'Given enough time, players will optimise the fun out of the game'
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2720826#Comment_2720826
Ain't no trap card been activated.
They don't have any particularly viable ideas to solve the camping issue and people have complained about it for 5 years. In 2020 they flat out said they have no plans to address. 2021 They still have no plans to address it and explain they don't know how to address it. There is no gotcha moment here. There is nothing that can be done about it without altering things in a substantial manner which quite frankly, hasn't been their style when it comes to universal mechanics directly involving objectives.
There is nothing that can be done about it without altering things in a substantial manner
I hate this attitude.
DBD is a game of a million moving parts. It is the single most complex PvP game due to how many components there are to each game. To claim that 'there is nothing that can be done' at this stage is an attitude that is either so unbelievably pessimistic that you're just as likely to assume that you're going to drown in a light shower, or belies the intent to never see this problem addressed at all.
There was one, ONE singular test, FIVE YEARS AGO, and a LOT of people are taking that one, ONE singular test from FIVE YEARS AGO as stone-cold evidence that nothing can ever be done in any way.
I think it's in this very thread were an idea was put forward, and @AngyKiller opened up a thread to get some discussion going about a new possible angle to deal with it, and no one is responding.
It's not that it's not possible to fix this problem. It's that 'forum killers' just openly don't want to fix this problem.
-
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2720423#Comment_2720423
If Survivors had perks or a built-in way to just know where every totem was at the start of a match; NoED would have 0 use. It would never see end game.
NOED would still have a use, which is a bit of a problem with the general approach to discussions around NOED: Its alleged counter is a huge time investment, and is probably comparable in effect to a max stacked Thanatophobia. Including at times when it -isn't- equipped.
It's a big issue I have with the tired old 'do bones' argument. If you try to counter NOED before fifth gen pops, then NOED is either free downs, massive slowdown, or in the worst and probably most common case, both. The only time NOED doesn't get value is if it is found after fifth gen pops, but before the killer can get a down with it.
-
@Chanticor said:
I play a lot as Killer and the biggest reason for camping is the fast generator progression.
By raising the repair time of one generator by ~30 seconds, it would make camping unnecessary and bring the interesting part of the game back: chases.
Currently, it makes no sense to follow a good looper (and there are many out there!) for 4 minutes just so the Survivors get 3-4 gens done in that time.
Let's not forget a Killer needs to hook 12 times in order to win. This is just impossible at this moment against more or less good groups.
Another huge problem is SWF:
As they are usually communicating and coordinating via voice (which is not intended, that's why they had implented gestures for Survivors), they have a huge advantage ingame.
Even before the game, they coordinate all perks so they fit perfectly together. Borrowed Time, Prove Thyself etc.
An easy solution to this would be to make Survivors only use Character-specific Perks when playing as SWF. This way, highly unfair Perk combinations wouldn't be possible anymore and even out the huge advantage SWF brings with it.
I really don't think hard-nerfing camping's only counter is going to fix camping. There's a lot of people on the forums which try to present camping as some sort of 'desperate last straw' for killers, but as has been pointed out in another topic, camping is just really effective, especially when built for, and there's also plenty of people who specifically do it to ruin the game for others.
@ReikoMori said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/302103/a-fix-to-facecamping
This seems like a good idea on paper, but in practice it would be an absolute mess.
This takes away a fair bit of strategic agency from the killer. Some killers are naturally just better played defensively and suddenly having the one thing that actually forces a survivor's hand teleport randomly is pretty bad. The are also builds centered around things like putting people in the basement and keeping them there specifically because it is usually a more defensible and predictable location. Having someone just teleport out on second hook state isn't good gameplay.
From a survivor prospective, right now the game has a considerable amount of perks that are designed with the current setup in mind that would need to be reworked substantially. Personally, I want my hooked teammates who are getting camped to stay on one hook rather than potentially dragging the killer around the map. If you're getting facecamped, you're still providing a tangible value, but keeping the killer occupied passively. Which means I can do gens, but if you aren't getting saved just teleporting to another hook now that killer is gonna roam around looking for the hook. Which can at times be objectively worse.
Also, the idea that this will bring back chases is a logical fallacy. The situation with chases is quite simply that newer killers aren't actually good in chases and currently chases take too long and are too costly. The amount of time that survivors can make a killer waste after a while of playing is simply too high when you don't have enough speed or power utility to mitigate it. Though a lot of your time is spent fighting the game than dealing with survivors. People who facecamp constantly aren't going to suddenly start conducting chases they'll either find a way to camp or just move to another game, but camping has never been a good strategy. People try and commit to saves that aren't possible and just feed into rather than just letting the hooked person go and focus on pushing generators.
That's the only real quasi-punishment for camping is short, dismal, low scoring games. Remember, you only really need 3 people to do gens efficiently and dbd's not going to score you in any manner that would have you think you're playing a team game.
This takes away a fair bit of strategic agency from the killer. Some killers are naturally just better played defensively and suddenly having the one thing that actually forces a survivor's hand teleport randomly is pretty bad. The are also builds centered around things like putting people in the basement and keeping them there specifically because it is usually a more defensible and predictable location. Having someone just teleport out on second hook state isn't good gameplay.
Having someone spend the entire match in a defensible location is worse gameplay, though.
And you retain leverage. Losing a hookstate is costly, and survivors are still incentivised to go for the rescue to give their comrade more time. You just don't reduce the game to 'you have 120 seconds to finish the game and get out'.
From a survivor prospective, right now the game has a considerable amount of perks that are designed with the current setup in mind that would need to be reworked substantially.
Could you name examples?
Personally, I want my hooked teammates who are getting camped to stay on one hook rather than potentially dragging the killer around the map. If you're getting facecamped, you're still providing a tangible value, but keeping the killer occupied passively. Which means I can do gens, but if you aren't getting saved just teleporting to another hook now that killer is gonna roam around looking for the hook. Which can at times be objectively worse.
Strategically it -might- be worse, but in terms of gameplay it's infinitely better. You're still getting the 'benefit' of a facecamping killer, but only for one hookstate, as opposed to two.
Also, the idea that this will bring back chases is a logical fallacy.
It is not intended to. It is intended to put the game in a state where chasing can be made more viable. As mentioned in my rebuttal to the post above yours, trying to bring back chases by increasing gen times just makes camping a more effective strategy. While it is theoretically possible that flat nerfing gen progression brings back chases, it's entirely dependent on player goodwill, and I don't know how long you've been around this community, but I, for one, am not going to bank on that.
I mean, take your own post here. Your argumentation clearly portrays camping as a good thing. A direct nerf to gen progression speeds would probably incentivise you to camp more, not less, since the strategy would become considerably stronger.
-
The half-quote is done with the 'Greater than' symbol, though it doesn't work on mobile, IIRC.
In regards to the raised points...
I don't think this system should consider killer's proximity to the hooked survivor. In the interest of consistency, I'd say it should always fire when a survivor progresses to struggle stage from first hook. There could be some kind of visual indicator, like a ring closing in on the hooked survivor at 4 m/s to help survivors gauge whether they can make it under normal circumstances and save them the pain of running up to someone getting ported off, but I think it's a drawback survivors can afford to suffer.
I also think it's healthier for the teleport to happen in disregard of the killer's proximity, because if the killer isn't trying to camp it out, it won't make any difference to them, and if they are trying to camp it out, they can't abuse it by standing just outside proc range. If it's an unconditional effect, it cannot be exploited and everyone knows what they're getting into by default.
-
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719019#Comment_2719019
This, I like. Even for a 3-gen scenario; the Killer is not getting more than a hookstate out of it.
Question: What if the hook is putting the Survivor in State #2? IE: They were already hooked once before. Do they teleport? Or do they stay, since it's not moving INTO a new hookstate?
I can see arguments for both:
- They Don't Teleport: They are already in a hookstate, just from being hooked. No Different from 1st hook; the state is just different. The Survivors should not get an easy unhook just because it's the Struggle Phase on hook.
- They Should Teleport. The Survivor is most likely dead, if the Killer camps. Or has a 3-gen. No different from camping for the kill. Survivors should have the chance to save them.
I'm leaning to having them not teleport. At the very least to start with. If it's not doing enough, the state of the game can be re-evaluated, but having it activate on second hook by default would swing the game way harder than only having it activate when going into struggle from first hook, so it's safer to just start off with 'If a survivor goes into struggle phase from first hook, they get whisked off to a safe hook'.
-
@Munqaxus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2718856#Comment_2718856
I have seen this posted before and dismissed it at first, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. The idea is already in use and there isn't issues with it, so I would say push it out.
Maybe just have the survivor teleported to random hook on the opposite side of the map when they are hooked. It's already been used with Pyramidhead cages without issues, why not just add it to hooks also. The developers already have the code in the game, just make a random hook appear, then disappear after an unhook just like a Pyramidhead cage.
Killers aren't punished and survivors can't be effectively facecamped.
I think this will benefit survivors a little too much though. But I think there's a possible adjustment to make that makes it work much more fairly...
If a survivor progresses to the struggle phase from first hook, they are teleported to a random hook, away from the killer. You get facecamped on first hook? Halfway through, you are transported across the map for a safe and easy pick-up.
Abusable by survivors? Nope. Because it still costs a hook state to use. It just makes facecamping to death a near impossibility.
Loop around the hook? Still costs a hook state.
Stand-off? Still costs a hook state.
Facecamping? You're not getting more than one hook state, and at what cost?
EDIT: Detail I'm on the fence about: Maybe the killer shouldn't get aura reading on the hooked survivor once they get teleported.
EDIT: Other detail I'm not on the fence about: Mechanism should be disabled once fifth gen is done.
-
@Zozzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717865#Comment_2717865
No thanks. 2 manning gens already destroys the late game.
2-manning would change by less than a second.
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717865#Comment_2717865
See, that's more of an anti-camping effect than actual proposed camping changes! It doesn't solve the facecamping Bubba, but it removes the incentive for almost everything else to facecamp.
Not at all. It'd massively buff camping, since the facecamped survivor is worth between 115 and 130% repair speed as opposed to 100/70/40/10%, so the killer is rewarded more for camping.
It'd theoretically allow survivors to punish it more if three on a gen is more efficient, but that'll be really hard to coordinate outside swiffers.
-
@Warcrafter4 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717865#Comment_2717865
The issue with removing the co-op speed penalty is that it makes the game unwinnable for the killer in a 3 gen situation.
Remember even without the penalty it makes all gens only take 40 seconds for 2 survivors and 26.666 seconds for 3 survivors.
It was implemented because if the killer lost the early generators like what usually happens it means the game usually ends in 40-60 seconds or less as its nearly impossible to defend 3-4 generators that only take 40 seconds or less to complete which is why "Prove Thyself" is so strong.
They had to INCREASE the co-op penalty from 10% each to 15% last year as it was causing games to end the moment the killer lost the first 2-3 generators and that's before you considered prove Thyself or toolboxes.
That's why the base gen time needs to be increased. In effect, it won't change anything if the survivors stay in pairs, which makes them easier to pressure, but it'll slow survivors down tremendously if they all split up, which makes them impossible to pressure.
I just want the safest strategy to not also be, by far, the fastest.
-
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717911#Comment_2717911
The way I always saw it was kind of like this (And I suck with numbers. I think I actually have number dyscalculia):
1 Survivor: 100%
2 Survivors: 200% (100% for each Survivor) - 15%
Etc.
IE: It took the speed of 2 Survivors, and removed 15% from that. Am I reading your idea right in that you instead want:
1 Survivor: 100%
2: Survivors: +15%
3 Survivors: +15% AFTER the first boost (So it's not a flat +30%)?
It's not 200% - 15%. Both survivors incur the penalty, so they both lose 15%, making it 200% - 30% = 170%.
This is why survivors split up on gens, and why groups of three are non-existent. Three survivors make 300% - 3 x 30% = 210%. That third survivor is effectively adding only 40% speed.
My suggestion is a partial inversion. Fully inverting it would be broken, even with the baseline gen time increase, but if a 2-man co-op was 200% + 2 x 15% = 230%, it'd break even with the base gen time increase.
Then a 3-man would be 300% + 3 x 15% = 345%. Faster than the current state, but unattainable once the killer gets the ball rolling. One on the hook, one in chase, one on the rescue, and the killer has a ton of extra time.
It'd make pressure way, -way- more rewarding. Probably too rewarding, but I'd take the trade to get rid of camping especially.
-
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717871#Comment_2717871
Ah yes, that 'free' 2K, where the Killer never had to find, chase, hit, chase, hit, pick up (being aware of attempted pallet or flashlight saves), and carry to a hook that may or may not be sabo'd.
Is that the 'free 2k' the one you are talking about? Because to anyone not biased; that does not look 'free'.
The way biased Survivors scream about it; a Killer just has to say 'I wanna camp' into his microphone and, magically, 2 Survivors teleport onto hooks.
'Free 2K' rofl. What tripe.
If you're struggling to get even a single hook, the problem is either matchmaking or you.
-
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717865#Comment_2717865
You do realize that -15% is AFTER the second player's gen-speed buff is added?
IE: It's not 1 Survivor -15% for another Survivor. it's 1 Survivor + 1 Survivor - 15%. Or Survivors would never group up.
And you want to, what? Change it to a +15% boost? On top of the flat boost 2 Survivors working gets? Did I read that right?
Yes, I do realise that. That's why I said -15% per -other- survivor, not per survivor.
Yes, I want to change it to a flat +15% boost, after increasing base gen time from 80 seconds to 110, which you missed. And there is no flat boost to two survivors working on the same gen. Both survivors operate at 85% efficiency, they don't both work at 170%, if that was what you were thinking.
-
@SunsetSherbet said:
Why is it so hard to consider INCENTIVES to not camp, rather than focusing on punishing others?
Because unless the incentives royally break the game, they're not going to compare to a free 2K.
-
@cburton311 said:
Behavior has a fine line to walk here. Make the gens take too long and survivor matches become boring m1 simulators. Make gen speeds to fast and killers feel they can't "win".
But here's the thing tunnelling and camping need to be destroyed as strategies. The game needs to be balanced so that those strategies aren't the easiest way to achieve "victory". The only danger to this game is anything that threatens fun, tunnelling and camping are cancer to fun. They are the worst. Survivors need better tools to protect themselves from these scenarios. Killers need tools to pressure gens, being invincible 1v1 isn't enough, killers win chases and lose matches all the time, so the answer can't be to make them loop harder.
I think there's a similar problem shared between survivors and killers in that the most effective strategy is the one with the least interaction possible.
For killers, this is in tunnelling and camping. But an under-recognised problem with generators is the co-op penalty. -15% repair speed per other survivor on the same gen accomplishes something it really shouldn't: It makes the safest way to do gens the fastest one.
A killer can only pressure one gen at a time, so having all survivors split up on separate gens makes their job significantly harder. But that is just flat-out the best way because it rewards the most progress per second for survivors.
The co-op penalty needs to be changed from -15% per survivor to +15% if there's more than one survivor on a gen, in addition to changing base gen time from 80 to 110. That way, a pair working on a gen is, IIRC, .3 seconds slower than under the current circumstances. This creates a dynamic choice for survivors: Do we spread out and take it slow, but safe, or do we bundle up and risk the killer disrupting us really badly if they find us?
This'd make pressuring gens much more manageable and would make downing and hooking a survivor put a bigger dent in survivor progress. There would need to be some other adjustments, of course, notably Prove Thyself and Discordance, but I think it's an overall workable solution to give killers more breathing room.
-
@cantelope said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717579#Comment_2717579
Passive aggressive implies I'm trying to hide my intent.
I am not hiding my intent. Most arguments are clear attempts to make it easy to safe unhook while punishing the killer for defending an objective. An intended objective. Nothing passive about that statement.
Now you've ignored my point twice to focus on trivial crap. This tells me, and I tell you in no passive or aggressive way, you have nothing relevant to say in response.
I genuinely hope you have a good day, but I'm not wasting anymore time on you.
You don't have a point. You never had a point. You made a broad, overall assertion with no backing arguments, then proceeded to try a poison-the-well tactic. What am I supposed to say to that?
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717386#Comment_2717386
With the time that has passed since then. Do you really think they are still searching for a solution?
Like... really?
Just accept that camping is here to stay, because it was designed as a core mechanic since the beginning.
Which also means that there won't be a punishment for it.
According to a recent devstream: Yes. They are still looking for a solution. As the lead designer said: Camping is a thorn in our side.
@cantelope said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717386#Comment_2717386
I like how you're only argument is to ignore my entire point then insult me.
You cannot punish camping. Camping is intended. Face camping is not. You either have to lobby for the hooks removal or learn to play better at the game as is.
All punishing killer does is encourage survivors to blow gens and fast vault at the hook because the killer will get a smack if they try to defend. A fact most people are plenty aware of yet suspiciously forget when these threads go up.
But no, reduce what I said to "survivor bad." That works to.
Do you think no one can read your passive aggressive "You only want this so you can exploit it"?
-
@cantelope said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716987#Comment_2716987
Face camping isn't an intended play, and is what the devs are talking about. Regular camping is intended.
Regular camping cannot be "punished out of the game." The entire hook system has to be changed. Ground up. If you actually thought camping was bad this would be your argument. However that kinda change would result in you being punished for playing poorly. So you'd rather they just change it to make it zero effort easy for you, and punishing for killer.
Either ask for the entire hook system to get removed or get better at the game as is. Demanding punishment for an intended mechanic doesn't work. It just makes it easier for you to exploit.
The reason I don't want the hook system removed is because I actually enjoy sneaking my way around the killer and going for a safe unhook. I like that dynamic, I like having to figure out when it's safe to unhook and going for it. I -enjoy- that part of gameplay.
But you decided to immediately jump on the 'survivors bad' bandwagon, didn't you?
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717184#Comment_2717184
Ah yes. it's not 'Survivors should stop feeding camping Killers'. It's 'Killers should be punished for not letting me unhook'/'Killers should be punished for playing in a way I disapprove of'.
Camping is way more effective, even against solid survivors, than the forums will dare to admit. Read @Munqaxus ' post, for example.
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717184#Comment_2717184
I love your phrasing! "insidious has application outside of camping, it just works worse outside of it, but you could use it to camp a half-finished gen"
I remember that PTB btw. Devs tested how stopping the hook progress would work when the killer is to close. Aaaaand survivors abused it by looping the killer around the hook.
You could say that they outplayed themselves.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/RRANTJHXK5DA/eqpvmn9uuaeuazi.jpg
Moving the goalpost, buddy. That PTB shows that the devs intended for camping to be removed, they just don't know how to do it yet. And they recently stated that they're making another attempt to get rid of it.
@RainehDaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717031#Comment_2717031
Free perk slot by moving BT into basekit, and unsafe hooks would be much less unsafe on the whole as the worst you'd get would generally be the trade.
Also, same problem as every other radius-based thing: too low, you're still going to camp. Too high, just looking around or passing by will now buff the other side. And then you have hooks or hook entrances where you might have good line of sight so it doesn't matter. It's inherent to all attempts to stop camping by applying penalties, which is why they're doomed to failure.
It's only a free perk slot if you consider BT a mandatory pick, which in and of itself just lends credence to the idea that camping needs to be addressed. And unsafe hooks would still be extremely unsafe.
Yes, a killer could still keep an eye on the hook, but if you can force the killer to keep distance to the hook if there's no reason for them to be near it, you can get a slightly unsafe unhook, but there'd still be a possibility for accomplishing -something-. As opposed to the current state, where a killer just stands on the hook and the best you can do is a trade, with a very high chance of a free extra kill.
But I appreciate that you're considering the scenario and looking at it in earnest, because the majority of forumgoers will simply say 'Something was tried once, five flipping years ago, so that means that it's impossible to fix', and refuse to consider -anything-.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716987#Comment_2716987
Camping actually IS intended gameplay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS3DvvOQI04&t=125s&ab_channel=DeadbyDaylight
Timestamp 0:44
Also, if camping wasn´t intended gameplay, then why does Insidious exist?
So again, why punish killers for camping? Which obviously was intended from the beginning?
The -very first- PTB was testing out anti-camping measures. They've come out and stated, again, that they're looking for ways to get rid of camping. They are trying to get rid of it, it's not intended.
And insidious has application outside of camping, it just works worse outside of it, but you could use it to camp a half-finished gen and use that as bait instead of another survivor, for example.
And again: Killers should be punished for camping because -they're the ones doing it-.
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717002#Comment_2717002
Okay, then propose an anti-camping measure that does not, with the rest of the game as it is, somehow loop back to "Survivor runs towards hook during a chase and the Killer gets punished for it".
The only remotely close thing I've seen is "BT is basekit but unhooked Survivors lose collision", but that mostly just makes trades instead. And you'd still need to do something to make up for the sudden free perkslot that also means unsafe unhooks are now only moderately unsafe.
Okay, first: Just because I say it can be done, doesn't immediately mean that I need to have the solution. If you see a rocket lift-off and then explode, you can easily say that it can be done without exploding without being expected to have the answer ready. My point is that the attitude of 'can't be done' shuts down discussion when we could come to a useful solution. But forum killers don't -want- a solution, so they just stick their heads in the sand and parrot the same dumb line: "It can't be done"
Secondly: What free perk slot? Unsafe unhooks would still be unsafe unhooks.
Thirdly:
Gen repair speeds are increased if, 20 seconds after hooking, the killer is within X radius of a hooked survivor. This buff is increased further for every remaining gen and every survivor actively working on a gen. This buff is decreased by survivors' proximity to a hooked survivor or the killer. This buff is disabled while the killer is in a chase, or if there's one or no gens left to be repaired.
Now it's your turn to pick it apart and we can figure out if we can patch it up to fix the problems you find.
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716987#Comment_2716987
And there is no way to functionally achieve that which does not turn the meta into 100% slugging because hooked Survivors become godlike safety beacons.
So, you do something else. Which is "make not camping more appealing".
How do you know that it's impossible to make an anti-camping measure that doesn't affect non-campers? If anti-camping measures are such a big problem, why's camaraderie one of the least-picked perks in the game?
This whole shtick of 'You can't work anti-camp' is just an excuse to keep camping in. I can agree with 'it's hard to come up with something for that' but I absolutely can't agree with this short-sighted attitude of 'it's impossible'.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716879#Comment_2716879
Actually you started this argument. As you said: "Survivors have to be hooked three times for a reason." I just completed the logic behind this statement of yours.
That being said, i have probably played this game a little longer than you. Watched how it changed over the years for both sides.
Now let me ask again: Why should killers be punished for camping?
Wouldn´t it be better to reward killers that don´t camp instead of punish them? Both sides could profit from rewarding killers that don´t camp. Punishing players for playing the game in an intended way, sounds simply wrong, doesn´t it?
Camping isn't the 'intended gameplay'. The devs themselves have stated this, but they just haven't found an anti-camping solution yet. You can keep giving ideas on rewarding killers for -not camping-, but that's not going to change things if camping can easily net you a no effort 2K against most survivor teams you'll face.
Camping needs to not be remotely viable before it can really start to die out.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716763#Comment_2716763
Good point! Survivors "should" be hooked 3 times for a reason. This totals at 12 hooks. Meanwhile 4 survivors have to push out 5 gens. Following your logic, survivors are in for a long overdue nerf.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716764#Comment_2716764
Because a m1 holder doesn´t impact the game only for himself. Since gens are progressed for everyone. Not individually. Even though its an interesting concept, that each survivor would have to complete 5 gens individually. Which would outbalance the above mentioned 12 hook issue. But i think 20 gens in total would be a bit to much. Survivors would only do gens, which doesn´t vary much from what they do now, but still. Maybe something in between, or even better: a additional objective instead of so many gens. But this belongs to another thread.
Are you legitimately going to try to argue '5 are fewer than 12 so therefor survivors need nerfing'?
Because a m1 holder doesn´t impact the game only for himself. Since gens are progressed for everyone. Not individually. Even though its an interesting concept, that each survivor would have to complete 5 gens individually. Which would outbalance the above mentioned 12 hook issue. But i think 20 gens in total would be a bit to much. Survivors would only do gens, which doesn´t vary much from what they do now, but still. Maybe something in between, or even better: a additional objective instead of so many gens. But this belongs to another thread.
Oh. You actually ARE going for that angle. Okay.
Well, I would recommend that you play the game first, before you get into any kind of argument about balance. You know, figure out how the game works, and its nuances.
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716755#Comment_2716755
I think a better way would be to encourage leaving the hook rather then discouraging it by punishing.
A lot of killers camp because it just is the best and easiest way to get the job done. If spreading your hooks out would be more viable then killers would be camping a lot less
Not keen on leaving a loaded gun in either party's hands when discussing disarming the other party.
Gens go this fast because camping's a thing. Slowing it down would just make camping stronger.
It needs to be kneecapped. No other way is going to solve the problem.
-
1 or 0 gens left. That's the only time camping is acceptable, IMO. And I think any anti-camping measure should scale with gens left, and be disabled after 5th gen.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716755#Comment_2716755
You know what also gives little BP and is boring? Holding m1 until the gates are powered. Not engaging in player interaction and just focusing gens. By your logic, this also "has" to be punished.
Nope, because guess what? That M1 holder impacts him or herself only. The killer can still hunt, other survivors can still do their own stuff.
But a killer goes camping, and -everyone- loses all interaction.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716750#Comment_2716750
What do you mean with undeserved? A hatch escape would be something undeserved, because its complete RNG where the hatch spawns.
But the killer got that hook in a normal chase. So why wouldn´t it be deserved?
The hook's deserved. The kill is not. Survivors have to be hooked three times for a reason.
Getting a hook in means nothing, since the game is designed to disallow infinite looping/running. If we want to allow survivors to die on first hook, or normalise it, killers need a veritable crapton of nerfs to accommodate.
-
@Tsulan said:
WHY should killers be punished for camping?
- Because the camped survivors don´t get a lot of bloodpoints? Same goes for the camping killer.
- Because getting camped is boring? Well guess what its like for the killer.
- Because camped survivors lower their mmr? A high mmr isn´t exactly something people should strive for. At least if they want to have any sort of fun.
When survivors only push gens (because its their only objective, asside from totems, chests, hook rescues and heals) and even camp them, its considered as playing efficiently. But when killers camp their only objective its considered something worthy of punishment? Like... really?
So i ask again, WHY should killers be punished for camping?
You already gave the reasons: there's no BP, and it's incredibly boring.
'but it's boring for the killer too!'
That just makes it worse, since it's the killer that instigates it. Camping is the killer's choice, the killer's fault, and if it needs to be discouraged via punishment, it'll be the killer that has to be punished.
-
I want to address the landslide of 'survivors just try to get the unhook on a camper!' comments: Those unhook attempts aren't even needed to make camping work.
Even for a facecamper, a team of solos can lose a ton of time. Imagine you're on a gen, and someone gets hooked on the other side of the map. You stick to the gen because you assume someone else will get the unhook. But that bar is starting to deplete and there's no rescue. You figure another teammate might've gotten caught while attempting to rescue, so you move across the map to try to get the rescue, and then you find out the killer's camping. You can move to the nearest gen, but you've already lost ~30 seconds. As did the person who went for the rescue first. And the last member of your team as well.
You don't have that kind of time to spare when the killer is facecamping because the timer on that is only 120 seconds. It's a problem that survivors need to invest time to identify camping, when camping requires survivors to waste no time on anything other than gens.
And then there's the absolute classic: Camping the NOED. Because if your team is slamming gens, they sure as hell aren't doing -ALL FIVE- totems. Free kills galore.
Camping isn't always neatly counterable. Especially in solo play. It is a way bigger problem than killer mains give it credit.
-
@VikingDragonXii said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2700838#Comment_2700838
The simple fact that every survivor I see runs DH vs any other perk of its category. The data is there we see it every game how much it out performs. Hit validation alone allows it to outperform all other perks.
As others have said changes to DH need to be done because it shouldn't give both "3rd health state" and distance at a press of a button. Because guess what it's not just survivors playing the game there is also the Killer player too, BHVR cant just ignore part of thier playerbase. They have now and look at Que times, they are ever growing.
Decisive Strike is also one of the most used survivor perks and that one practically never fired when I played killer.
You need more than just usage statistics.
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
Well it's not nothing but i do agree that it isn't as big of a deal as a lot of people think it is.
DbD is a game of scales in essence
At the start of the game all weights are on the survivor side, every gen that gets done and reduces the patrol route of the killer, every pallet broken, every injure, every hook the scales start slowly tipping towards the killer and once they reach a certain point it's really hard for the survivors to pull it back. It's all about momentum. So while i don't think it's nothing if 2-3 gens pop on first chase. There is truth that the first gens are a lot easier to do and thus don't matter as much as the later ones.
Saying that if survivors did 2/5 of their objectives vs the killers 1/12 if they lost 2 gens by their first hook is a bit misleading as the killer objectives become easier the longer the games go on and vica versa for survivors.
It's also not 2/5th of their objective, since they also have to open the gates.
-
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2712205#Comment_2712205
You did, and it changed nothing. Not sure what you expected, but there we are. You need the game to personally reward you in order to make you give a damn about your teammates.
Maybe it's because I started playing team based multiplayer games back when the N64 was the hot console you couldn't find in stores, and a "battle pass" was what the laser tag arena called their seasonal admission scheme, but I tend to believe winning the match should be incentive enough to work as a team.
It's just two different thought processes. When I die and see 3 teammates escape I think "nice, we won!" When you are in that situation, as per your own comments here, you start to worry about the mmr rating (which, side note, absolutely hilarious that you think the mmr in DbD works or matters enough to care about)
You did, and it changed nothing. Not sure what you expected, but there we are. You need the game to personally reward you in order to make you give a damn about your teammates.
That's the point @Marigoria was making. The game actively incentivises selfish play.
And as much waffling as I see going on here about 'commitment', none of it matters when communication is key to teamwork and solo queuers don't get any. I'm not a solo oriented player, I will help my team any way I can. I specifically ditched the Spine Chill/Sprintburst combo because everyone else would be on death hook and I wouldn't have been in a single chase. I once took three protection hits in one chase against a tunnelling nurse. My favourite playmaker perk is For the People.
None of that matters. Comms is the big benefit Swiffers have over solos. Not commitment. You can get plenty of that in solo queue as well.
-
Since DH for distance seems to be the problem, I'd say remove the dash, but in exchange, increase the I-frame duration a little bit, and if the survivor is hit during this time, he gets a souped up version of the injury rush. That makes it actually depend on killer/survivor interaction.
-
@Pizzasauce said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2712947#Comment_2712947
Save the Best For Last...who does that come from?
Myers, if memory serves.
-
I purchased this year's Jingle Jam bundle, and got captured by The Void Rains Upon Her Heart. Really fun bullet-hell roguelite!
-
@Askin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2712913#Comment_2712913
Knowing how to center your screen takes more skill than perfectly timing your exhaustion, walking for 40 seconds in a chase, and being able to go to a good area after you do all of this?
That's not the use requirement for either DH or SB, though.
SB gets value no matter when you use it. Even outside of chases, you can sprint to objectives for faster unhooks or gen-tapping.
DH only gives value if you use it to push to a new tile. But that still requires you to greed it out on your current tile just right, which is a skill.
As much as killers like to complain about DH requiring nothing to activate, it is the one survivor perk with the greatest amount of skill expression.
-
@VikingDragonXii said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2712369#Comment_2712369
Yes but Survivors complain about more things than Killers those perks that you speak of are the Metas or the ruthlessness of Hit Validation. I have seen more threads by survivors calling for Nerfs than Killers.
The metas?
DetHunch is meta? Spine chill? WGLF? Small Game?
-
@VikingDragonXii said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2710879#Comment_2710879
And mostly Survivor mains trying to get killers nerfed more and more. Most complaints Killers have is with the general balance of the game. But the Lightborn arguments are just stupid......half the survivors say it's a useless perk stop using it and the other half say its OP and needs to be Nerfed.....I have even seen survivors suggest "Let killers keep the blind protection but still do the save".......
Every single survivor perk with a pickrate over 1% will have been complained about at some point here on the forums. It's both sides, bud.
-
@BenihimeWrath said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2712347#Comment_2712347
So I looked into this more, and apparently PH and plague are both having their powers Damage Immunity Duration triggered on failed powers with Dead Hard. Thats 1 second and 3 seconds respectively where survivors become immune to their power. So if a survivor dead hards in a straight line, they SHOULD go down to Punishment of the Damned, but are not currently. Similarly with Corrupt Purge, 3 seconds is more than enough time to dodge 1 entirely charged puke, which only lasts 1.875 seconds.
But is this a validation thing, or just the way Dead Hard works?
-
@Plsfix369 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2711275#Comment_2711275
it takes skill? what kind of skill? unlike killers, survivors doesn't get tunnel vision everytime they look at the killer.
also you would be able to spot 4 totems at most in one single gen pop if you look carefully enough and run around during that 10 seconds.
Yeah, but will you be accurately reading their position when they're 50+ meters away? DetHunch is part of my DetHunch/Inner Strength/For the People build, and I can tell you with certainty that you're not going to instantly pinpoint every totem you spot the aura of.
Not to mention the amount of times it procs while being chased, rendering it incredibly difficult to use. Or the times you try to find a totem you saw the aura of, only to find a little pile of bones when you get there.
It's a good anti-totem perk, but that's the only thing it does. It has an activation requirement and requires skill to use. This is the least of killer players' problems.
-
@BenihimeWrath said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2712335#Comment_2712335
What are you talking about, its been confirmed that dead hard validation has been consuming these powers to the detriment of their specific killer. Like victor not passing through survivors and dropping dead at their feet with the successful hit cooldown, or nemesis going into his tentacle 'hit' cooldown instead of the missed cooldown.
But mixed in with that are Pyramid Head and Plague, who, as far as I know, aren't adversely affected by false positives.
-
I have it on good authority that the actual biggest problem perk is WGLF, so there.
-
@Carth said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2711876#Comment_2711876
Every other exhaustion perk requires a particular tile, or a limited resource. "being injured" is not a serious requirement as the only way to not have a survivor be injured is to one shot down them on their first hit and then have them die on the first hook.
Sprint Burst doesn't. I'm also a little confused why people seem to overlook that perk in the 'undeserved distance' department. Isn't that way more frustrating to fight than DH?
-
Lightborn is the killer's DS: it's a perk of which the value is entirely dependent on the opposing team playing into it.
I don't have any problem with it. In fact, I think it should be partially integrated by default as an anti bully-squad measure. Killers that drop a survivor by getting blinded should temporarily become flashlight immune.
-
@douggie123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/301190/nerf-survivors
The thing that annoys me is the fact that there can be a million nerf killer threads and no one bats an eyelid in fact a lot people would be massively in agreeance they wouldn't be complaining at the post
Hi, welcome to the forums! I take it this is your first time here?
-
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2706824#Comment_2706824
Honestly, and I don't see this happening, as it's a complete game overhaul; Remove the hooks.
When the Killer downs you; he kills you. His murdering of you feeds the Entity. And then then Entity forces you back onto the map.
By which I mean a Survivor can run around as an invisible ghost, and can see the map, but not: Living Survivors, the Killer, Totems, or Killer traps. (This is to prevent the Survivor from spying on the Killer using Discord while dead).
The Survivor then has 60 seconds to run around (Time can be adjusted), and can spawn in sooner if they want. Upon spawning, they are immune to being killed for either 30 seconds (can be adjusted. This is to make it take too long for a Killer to want to tunnel them), or until they: Drop a pallet, disarm a Killer trap, interact with a gen or totem.
Each Survivor must be killed 3 times (can be adjusted via balancing, bearing in mind the Killer is also wasting time in kill animations).
Gen speeds would probably not even have to be nerfed by much, given Survivors would be 'dead' quicker (you're cutting out carrying & hooking).
And it would add weight to being caught; you're not hooked & waiting to be rescued. You're dead and waiting to respawn.
Gen speeds would probably not even have to be nerfed by much, given Survivors would be 'dead' quicker (you're cutting out carrying & hooking).
I think the removed carry/hook time would be cancelled out by the fact that none of the survivors have to invest time in rescuing their teammate though, so I think you'd still have to nerf gen speeds a bit.
I personally wouldn't really like this idea, because I enjoy sneaking my way past the killer to go for a safe unhook, but I can see it working. I think VHS does something like this.