Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
BT should not be basekit without removing unit collission, at minimum.
But even then, I'd much rather have DS on baseline than BT. The latter seems to more strongly encourage people to make hook bombs, and one bad unhook loses the survivors the match. I don't want to train survivors to make unhooks two seconds after the hook any more than they already do.
-
@FancyMrB said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2450809#Comment_2450809
What is this 'perk tax' you are referring to? If you have already explained it can u link me please?
Might've described it in another thread, actually...
'Perk tax' is where survivors are constantly told to fix bad game design by picking up perks.
Spirit OP? Just pick IW.
Camping? Just pick DS/BT.
Tunnelling? Pick DS/BT.
NOED? Bring SG/DetHunch.
Slugging? Bring UB.
Ultimately, if the survivor doesn't want to be at the mercy of the killer for the possibility of having a fun, or even playable game, they need to sacrifice all their perk slots for band-aid perks.
DS, BT and UB are all rather situational perks. Whenever I play killer, they practically never fire unless I make the misplay to fall for a DS bait. But survivors pick them so damn often because they're mandatory if you want to avoid having your game ruined by camping, tunnelling, or slugging.
This idea of NOED, another thing that's no fun to play against, demanding another perk slot just puts more strain on survivor's perk choices, and it's pushing other decent, possibly more fun survivor perks down the list, like FTP, Appraisal, Deception, Diversion, and more.
Some of these game design problems need to be fixed externally as opposed to putting strain on survivor's perk choices.
-
@Exxodus21 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2450204#Comment_2450204
Uh, Small Game has a totem counter. So what's your next excuse? Detective's Hunch, Counterforce, and/or a map will show you the location of more totems so you never get stuck trying to find the last one.
Read through the rest of that conversation. Small Game getting the totem counter adds to the 'perk tax' problem.
-
@Lord_Tony said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2450692#Comment_2450692
only rank 20s play solo
comms are a crutch and pretty much any survivor is now with a buddy
Man, you really are the killer version of whatshisface. I forgot his name, the one with the Laurie Strode forum pic who always posts outrageously survivor biased bait.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2450526#Comment_2450526
Like I said before sometimes you have to take a hit for the team, this is part of the game and survivors need to realize that you can't have all 4 active at the same time. Its not "unplayable", you're playing the game, you're just dealing with something you don't like: waiting for help from your teammates in a team based game or helping your team by distracting the killer because he's camping you. Part of playing the game is the waiting/distraction game.
Its not a 1v1 its a 1v4. One survivor can't make progress, but the others can and should. One individual survivor will have literal down time.
It doesn't need to "blooming fix it", there's already a base kit fix like I said if you read the full post. You have a gameplay fix already, you don't need another one in a perk. It helps you be more effective, that's it. That's fine, you can do it base kit, its effective, and this helps it.
I did misread the 66% part a bit and thats on me, but like I outlined later if you read the full post, with 1 survivor on a gen a.k.a. the amount you're left with after you lose the 66%, the killer still should generally only get 3-5 hooks in a decent team.
The chase will last long enough (generally) against a good survivor that the gens will pop during the chase. this is what happens at the beginning of the game. 1 chase last long enough for 3 single survivors to do their gens. If you leave a chase to start another and that new survivor is also good, great now you just wasted more time and the gen the previous survivor jumps on will pop during the new chase, even assuming they get on a new one. A survivor getting on a new gen isn't really a big deal because gen speeds are so fast compared to chase speeds with a good survivor team. A gen should not pop in 1 chase with 1 survivor on it, 3 gens should not pop in 1 chase with 1 survivor on each. There's 5 gens that need to be done and 12 hooks. There is a large fundamental speed imbalance.
"But all of that is secondary to the big concern that genrushing is -required- against camping."
Being secondary is true. Although I don't see it as a "concern". You have an answer to the playstyle, what's the concern? That its specifically genrushing? Why is genrushing being the required counter a concern? Its a base kit ability of the survivor to focus gens, what's the issue with it being a counter to camping, another base kit thing killers can do?
"So either we fix both issues, or we fix neither."
This is not true. You can fix the genrush when a killer is not camping by increasing gen times. You can leave genrushing as a counter to camping by making the sacrifice timer take longer so with the new gen times the same result happens. I said this earlier I believe. If you want you can make the sacrifice take long enough to where the killer only gets 1 kill camp with survivors focusing gens.
But one does not need to be fixed for the other. Camping and genrushing are not the equivalents for both sides, that'd be genrushing and tunneling.
You already have a solution to camping, it doesn't need a "fix" because there already is one that any decent team can do. More survivors just need to do it. Instead of complaining for the devs to fix something that you already have the base kit fix for, maybe we should encourage more people to use said fix. So we can actually focus on things that actually do not have a sufficient current fix in the game.
Why are we saying "we cant fix gen rush in a normal match till we remove camping" when camping already has a base kit solution and these two are not equivalents. Oh gens take longer? Whats the thing that already kept camping in check? Gen speeds + sacrifice speeds. Ok so just increase the sacrifice speeds as well to match.
Like I said before sometimes you have to take a hit for the team, this is part of the game and survivors need to realize that you can't have all 4 active at the same time. Its not "unplayable", you're playing the game, you're just dealing with something you don't like: waiting for help from your teammates in a team based game or helping your team by distracting the killer because he's camping you. Part of playing the game is the waiting/distraction game.
You're acting like this is a discussion about being put on the hook. It's not. It's about tunnelling and camping, neither scenario offering much in the way of counterplay or 'help' from your teammates. Especially camping. And no, hanging on a hook while a killer is staring at you isn't 'playing the game'.
A normal hook is fine. Tunnelling is questionable. Camping is a complete game design failure and must be rectified.
It doesn't need to "blooming fix it", there's already a base kit fix like I said if you read the full post. You have a gameplay fix already, you don't need another one in a perk. It helps you be more effective, that's it. That's fine, you can do it base kit, its effective, and this helps it.
Right, the mythical 'genrush', where you hope you can clear the gens and open the gates faster than the killer can stare at the first hook. Great counter, fantastic gameplay, 10/10.
The chase will last long enough (generally) against a good survivor that the gens will pop during the chase. this is what happens at the beginning of the game.
Then let me quote every single killer main on this forum when faced with any gameplay critique: Git gud.
OR
Accept that camping is a problem and both sides of the game can make a trade to solve both issues at the same time.
Being secondary is true. Although I don't see it as a "concern". You have an answer to the playstyle, what's the concern?
The concern is that you, and about half of these killer-main infested forums are adamant that this counter should be removed. (And NOED exists, whose counter is mutually exclusive with that of camping)
And in addition, it's not fun. One person not playing, the other three just holding M1 on gens without any threat from the killer, and the killer himself just watching a screensaver. I keep saying it: If every killer started facecamping tomorrow, the game would be dead before the end of the week. No one wants to play this. The only reason the game hasn't been crippled is because the majority of killers either prefer fun over victory or are actually good enough to not need to camp. But we shouldn't need to hang by on a thread of sheer goodwill.
This is not true. You can fix the genrush when a killer is not camping by increasing gen times. You can leave genrushing as a counter to camping by making the sacrifice timer take longer so with the new gen times the same result happens.
Except the increase in sacrifice timer means survivors aren't under as much pressure to get unhooks, meaning they can more effectively genrush, even on killers that -aren't- camping. And just flat-out slowing gen speeds isn't healthy for game balance either, since, again, killers average around 60% kill rate or higher on red ranks.
'But we balance for the high skill levels!'
NO. Because that makes games unplayable on a regular level. DBD has a very steep learning curve and the lower tiers are already skewed heavily in favour of the killer. You said it yourself, there's plenty of potatoes in red ranks, and those already screw over their entire team, now imagine how bad it gets when gen speeds are slowed down and the killer gets a whole extra minute or two. Average kill rates would probably creep up towards 80%, and do you think we'll have any survivors down below purple ranks at that point?
Top 1% balancing works (debatable) for e-Sports. DBD is a game, not a spectator sport.
My proposal is to have gen times be increased from 80 to 110 seconds, but to change the co-op bonus from -15%/-30%/-45% to +15% flat (This translates to slower solo speed, no change in duo speed, slight increase in triple speed). This way, the fastest way of clearing gens is NOT also the safest, and survivors have to choose between splitting up for safety or grouping up for speed. Additionally, the killer getting a hook takes away a potential +15% boost, allowing them extra pressure.
BUT
In exchange, the killer MUST lose the ability to camp effectively, otherwise camping would pretty much guarantee a victory. So hook progression is slowed when the killer is under the hook and not in a chase: -80% at 5 gens left, -60% at 4 gens left, -40% at 3 gens left, -20% at 2 gens left, no change at 1 or 0 gens left.
This might still favour the killer too much, but it gives the killer more grip on the game without just flat-out nerfing survivors and extending the time they have to M1. It might also push other perks to the foreground, too.
-
@Lord_Tony said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2450620#Comment_2450620
comms
please don't pretend comms don't exist.
Please don't pretend solo play doesn't exist.
Or do you also want to mandate that survivors can only play in an on-comms 4-man swiffer? Because something tells me that you'll be back here whinging your head off in two seconds flat if survivors actually did that.
-
@Lord_Tony said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2450467#Comment_2450467
you only need 1 survivor out of 4 to have small game
so it's not going to ever be apart of the "perk tax"
And if you're not that one survivor with SG, how can you tell if the totem you see before you is the second or the fifth?
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2450197#Comment_2450197
I only recommended kindred because it actually solves the "not knowing what teammates are doing or where the killer is" problem, these other perks don't solve the gen rush issue, they just help alleviate it.
But yeah you can't have a perk for every scenario the same way killers can't have a perk for every scenario. But if you're personally so concerned with camping as your number 1 priority then fit it in a build is all I'm saying. You don't need it to counter camping either, it just helps.
I'm not saying it solves camping because it doesn't it just helps in the info department. You don't need the perk to counter camping as you can do that at base, it'll just help you waste a little less time, but you have extra time to burn so it doesn't really matter too much.
Yeah you can rush back to the gen, whose going to stop you. Again the survivors have extra time to get those gens done in those 2 kills.
The survivors have 66% of their work speed only until that survivor is unhooked and maybe healed. Lets be even more generous and say 50%. Ok. 3 gens with 1 hook, 4 1/2 with 2, gens done gate opened by 3.
Even at 50% we're looking at 3 hooks before the game is over. Like I said before, with decent survivors focusing on gens, The majority of the killer roster get about 3-5 hooks. That's 100% of the survivors objective done while the killer is on 3/12 - 5/12.
Killer's don't "fail to realize", that's with that less efficient work included. Even with just that 1 survivor on gens, that's still just roughly 2-4 more chases/hooks as: 2nd chase -gen pop- 3rd chase -gen pop- oh look games over. The killer is not even at half of their objective done and the survivors are finished with theirs.
Its a good thing a lot of survivors at red ranks are potatoes or this would be happening even more frequently.
But yeah you can't have a perk for every scenario the same way killers can't have a perk for every scenario.
That's not the point.
The point is that any killer can, at a whim, make the game unplayable unless the survivor is decked out with DS + BT + UB. That's three perk slots sacrificed to make the game -playable- (Not winnable, playable) in case of a killer with a foul mood. That leaves us ONE perk slot to choose for build diversity, and this is gonna be SG/DetHunch for NOED, Kindred against camping or Spine Chill for stealthers.
There's tons of survivor perks that are okay-ish or fun and they just don't get picked up because without the holy trinity of the oft-complained about survivor meta, the game can quickly become unplayable.
Survivors either don't get to choose their perks, or a killer can simply opt to make the game miserable for them. This isn't healthy design. This is a perk tax.
I'm not saying it solves camping because it doesn't it just helps in the info department.
And then it doesn't even blooming fix it!
The survivors have 66% of their work speed only until that survivor is unhooked and maybe healed. Lets be even more generous and say 50%. Ok. 3 gens with 1 hook, 4 1/2 with 2, gens done gate opened by 3.
No, they don't -have- 66% speed. They LOSE 66% speed. They go down to 33% and that's assuming your chase doesn't carry you past a gen that's being worked on, which temporarily sets it to zero.
And ideally, you'll be cycling survivors. Which means that the person on the gen will at one point be stuck in one of the other roles, leaving their gen behind, and there's no guarantee that another survivor will find it. Slap on a gen regression perk, and you can slow the game down to a crawl. That's why Pop is considered so powerful: It won't crash the genrush, but once the first hook is done, it can massively diminish what survivors can do.
But all of that is secondary to the big concern that genrushing is -required- against camping. So either we fix both issues, or we fix neither. If it's up to the forums, survivors just have to give up their gen speeds and allow a facecamper to always, unconditionally, get a 2K at worst. If that catches on, the game dies within a month. No one wants to play a camping match.
As I said, there's ways to fix genrushing, but not as long as camping is a thing.
-
@Lord_Tony said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2449456#Comment_2449456
"Yes, Small Game got the totem counter. But this just adds to the survivor 'perk tax', which cripples build diversity."
ah yes don't want to cripple that BT, DH, IW, UB build diversity.
Using small game actually adds to build diversity lol
BT, IW and DS are part of that perk tax, you pistachio.
-
@flawedspecies said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2449721#Comment_2449721
I didn't stick around to see.
And I play plenty of killer - enough to be rank 1 every month, but I'm a survivor main. The reason I complain about killers so much is because they have the ability to dictate your ability to have fun. Losing fast as a killer sucks, but some of that can be attributed to the killer's ability. Chasing in bad places, chasing too long, perhaps bad perks. But the survivors can't just take away the killer's ability to PLAY and TRY to have fun. There is no equivalent.
There is, sort of.
And everyone hates on those keys.
-
He should show more skin, not less!
-
Fitness model Pyramid Head, obviously.
-
@Zozzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2450202#Comment_2450202
Nobody is expecting you to get them on your own. Survivors just need to adopt the mentality of see totem = break totem and it would be a non issue. But no... its all about rushing gens for that sweet sweet tbag at the exit because they think they did something amazing.
I've stopped more NOEDs by not breaking every totem I see than I have by cleansing every single one I find.
Doing totems is more likely to make NOED stronger.
-
@Exxodus21 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2449599#Comment_2449599
Breaking totems isn't a flaw in game design though. It's the secondary objective. You can't make the case for NOED being OP when you have all the tools you need to make sure it never activates but you refuse to use them.
Breaking totems isn't a hole, but NOED very much is, due to the way it works. If you clear 4/5 totems, you can easily end up worse off than if you did none. And even 5/5 can make NOED stronger.
And no, survivors don't have 'all the tools', since they still don't have a totem counter.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2449575#Comment_2449575
It shouldn't take a minuet and a half to establish camping or not, and that's just to break even with on hook time. They not moving away they're camping. From a competent team experience its not a problem at all, and we're not going to balance around incompetent survivors.
If you want to speed it up slap on kindred. But you can't fix bad at the game without breaking good at the game, and good at the game is already survivor skewed.
I disagree with that entire second paragraph, kill rates have been repeatedly been told to not be reliable by even the devs themselves for balance at all, unless you want to mega buff Nurse and nerf pig to oblivion. Gen times have been known to be a balance issue for a long time, is clearly evident if you get any decent group together.
In a team with good survivors, the killer gets 3-5 hooks before gens are done for the majority of the killer roster, I wouldn't call that "fairly even footing". I wouldn't call 3 gens in 1 hook or 3/5 compared to 1/12 "fairly even footing". The only thing keeping killer playable is that potatoes exist in high/red ranks. Most killers need at least 1-2 weak links in the survivors to be fine, with none it gets bad really fast.
This is not news, this has been known for a long time.
Genrushing will always be "a thing" that's not a problem. The problem isn't genrushing as a practice, its that its way too strong. Genrushing will always exist and so will tunneling as those are the most optimal ways to play either side by a lot. The problem is that they're not balanced to each other. A decent team gen rushing will outperform a decent killer tunneling or camping.
Camping should be weaker then genrushing, and it already is. It doesn't need a change. A positive change wouldn't hurt, but its not a pressing issue.
No, but in solo play, if I don't see a rescue happening, I'm going to assume that whoever went for the rescue is in chase, and I'll check it myself. I can end up crossing the map to find the killer sitting under hook, at which point I need to get back to a gen ASAP if I don't want to risk a second person getting locked out of the game for two minutes.
'Just slap on Kindred'
There seems to be literally not a single piece of feedback that can be given from survivor perspectives that won't be met with 'Just equip [bandaid perk]'. There's four perk slots and way more gameplay holes. Use that approach for your own problems: trouble with genrushing? Just slap on Corrupt, Surge, Eruption AND Pop. If you don't do that, don't complain.
What killers fail to realise about the 'three gens in one hook' thing is that, from there, survivors are at halfway, but the common scenario is that they lose 66% of their work speed from that point. One on hook, one in chase, one rescuing/healing, and only one on gens. The reason gens go fast early is because they go slow late. Killers shouldn't -always- have the upper hand.
-
@Exxodus21 said:
The only thing Otz's experiment proved is that survivors would rather demand the ge be changed for them instead of just doing their secondary objective.
They have Detective's Hunch, Small Game, Counterforce, and maps to help them find and break totems. Otz was camping the whole game. So the survivors had all the time in the world to do anything they wanted while the killer was literally standing still by a hook, and they still chose to only do gens and try for saves.
NOED doesn't need to change. Survivors do.
Uh... facecamping mandates genrushing. You can't do totems when the killer is facecamping, you don't have enough time.
Also, survivors can't keep equipping perks to patch up holes in gameplay design, they only have four slots. Perks that are subsequently bemoaned by killers for being a stale meta.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2448750#Comment_2448750
I disagree, I find gen speeds a bigger issue as that actually causes an imbalance in the game, camping just annoys some people.
Honestly if you nerf gen speeds and are worried about camping becoming stronger just increase hook time by the same % and the solution we already have still exist with the same efficiency as before.
While I agree, camping isn't ideal, I wouldn't consider it a big problem. I just play around it and expect my team to do the same. Whether I'm the one on the hook or not. I get more annoyed by my team not doing the gens while I'm strung up.
Camping doesn't need a "fix" because we already have one. As is, camping is a problem that can be solved right now by more survivors just playing differently, gen speeds are not.
Survivors are choosing not to use that solution and then complaining about their misplay.
You can't fix players deciding to play poorly.
If more survivors didn't yolo for the save and reward the camper, we'd see a lot less of it. Camping only works if survivors play into it. If I see a camper I'm doing gens, if my team does the same, we win easy. More survivors should do the same and camping would go down or only exist in low rank/skill matches.
Instead they reinforce camping by playing right into it. every camper that climbs is due to survivors letting them. Ironically part of that is due to the entitlement on the survivor side such as "wow you really didn't save me". You're not entitled to a save if its a bad decision for the team overall.
Its a team game, not a single-player one, sometimes you have to take the hit.
Don't get me wrong, if there's a way to encourage (not punish) killers not to camp more, then absolutely go for it, but its not a super pressing matter because we already have a easy and reasonable way to deal with it. People are just choosing not to do it because of peer pressure, entitlement, and bad habits.
This whole 'just genrush' attitude is entirely theoretical. From solo play experience, it is far, far more effective than people give it credit, even if survivors know its counterplay. One thing that's often overlooked, for example, is the time it takes survivors to establish that the killer is camping. That alone helps push camping more towards the 2K+ level.
Genrushing doesn't break the game. And it's evidently not a balance issue, since at red ranks, killers average around 60% kill rate. Even with genrushing, killers and survivors are on fairly even footing.
Simply increasing gen times won't be enough either. Genrushing will still be 'a thing' and continue to be used as an excuse to camp and tunnel. So the only thing that'd accomplish is a further increase to kill-rates without any likelihood of increased match quality.
-
Non-godtier Nurse is the best to play against. Very rewarding counterplays!
-
My issues with NOED revolve mostly around its counterplay.
It's unintuitive. Yes, you can 'dO bONeS' as the old meme goes, but that's a gamble for Swiffers and a massive gamble for solos.
Firstly: fail to find even one totem, and NOED gets its full effect. This turns all totem-hunting efforts into a complete waste, adding slowdown on top of NOED's power. But since solos have no idea what their teammates are doing, they have no idea whether that totem they found is the fifth and thus worth cleansing, or the second and thus possibly not worth doing.
Yes, Small Game got the totem counter. But this just adds to the survivor 'perk tax', which cripples build diversity.
EDIT: firstly, part two: NOED gets pushed to whatever totem is left, which also means that cleansing every totem you can find pushes it to whatever totem you -can't- find, making it much harder to counteract.
Secondly: due to NOED requiring a team effort, it widens the gap between solo and Swiffer. No comms makes NOED stronger.
Thirdly: NOED's passive threat causes counterplay to make the perk take effect without being equipped. This adds to the gambling-nature of the counterplay: do bones when the killer doesn't have NOED and NOED becomes a stronger slowdown perk.
Fourthly: Due to the large investment required to counterplay it, NOED is an excellent supporting perk to hook camping. The only counter to facecamping is genrushing, and 'doInG BoNEs' is mutually exclusive with that.
Paradoxically, certain buffs to NOED might actually make it -less- of a problem. But one of the most simplistic fixes that should be implemented yesterday is a universal totem counter, to improve solo player's chances against it and narrow the Swiffer-Solo gap.
-
@TeabaggingGhostface said:
People should do bones, and if we're talking about perks that you dont earn, dead hard rewards you for getting hit
Yeah, with two extra seconds of chase.
Unless you use it really well, in which case it's earned again.
-
I learned to give up on it with Trickster, but I can still slap them as Nemesis. It depends on what killer you're playing.
-
Basement purely exists for thematic purposes and to support tunnelling and camping, so I do think it should be reconsidered.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2448688#Comment_2448688
True but you're original point was that its probably a victory specifically.
True it doesn't take 4 minuets, it takes longer because its not like you find the survivor instantly and they instantly appear on hook. That's just counting on hook time.
The point about how many kills a camp deserves is your opinion, and not one I entirely disagree with. I also think a tie is fine as nothing really happened in the game to say one side won over the other. However, if you're going to assert that camping should be limited to 1 kill, then gen rushing should be limited to 1 escape as well.
That I disagree with because genrushing isn't nearly as damaging to gameplay as camping. I still want to see longer and more engaging games (and less pressure for the killer), but the root problem is camping. Unless that gets resolved, camping benefits directly from any gen slowdown, making camping a more effective and likely also more popular method.
I do have an idea for anti-genrush, but it just can't be implemented without a crippling nerf to camping.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2448673#Comment_2448673
Yeah that's 2 kills, that's not a victory.
Camping 2 survivors takes 4 minuets. That's not counting time to find, chase, down, then carry to the hook.
Doing 5 gens with just 1 survivor on each (3 on the first 3, 2 on the last 2) takes 2:40 not counting great skill-checks.
You have more than enough time to do the gens and get out. The killer should only ever get more than 2 kills if the survivors played into the camp. Even with NoED you should be out before the 2nd person dies, so that doesn't really factor in as no one should be downed with it as the killer is camping.
But 2 kills is not a loss, either. It doesn't really take four minutes, at least not in usable game-time. Once the two minutes of the first takedown are over, the killer grabs the next, and once that one is on the hook, the game falls flat. The other two can leave, but are unlikely to get the rescue.
Point is, camping that aggressively should never have a chance at anything more than 1 kill.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2448655#Comment_2448655
I mean the proper response to camping is to gen rush so I'm not sure about getting the victory. The survivors have enough time to pump out gens in the time it takes to camp. But in either case, like I said this applies to both sides.
The survivors can opt to start sweating, but if the survivors focus gens before the killer starts tunneling/camping, the survivors probably get the victory.
Yeah, they have enough time, -if they're already genrushing by the time the killer starts camping-. Otherwise the killer gets that kill and will have time left to secure another.
And if they have NOED, they could triple slug for a 4K.
-
@HaunterofShadows said:
When it comes to survivor balance I think the thing that really can mess you up is how reliant you are on your teammates (which to be fair, you are supposed to rely on your teammates when you play survivor. Survivor is a game of teamwork.) and this can actually cause problems for you and your team. I've seen games where one ######### up got all 4 survivors killed
What hurts that as well is how slim of a margin of error there is for survivors. One bad unhook practically guarantees a 3K+, unless someone makes a god-play to compensate or the killer bungles something else really badly.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2447680#Comment_2447680
If the killer is at 0-1 hooks do we really need to split/focus on gens?
Its just frustrating when the killer get 1 hook and 3 gens pop and the survivors act like they're going to get 11 hooks in 2 gens.
Both sides are responsible for this problem, not just killers. If survivors want killers to sweat less they also need to sweat less. But (most) survivors don't wanna listen. They want to be able to slam gens while the killer isn't allowed to slam kills, and somehow they think that's fine.
Both sides need to choose optimal or not optimal, not optimal for me but not for thee.
I've seen killers choose to play nice. I have never heard/seen a survivor go "oh I'm going to stop working on this gen because the killer is behind. Oh they got no kills, here I'll sacrifice myself."
The double standards are strong unfortunately.
The killer can opt to start sweating, but if the killer camps before the survivors have started genrushing, the killer probably gets a victory.
-
@SilentPill said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2447698#Comment_2447698
That’s definitely not true. I win the overwhelming majority of my killer games at red ranks using this basic strategy:
- Get an early hook before corrupt is over
- Secure the nearest 3 gen to the hook, or it’s already secure depending on where Corrupt still is
- Camp/Tunnel the first survivor to death
- Snowball in the 3v1, through slugging, if too many gens got done during #3
I literally camp and tunnel every game of DBD I play, and I will stop doing it when it stops working
And this is why gens cannot be slowed down and why we can't give survivors another objective. They'd be direct buffs to this playstyle.
Fix camping, weaken tunnelling, then we can slow survivors down.
-
@Gamedozer7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2447587#Comment_2447587
The problem is that is ok for one side to play optimal its just doing objectives but if the other side does it its toxic
Because one side only affects the other's winrate, while the other causes the entire game's concept to fall apart.
Doing gens and camping are not comparable.
-
Triple crow should just disable unit collision.
-
Beachwear Felix. Open shirt or shirtless. I want survivor-daddy to flaunt it!
-
@Dino7281 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2445989#Comment_2445989
How rare is it for you and what rank are you (it's not that I doubt your skill, just want to know if it is lower rank killer thing)?
I play in red ranks and it is super are for me, but when they do, they usually have meme end game / basement build.
It's rare for me, but it was common when I was playing with friends.
And in disregard of rarity, it destroyed gameplay on every instance.
-
@Dino7281 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2445976#Comment_2445976
Then that killer is troll, or that survivor pissed him off somehow.
Well, that's the kind of camping survivors have to deal with.
-
@Dino7281 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2445963#Comment_2445963
I mean, you camp survivor when you have some of those things there too.
3 gen + hooked survivor etc.
Sorry, but killer has just no reason to leave that area, when all his objectives are there, only because there is survivor on hook.
it looks I didn't explain it well enough, my bad.
Okay, so what about this situation: no gens done, no gens nearby, killer gets his first hook and just parks under it.
-
Honestly, the pig's design is deeply flawed. The RBTs are just terrible due to their RNG nature, and without them, she's just a worse Wraith.
I want buffs to her ambush.
-
@Dino7281 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2445185#Comment_2445185
I play on 20-30 ms and I get it a lot.
Problem is that playing against high ping survivors, I see something else than they do. How survivors can deal with high ping: drop pallet early. What the hell is killer supposed to do?
They just buffed camping pallets, because server will save them from hits.
Hit them before they drop the pallet or eat the stun. Pallet camping didn't get buffed, it got bugfixed. You weren't supposed to get all those hits.
And no, survivors don't benefit from lag, as it means they need to drop earlier to compensate for the delivery delay to the server.
-
@Hex_Llama said:
Long story short, I honestly think "the stun and the hit both happen, if they happen close together" is a fairer solution than giving priority to whoever has the highest ping. It's not reasonable to expect that people who have slightly worse connection speeds should play as if they can't trust what they're seeing.
It's fairer than people with lower ping losing specifically due to their opponent having a higher ping, which was what the old system enabled.
-
@Raccoon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2445653#Comment_2445653
I certainly did, thank you!
I just need a mod/dev to clarify that by not giving the other side a chance to react in kind (as it is 100% impossible) that I'm not:
EXPLOITS: ABUSING BUGS OR ERRORS IN DESIGN TO GAIN A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
I certainly appreciate your assistance, but my mind will not be at ease until I get a dev or mod to clarify this to me.
They don't ban for exploiting errors in design anymore. Too many campers.
-
I... didn't think this was a point of contention?
-
@FellowKillerMain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2445189#Comment_2445189
But where do they say that the killer's perspective was only considered prior to the change? You're using that bit of information to substantiate your point and to disprove mine. If you can't reference any information like that from the devs, then you're simply speculating from what you can see and have no idea whether what the devs told you is true or not.
In your comment just preceding the one I'm quoting, you gave an example of pings which illustrate that events happen in a sequence, and the server is considerate of that. However, what you're not doing is illustrating how the functionality was or was not determined by the server prior tot he change. From the dev update, the only evidence of a change I can find is that the server takes dropping pallets into consideration in the same way it does killer swings. But, even still, there's still a problem with that. A client/server network will always get packets from clients and determine what information will be sent back. In the example you gave, the results would be the same before and after the change, because the dedicated server should function exactly the same.
Personally, I think they added an additional condition to determine when the killer successfully hits near a pallet, and whatever they added prioritizes the survivor over the killer. Because, even before the change, there was a 50/50 chance of getting hit or simply being stunned at pallets. Now I can go an entire play session without ever injuring a survivor at a pallet, but you best believe I am stunned every single time. Even if I hit them while we're both standing on the same side of the pallet - I get stunned, they don't get hit.
Okay, a ping example of the old system.
Survivor with ping 50 ms, killer at 1000 ms.
Survivor drops pallet at point 0. It takes 50 ms for the pallet drop to hit the server. The killer swings at 500 ms. Since the pallet drop signal won't hit the killer's client until 1050 ms, on his screen, he gets a hit. He sends the hitreg back, and at 1550 ms, the survivor client receives the hit and goes down.
1.5 seconds after dropping the pallet, the survivor just blankly drops.
That is the old system. Pings exaggerated, of course, but it's why survivors kept getting hit by stunned killers.
And it's unfair to demand that I present dev explanations to support my theory when you flagrantly disregard dev explanations on the new system to postulate your own theory.
-
@FellowKillerMain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2445163#Comment_2445163
Where did they say that with dedicated servers they only considered the killer's perspective? On a client/server network both clients need to send their packets, the server relays the proper information. How can they alter that so that only the server's determination matters? That's the only way it can work with dedicated servers.
Everyone could see it. If, on the killer's screen, you got a hit, that hit would be forced on the survivor, no matter how bizarre it looks to everyone else.
I once saw an Oni down a Jane on the opposite side of a loop, purely because the Oni's connection was trash.
-
@cyniChris said:
It's like the normal hit validation - you clearly hit, the server says no, and guess whose ping is actually higher? 90% of the time - in my experience, at least - the survivor's ping is 100ms+ while my own as killer is ~60ms (I get 30-40ms consistently in lobby, but judging from when I play survivor and can see the ping in-game, it usually only jumps up by about 20ms).
People have been wanting to see the killer's ping for as long as dedicated servers have existed, but mostly because of unfair hits on them as survivors. I'm fairly certain if we got to see the killer's ping, it'd often be lower than the survivor's in these situations. That's why we don't see it.
Survivor ping doesn't matter anymore. Or at least, it can't benefit them.
A survivor on 1000 ms drops a pallet. The killer, on 50 ms, attacks half a second later. Since the attack is registered on the server at 550 ms from moment 0, and the pallet drop on 1000 ms, the attack lands first, even if the survivor dropped the pallet first.
What -doesn't- happen anymore is that a 1k ms killer smacks a survivor half a second after the pallet drops and sends a hitreg to the server.
-
@FellowKillerMain said:
After the pallet stun changes, I'm sure a lot of survivors are rejoicing as they don't get hit with weird laggy hits, but why does BHVR feel it's necessary for killer's to deal with this if they feel survivors shouldn't? It happens to me a lot, where I will be playing killer, go to hit a survivor and having something like this happen (clip starts at example pallet stun)
https://youtu.be/lDAPZb-wA2I?t=199
The survivor is hit before the pallet's drop animation is greater than 50%, except the hit is denied. This used to be explained away before the pallet stun changes, by suggesting they both happened at the same time - the hit and the pallet stun. Now, I never, or very very rarely see a survivor injured as they drop a pallet. Then, when the issue is brought up, survivors bust out their bibliography, citing that an official system was put in place to ensure no unfair hits occur. Except that's not the case. It's functioning exactly like the old system, you just put the burden on killers which isn't acceptable 'problem solving'.
We can't change killers in the lobby anymore, mori's don't feel gratifying anymore, breakable walls help survivors more than the killer often times, and now this pallet nonsense. There are very few things left to do that are fun as killer. I know you guys have been trying to be more balanced in addressing issues between both sides, but you're always just a tad bit more willing to make playing survivor more enjoyable at the killer's expense.
"Except that's not the case. It's functioning exactly like the old system, you just put the burden on killers which isn't acceptable 'problem solving'."
No, it doesn't.
It used to -only- consider the killer's perspective. Now it only considers the server's perspective. You've just been playing with an unfair advantage all this time, making the new system feel unfair.
-
@JPA said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2443826#Comment_2443826
SWF is an issue, if it wasn't every Killer would win any "pro" game of DBD by tunneling, but they don't.
Wait, Swiffer is an issue because it is the only thing preventing tunnelling from having a 100% winrate?
Sounds more like Swiffer is the solution and tunnelling is the problem, tbh.
-
Lethal Pursuer, Surge, Eruption, aaaaand... can't remember my fourth, haven't had computer access for a week now.
But the idea is a somewhat more active form of gen slowdown with the combo of the last two. Quite fun, really.
-
The only issue I have with her is the physics defying nature of the truck-sized hatchet hitboxes.
Cover should be cover.
-
@Progamer888 said:
I, think they have a contract that tells them to not do this ######### so, i don't think they can.
I have my doubts about whether the contract can reach that far, though.
While the visual design and concept of the Demogorgon and the likenesses of Steve and Nancy are Netflix property, I don't know if that applies to the actual gameplay elements, since Netflix had nothing to do with their creation.
It may be possible for them to reskin and reflavour the whole package and return it to the store. And I saw some posts on the forums suggesting that they're going to do that with the perks, at least.
-
Can survivors then also get a queue against non-campy, non-tunnelling killers?
-
@Triadequinaxor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2443114#Comment_2443114
I think its hilarious that the killer cant change his killer while the survivor can change his survivor
Survivors are purely cosmetic. Killers are not, so this one I can get behind.
-
I want perks that can be triggered off gestures.