Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@NaigEtarip said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2362826#Comment_2362826
I asked for proof on the assumptions that your opinion holds. Not on the emotions...
Do you acknowledge that there is no logical reason to conclude that the game would improve if player's did not tunnel, camp, slug...?
No, I don't. Tunnelling is difficult to argue against, I'll grant you that. Slugging is a bit one-sided but can still easily be construed as a gameplay problem.
But camping deletes gameplay from both sides of the equation, as both survivor and killer spend two minutes doing nothing, and neither get properly rewarded for it. And this is obvious to pretty much everyone.
Do you play the game, or are you on these forums simply for bad faith arguing?
-
@NaigEtarip said:
No, you don't have an argument, because your argument is 'no one can judge whether something is good or bad'.
Please read what you write, you are not only contradicting yourself on the first phrase but attributing words that i never said.
You are trying to approach game design like it's an exact science like chemistry or mathematics, and that doesn't work.
What of what i wrote made you think that?
Then why was it removed?
Because DEVS determined that it was better for the game. Following that logic, if Tunneling, Camping, Slugging... are still unchanged it's cause they are good?
One more time... my argument,
Cause the negative connotation and the specific triggers is completely dependant on each individual and no player can have proof that a specific intended behaviour has a "real negative impact" on the game.
This is about player's influencing other player's behaviour. About connotations of what is good or what is wrong for the game from a player perspective who probably lacks all the tools to know it.
Of course i'm going to need proof to know why any player would want to influence other based on the potential false premise of knowing better.
You are asking for 'proof' on opinion, on emotional response. What exactly are you expecting here?
Because DEVS determined that it was better for the game.
And I can guarantee you that they didn't have the 'proof' you are asking for here when they did it. Because that proof does not exist, nor is it possible to attain.
Following that logic, if Tunneling, Camping, Slugging... are still unchanged it's cause they are good?
That is an appeal to authority.
Of course i'm going to need proof to know why any player would want to influence other based on the potential false premise of knowing better.
This does simply translate to 'I want proof people dislike camping'. Which is either immensely tone-deaf, or you are running with an argument of 'no objective 'fun''. Either way, you're going to hit an impasse. Because the proof you are demanding does not exist and cannot be attained.
-
@NaigEtarip said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2362274#Comment_2362274
Games die to exploit abuse and hackers all the time. Now, those are, of course, outside of the game's actual mechanisms, but it still demonstrates that players can have a negative impact on any game environment if they so choose.
There's a reason why i bringed intended design.
All players have agreed to play under same circunstances. They are equally responsible of being exposed to the same emotional triggering factors.
Notice how i avoided your wording "negative impact" for "emotional triggers".
Why? Cause the negative connotation and the specific triggers is completely dependant on each individual and no player can have proof that a specific intended behaviour has a "real negative impact" on the game.
I contribute to the game's health by choosing not to engage with the worst aspects.
The same as above, how exactly you determined those are unhealthy or worst aspects of the game?
And this is a useless argument that can justify literally anything. You could say that the removal of old DS was 'limiting the playerbase, the designer's freedom, and contributing to a more monotonous environment'.
Before the DS was changed it was intended player behaviour, the argument still holds...
No, you don't have an argument, because your argument is 'no one can judge whether something is good or bad'. You are trying to approach game design like it's an exact science like chemistry or mathematics, and that doesn't work.
By its very nature, game design is all about emotional triggers.
Your attitude is to throw up your hands and turn the game into abandonware because there is no 'good' or 'bad'. There's no possible way of improving the game because there is no 'good'. Conversely though, this can also be used to flip the coin the other way and say that there's no reason not to implement something, because you can't prove it won't be good.
So if someone said 'bring back perma-sabotage', you can't bring up the argument that perma-sabotage was unbelievably bad design.
Before the DS was changed it was intended player behaviour, the argument still holds...
Then why was it removed?
-
@NaigEtarip said:
If the game dies is not the player's fault.
In fact there's no fault, no right or wrong in players who choose to act on a set of possibilites. Which is the intended game design.
Otherwhise you are limiting the playerbase that enjoys doing or facing those strategies, designer/s' freedom, probably contributing to a more monotonous environment...
Now of course if you have proof that a reduction on those strategies would be beneficial for the game i would be interested to see them.
It can be.
Games die to exploit abuse and hackers all the time. Now, those are, of course, outside of the game's actual mechanisms, but it still demonstrates that players can have a negative impact on any game environment if they so choose.
Camping is constructed out of the game's mechanisms, sure, which would make it BHVR's fault for letting it sit there. But if players opt, en masse, to abuse it, then it's their fault too.
I contribute to the game's health by choosing not to engage with the worst aspects. I don't tunnel, I don't camp, I rarely slug. I could opt to just run a facecamp build and play Bubba all the time, but doing so would make me complicit in DBD's worst aspect and I would personally be making the biggest problems more eminent.
In short, if the game were to die to camping, it would be partly BHVR's fault for enabling it, and partly players' fault for exploiting it.
Otherwhise you are limiting the playerbase that enjoys doing or facing those strategies, designer/s' freedom, probably contributing to a more monotonous environment...
And this is a useless argument that can justify literally anything. You could say that the removal of old DS was 'limiting the playerbase, the designer's freedom, and contributing to a more monotonous environment'.
This kind of thinking operates from the assumption that there is no 'generally good' and 'generally bad' form of game design, but if that were the case, why are some games complete flops while others succeed? There is such a thing as 'engaging gameplay', and camping is pretty definitively -not- it.
-
@TheDappaScrappa said:
What killer do you not mind going against? Like you don't find them strong and just enjoy going against them, and on top of that which perks do you not find annoying or unbearable to go against either? A straight up chill killer with chill perks that don't scream try hard or op to you? I kind of want to do an experiment and see something
There's fewer killers that I hate to face than there's killers I enjoy facing. The ones I don't like are Hag, Spirit, Deathslinger, Wraith and Bubba. And maybe Blight a little bit, since he makes matches really stressful due to a combo of strong looping and very high mobility.
Everyone else is fine or even fun. I enjoy going against Nemesis, Nurse (Unless they're god-tier Nurse in which case it's a 1 minute slugfest), Doctor, Hillbilly, Oni, Huntress (Apart from those that intentionally abuse hitboxes), Clown, Pyramid Head...
Also, the only perk I find groan-worthy is probably NOED, that thing is a design disaster and needs a rework.
-
@TheGorgon said:
I don’t understand people’s mindset nowadays. DBD is marketed as an asymmetrical PvP Horror game. Both sides have different goals and they have to reach their goals to win.
As a Killer, I’m supposed to guarantee you to leave the match dead. As a Survivor, I’m supposed to leave the game via exiting the exit gates.
I happen to come across some laughable and to be Frank, popular unreasonable criticism. It sounds selfish, but as a killer, I do not need to meet your rules. I never ever read your personal ToS and agreed to it right before the game started.
My job is to kill you. I don’t care if you don’t like me tunneling or camping during one time or another. It’s admittedly an optimal strategy since it helps me reach my final goal.
I don’t like being tunneled or camped either, but sometimes the killer needs to do it to get the upper hand, which is absolutely understandable. So yeah, I dislike many things in DBD, but it doesn’t mean I need to obey or satisfy the other side.
Just thought I had to get this off, since many people are under the impression that camping and tunneling are super cowardly strategies, when they’re in fact very optimal strategies that are required in many situations to win.
Last but not least, a couple of the issues people have with DBD are from their ego’s being recently hurt, not actual core issues within the game itself, I.E Camping & Tunneling. Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t mean there’s anything particularly wrong with it.
Genrush away, it’s your goal after all. I have perks and add-ons to try to slow down that process that is required for you to win, just like you do for camping & tunneling. To both sides, stop verbally abusing people in the post-match chat and realize that putting arbitrary rules on the other side is simply silly & stupid.
Here's where you're wrong: If, starting tomorrow, every single killer camped, tunnelled and slugged exclusively, the game would be dead within the week.
So if you want to continuo playing this game, play with some consideration for the other's enjoyment. I'll take some time out for funny perk builds, going for chests, and cleansing dulls if you refrain from tunnelling, camping, and slugging.
Both sides need the other to continue playing this game. It got plastered over the forums when survivor queues were getting long, so now that killer queues are 5 min+, you'll have to hear it too.
-
@Bardon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2361032#Comment_2361032
Okay I'm pretty new here, can you please explain what you meant by this sentence, because I can't understand it:
"NOED has a design flaw where it discourages cleansing totems. "
How does NOED discourage cleansing? Firstly how could the Survivors know that the killer has NOED until it triggers and therefore it discourage cleansing? Even if you suspect the killer has it doesn't that encourage cleansing totems? Sorry, I'm just confused.
It's pretty unintuitive, but it's better not to break totems.
First off: NOED is not declared, so if you do totems, you're banking on the killer actually having it. If it turns out the killer doesn't have it, then you jeopardized your chances at victory by spending time on something that offers no in-trial benefit. You just slowed the survivors down.
Secondly: NOED will survive on -any- dull totem. This means that if you don't get all 5, you get nothing. Cleansing 4 totems gives you zero value in countering NOED, despite the time you spent on them. Again, you just slowed the survivors down.
Thirdly: NOED will survive on -that- dull totem. If you cleanse every totem you find but don't manage to find all of them, then NOED is forced into the totem that you cannot find. If there's only one totem in play that you can't find, that totem will be NOED and thus be incredibly difficult to break. If you leave all totems up, then there's a chance that NOED will instead sink into a totem that you -can- find, or perhaps even have already found.
That's the problems with NOED, and with the whole 'doing bones' argument. It is tactically better not to touch a single dull totem, as the chances of getting all five done are slim, the chances of getting all five done while the killer actually -has- NOED are even worse, and you run the risk of making NOED harder to destroy if it does manage to fire.
If NOED's power was bound to the number of remaining totems, and didn't deliver the full fury for missing just one, it'd do a -much- better job of mandating them.
-
I think it's most evident in survivors. Toxic folks that just drop out the moment they get downed. Had one the other day, teabagging and flashlight clicking at me, only for her to drop out the instant I slapped her with Nemesis' tentacle and downed her.
I put the rest of the team on two hooks and let them leave. Screw that ragequitter all the more for being a showboating trashbag.
-
@JimbusCrimbus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2361059#Comment_2361059
No, how you win doesn't matter, as long as it's per the rules of the game. Not the artificial, one-sided rules of the community. The only issue here is peoples delicate sensibilities and entitlement. Period, end of story.
It kind of does matter how you play, because if every killer, starting tomorrow, exclusively camped or slugged, the game would be dead within the week.
Survivors need killers, sure, but killers also need survivors. This game is PvP within the trial, but we all have to work together to keep the game fun.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2361011#Comment_2361011
You know what? I'll admit something; I will 100% be for a 'camping' punishment if, in the same update, Gen speeds are looked it.
As it is, Survivors need twice a match's current time to 12 hook everyone, and any sort of stupid punishment will force a 12 hook match. It will, counting chases, take Killers around 12-14 minutes to 12 hook everyone.
While Survivors can bang gens in 5-7 minutes. That's 5-7 minutes, solo, doing 1 gen at a time, without perks or toolkits or Great Skillchecks.
So sure; punish campers, but at the same time, give Killers the extended time needed to 12 hook everyone. Which means extending gens times, since optional secondary objectives won't do it. Just look at NoED; Survivors would rather ignore it, die to it, then whine that they can't lick gens for 5 minutes unpunished.
But until gen speeds are looked at; I'm going to say 'hell no' to 'camping' punishments, because it's Survivors own altruism that rewards it, and I don't have the freaking TIME to 3 hook every single survivor, and no one is going to make me play sub-optimally.
OH I am not going to argue against a gen speed rework if it comes tied with anti-camping mechanisms. I've been suggesting that solo gen speeds get slowed down massively, but co-op gen speeds are increased instead of decreased (Prove Thyself would need reworking) so that the safest gen-running tactic isn't also the most efficient one, and so that hooking or chasing a survivor takes away more gen progress than just that survivor's individual contribution.
EDIT: This is another reason I want camping gone. Any gen speed reduction or overall game slowdown would also be a buff to camping and would push it from 'Might get a 2K' strat to a '2K or better, guaranteed' strat. Camping is holding the entire game hostage.
optional secondary objectives won't do it. Just look at NoED; Survivors would rather ignore it, die to it, then whine that they can't lick gens for 5 minutes unpunished.
NOED has a design flaw where it discourages cleansing totems. It's way riskier to try and cleanse totems than it is to leave them up. If it were reworked to better enforce 'do bones' mentality, I'd even be up for it becoming baseline, just to get the totems more forcefully into the game.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2360954#Comment_2360954
You don't get it; The Killer cannot CHOOSE not to chase anyone in my scenario. It's being forced on him; he has ot pick someone to chase, and the other gets an unhook.
And 'less survivors working on gens' means nothing when 1 Survivor now has infinite time to solo gens, since the Hooked Survivor has infinite time to not die.
And, due to this 'camping' punishment, the Killer now has 0 pressure. The exact opposite of what a hooked Survivor should be.
A hooked Survivor should = pressure, not a free vacation because Survivors want it so. But as long as the Survivors let the Killer know they are there; it's either 0 pressure, or a free unhook.
It's like your purposefully ignoring every drawback to the punishment simply to say it works. Yeah; the Killer has 2 Survivors he can see. But the second he commits to a chase, it goes from 1 hooked & 2 standing around & 1 doing gens. To 0 hooked, 1 being chased, 3 doing gens.
The Killer has lost all pressure and momentum, if he even had any to begin with.
And it was forced on him by a BS 'anti-camping' mechanic. A mechanic that was CLEARLY flawed, because the Devs removed it. So even if you plug your ears and ignore every flaw (or maybe just don't care if the Killer gets screwed, since Survivors benefit); it was clearly bad. Seeing as it was removed and all.
You don't get it; The Killer cannot CHOOSE not to chase anyone in my scenario. It's being forced on him; he has ot pick someone to chase, and the other gets an unhook.
Oh no, you -have- to chase a survivor! What a tragedy!
I'm sorry, but saying that you have to actually play against your opponents and calling that a 'drawback' seems laughable to me. Again, compare this to a blank scenario where no one shows up. The killer then -has- to go look for a survivor, allowing any survivor that evades them to get the unhook.
And 'less survivors working on gens' means nothing when 1 Survivor now has infinite time to solo gens, since the Hooked Survivor has infinite time to not die.
Yeah. If you camp. Which is why you don't. Which is the point of the whole concept.
A hooked Survivor should = pressure, not a free vacation because Survivors want it so. But as long as the Survivors let the Killer know they are there; it's either 0 pressure, or a free unhook.
And it will be! As long as you're not sitting under the hook trying to prevent the hooked survivor from playing. As long as you don't camp, the timer will tick down normally.
Again, compare this to a situation in which the survivors -aren't- running this tactic, you put the target on the hook and instead of two survivors trying to force you into a chase, you can't see a single rescuer. Which is better for the killer?
But the second he commits to a chase, it goes from 1 hooked & 2 standing around & 1 doing gens. To 0 hooked, 1 being chased, 3 doing gens.
That would be a pretty bad play on the survivors' parts, since that would just allow you to double back once the survivor has committed to the unhook to undo it. The timing would be pretty finnicky to pull off, since too early would give the killer the opportunity to tunnel, and too late would just see the next person downed.
it was clearly bad. Seeing as it was removed and all.
This is not an argument, it's an appeal to authority. BHVR are not the be-all-end-all of game design.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2360809#Comment_2360809
You're not seeing it right.
See, if Survivor 1 was hooked, Survivor 2 & 3 stand in the open, but far away, in opposite directions. This means Killer is 'camping' according to the game.
Survivor 4 does gens. Survivor 1 is in a free vacation with 0 struggle progress because of 'camping'.
If Killer goes after Survivor 2: Survivor 2 runs away. Survivor 3 walks towards the hook. Killer backs up. Due to distance, a chase did not start, so Survivor 1 is still safe from Struggle progress.
Flip if Killer goes after Survivor 3.
Now the Killer has a choice:
- Camp to prevent an unhook (And give Survivor 4 infinite time to do gens.
- Commit to a chase, giving one of the Survivors a free unhook.
In this way, the Survivors abused the camping punishment to force the Killer into a lose/lose scenario. He had no right choice he could make; free gens, or free unhook.
This is why camping punishments don't work; they can be abused hardcore.
What happens, though, if they -didn't- pull that well-coordinated tactic?
You put them on the hook, turn around, see no one. You really think that situation is better than having immediate line of sight on two survivors? You really think that having to traipse over to the other side of the map and check every nook and cranny for a trace is better than just starting the next chase off the bat?
The only thing the 'abuse' scenario accomplishes is that there's fewer survivors working on gens and the killer loses less time tracking, UNLESS you assume the goal of the scenario is to prevent the unhook, as opposed to hunting down and killing survivors. But that's a problem with the premise, because then you're judging an anti-camping measure by how well it supports camping.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2360564#Comment_2360564
Do you want to know why people will say that would be abused?
Because BHVR tried doing exactly that a few years ago in the PTB and guess what? It was abused to hell by survivors (especially SWF groups who could communicate).
One guy sits by the hook and forces the killer to chase them around it. The person on the hook is never in danger because the killer is "camping" while the other two survivors slam gens. Even if you eliminate the "still does it during the chase part", survivors just stay outside the range and then force the killer to go after a chase they won't win (as the survivor is a mile away and can kill 30-some seconds before the killer can even get near them).
There are also natural times as put by Crowman right above where a killer will just be in the area because the survivors three gen'ed themselves. The killer isn't camping because but they're getting punished as if they were camping because the area they need to defend is where the survivor is.
So yeah, you might not like that people keep instantly refusing your one idea but as I asked in my very first post, pitch an idea that isn't going to be abused by survivors and/or punish innocent killers and I will gladly hear it out.
One guy sits by the hook and forces the killer to chase them around it. The person on the hook is never in danger because the killer is "camping" while the other two survivors slam gens. Even if you eliminate the "still does it during the chase part", survivors just stay outside the range and then force the killer to go after a chase they won't win (as the survivor is a mile away and can kill 30-some seconds before the killer can even get near them).
This is where the error occurs. You call this 'abusing the system'. I call it 'making a tactical mistake'.
You get looped around a hook. Sure, sounds bad, the timer doesn't go down. But the flipside is that the survivor on the hook doesn't get rescued either, since you're still really close by and could eaaaasily tunnel if someone hook bombs while you're looping 5 meters away.
The alternative scenario that you want to steer towards sees you getting looped somewhere that's -not- near the hook, which results in the exact same delay, only the person on the hook is getting rescued and healed and is going to be back on a gen soon.
Survivors staying just outside the range and forcing the killer to come after them? Oh no! You get free intel on their exact location! Imagine if they didn't and you had to move away from the hook and actually find them, instead of just taking them up on their offer to let you murder them!
In both cases, the 'system abuse' benefits the killer, because if the survivors -didn't- abuse the system, they'd be left with more resources and would complete their goals faster, with less risk.
The only thing that changes is that the person on the hook doesn't lose a hookstate for what legitimately would amount to -sandbagging-.
But, you know, finetuning the system is important, so how's about this? The effect scales down as gens are finished. At 5 gens, camping protection slows down hook progress by 90%. For every finished gen, the effect loses 15%. So at 4 gens left, it'd be 75%. At 3 gens, 60%. At 2 gens, 45%. At 1 gen, 30%. All gens done, 15%. (Or zero, I'd be fine with that too)
That would weaken it more when it's more likely to be abusive, and less when it is the killer's only hope of getting a kill.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2360300#Comment_2360300
Because to be completely blunt, there ARE times when camping is what you should be doing. Personally even during EGC, I won't camp because even then I just find it boring to try to secure one kill when I could run around and try to get more kills but if I were playing the "smart" way, I'd camp that survivor and force the rest to either abandon them or come to me.
It's the reason you can't really do things that would eliminate camping. There are times when it is the correct play and I have no idea how you would make the game be able to differentiate between someone playing smart with their camping and someone camping because they're a jerk.
Realistically though, what times are there where it's 'smart to camp', outside of the EGC? If there's a bunch of survivors around looking to hook bomb, let them. Most of the games I lose as survivor starts with someone unhooking within 10 seconds of a hook being put up.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
While some would consider it unsporting, camping/tunneling/slugging are all part of the game
As I've said in many other threads, as soon as someone can come up with an idea that doesn't immediately get abused by survivors and/or punish innocent killers, I'm game. But I have yet to hear a single suggestion that wouldn't be one of those two things (or both in many cases).
The problem with the stipulation of 'Doesn't get abused by survivors' is that it is translated by these forums as 'Must still allow camping'.
Which defeats the point of an anti-camping measure.
-
@Killing_Time said:
All she really needs is...
1. Using fountains DOES NOT FULLY HEAL SURVIVOR, IT JUST REMOVES INFECTION.
2. If all fountains safe corrupt, they REMAIN CORRUPT!
3. Gens with vomit on them causes regression.
4. Fully infected survivors can't repair gens.
That sounds terrible. 2 and 4 together would make it so easy for the plague to win. Infect all survivors, force them to cleanse at a fountain, infect them all again, eventually there'll be no fountains to cleanse at and all of the survivors are fully infected, making it literally impossible, for all of them, to work on gens. At that point, Plague can just AFK and hold the entire game hostage.
-
@DBDVulture said:
Why is it ok to for survivors to finish 2 or 3 generators with the first chase? This is 2/5 or 3/5 of their objective. Would it be fair for the killer to delete a survivor after the first chase? No. So why then is this allowed as part of the game?
"you didn't pressure enough" : There's nobody in the world who can chase 3 or 4 survivors at once unless the survivors allow it to happen. Most maps are too big to allow you to interrupt generator repair unless the survivors make a mistake.
Most pallets in the game are too safe and remove any skill the killer has in terms of a mindgame. This allows for the first chase to last way too long as the survivor to run to a strong loop - abuse it for 20-30 seconds and maybe use the pallet then go to a nearby loop and repeat.
Everything works at low levels because survivors hide when the heartbeat is nearby. They don't have gen rushing perks or really strong items+addons.Overall baby survivors hesitate and good players are fearless - and this is why the game is a farce at high levels. Fundamentally chases can go too long. If we even mention SWF the situation explodes and the killer has zero change of winning unless the survivors make several mistakes in a row or waste time.
You can finish the survivor objective in under 4 minutes without even really trying too hard. The only way that ever happens is if the survivors run into an AoE chainsaw or some other incredible blunder or meme nonsense. Watch whatever streamer you like and when they play a good team they will eventually get annihilated as killer. Sometimes SWF isn't even a factor. What is the average killer with a few hundred hours going to do when someone who has 4000-6000 hours has no chance of winning?
The problem is that the developers of this game balance low ranks and middle ranks and completely ignore the top 20% of play. This might be fair if killers had an option to just ignore the best 20% of the survivor player base - but isn't that absurd? Right now there is an event and killer numbers are skewed; immediately before the event there was a long queue for red rank play as survivor. At the end of the event things will return to that state.
How do we fix this: Make killer fun and fair to play at all ranks.
I. If we normalize chase time then the game can finally achieve balance. If we make a change that affects the top 15% of players and reduce their maximum skill potential it will have a very positive effect on killers wanting to keep playing killer. Imagine for example a very good survivor right now can loop for 40-60 seconds before being hit. If this happens the killer already lost the game. Is that fun? Should the killer just quit? This scenario is a waste of everyone's time. We need to have a return to the state of the game that after about 30 seconds the killer is going to hit you even if they are not making tight loops and you are the best looper in the world.
To make a long story short we need to have a return to super bloodlust. Kicking a pallet or being hit by one should not delete your bloodlust but rather feed it. An alternative would be to make 80% of pallets unsafe so they can be fairly midgamed (this is unlikely to happen because it would require tons of map reworks). Another unrealistic alternative would be to make generators take longer than they already do - which I think no one wants.
Or we could increase the survivor collision box to be the same size as the killer but leave their hitbox the same. If by any method we make the best players in the world only able to loop about 10-15 seconds longer than everyone else instead of an extra 40 seconds or more we can make the game fair for everyone. This would put an emphasis on team play rather than : I can win the game as an individual if I play really well. This type of change would make it more necessary to promptly save allies rather than let them sit around while you heal, repair generators for a moment or break a totem first.
II. There must also be balance between SWF players and solo queue players. There should be an equal opportunity or advantage to play SWF or solo. Right now the advantage is entirely in the hands of the SWF player.
When I play SWF I give at least 10 perks worth of information to my allies. I say when the killer stops chasing promptly. I call out active totem locations during a chase. I tell my friends when I see a non SWF player being chased. We call out one person to save instead of wasting time and have several people stop repairing. We call out generator repair % so that we know which gens to fix and which ones to skip. We always prevent a 3 gen and try to make the last generators impossible to patrol.
We can only do this because we can talk. We are rewarded for talking without any compensation to the killer or perhaps a 3rd/4th player who are in the game. The result of SWF is that swf ends up being like a cheat. I can run 4 action perks and still have the value of at least 10 information perks because my partners can talk to me. Once upon a time some killers found a way to run as many perks as they wanted - this was absolutely a cheat/exploit. Why is SWF just allowed to be better? (It's because they bring in the money)
SWF needs to be a choice that gives you the option to play better with communication but buffs the other players in the game accordingly or penalizes the SWF group to make the game fair.
- SWF could be made to have increasing penalties based on how many SWF parties are in the game. One of the most fair things I can imagine is to: Allow 2 man SWF parties to bring an item with at most one addon. Allow 3 man SWF parties to bring items with no addons and no map offerings. Allow 4 man SWF parties to bring no items or map offerings. This would almost instantly remove SWF bullying. Groups that want to use items with addons would likely need to sacrifice 2 perks (plunderer's instinct+ace in the hole) to have a chance for good items. Chill groups that just want to have fun would find the game almost exactly the same.
- People not part of the SWF team get free perks. Every player bound by SWF gives everyone else that many perks; a 3 man SWF would give the killer and solo survivor 3 perks each These would be picked ahead of time and only apply when the game started. Solo queue survivors would get information perks like Kindred, bond, empathy, alert, rookie spirit, etc. Killers would get any perk they desire. This option could potentially destroy "chill" swf parties but would balance the game well against SWF bully squads.
Why is it ok to for survivors to finish 2 or 3 generators with the first chase?
Because if it was any slower, camping as a strategy would go from 'possible 2K or better' to 'guaranteed 2K or better'.
I think there's a solution that would make killer feel more rewarding and slows down survivor gens in an overall fair way, and it's to do with the co-op gen speed penalty. It's a problem that, at the moment, the lowest risk way of tackling gens is also by far the most efficient one. Survivors splitting up to all tackle one gen is just the best tactic, no matter what.
If this were changed so that solo gen speeds were a good bit slower, but the co-op gen speed penalty was reversed into a co-op gen speed bonus, Survivors will have to make a choice: Play it safe and split up, but have gens pop more slowly, or play it risky and get them done faster. This would also make the killer's acts more rewarding, as putting a survivor up on the hook would not only take down that survivor, but also their co-op bonus, slowing the gens down more. And during the first chase, you either have a bunch of extra time because all survivors are split up, or a gen will pop, but only one or two instead of three.
However, none of this can be attempted because camping still exists, and would be massively buffed by any kind of attempt to slow down gens. So as long as camping exists, you'll have to deal with getting genrushed. The two problems are intrinsically linked and as long as people on the forums keep defending camping, you'll get three gens done during your first chase.
-
@Marcavecunc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2356332#Comment_2356332
Then just run We'll Make It?
Yes, overall, it's been proven that running Botany Knowledge is more efficient through the course of the match VS Autodidact. But guess what? I don't use Autodidact for overall efficiency from start to finish, I run it to get super fast heals later in the game.
And making it work too well would make it super broken. Just one skillcheck during an entire heal still shaves half the time. Yes, sometimes you don't get any skillchecks at all, or super late into the heal, but most of the time you get one early enough for it to matter.
My point is: we're not even close to making it run 'too well'. At five skillchecks, its overall performance is 10%, lower than Desperate Measures' -absolute worst performance-.
At its absolute best, it might, -might-, just barely overtake We'll Make It. So if that thing is not a problem, why would Autodidact be one?
And keep in mind that Autodidact:
1) Doesn't work on yourself
2) Doesn't work with medkits
3) Has no other bonuses.
In comparison to Botany, which does work with medkits, does work on yourself, and boosts medkit efficiency.
In comparison to Desperate Measures, which does work with medkits, which does work on yourself, and which also boosts unhook speed.
If the other healing support perks are balanced, then we can safely allow Autodidact to more consistently reach at least 5 stacks without any concern.
Autodidact has a -very- long way to go before it can be a problem. Giving it at least one skillcheck every thirty seconds (provided there's a healing opportunity) would really not push it over the edge.
What it would do is remove the frustration of the game arbitrarily deciding that the perk is just not going to work. Something that will be exacerbated if the skillcheck chance is increased, since that just makes it feel even more unfair when you clear a heal without a skillcheck.
-
@Dino7281 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2356342#Comment_2356342
That's why I would want to know what other survivors are using, so everyone can have role. Some will have BT, someone can have totem hunter perk, someone bring Unbreakable. It is easy to say that with SWF, but as soloq you need Kindred, Bond and then fill all those roles, because you just don't know.
Honestly, showing perks would help a ton of off-meta picks more than the band-aids, which makes it even better. It'll be super useful to declare Ace in the Hole, Inner Strength, For the People and more.
-
@Marcavecunc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2356200#Comment_2356200
So you're saying solo queue should play with 5 perks compared to SWF?
How is making kindred base kit for solo players a good idea? And now that you rendered kindred useless, what do you propose they make kindred do? Because, unless you forgot, they changed kindred to do exactly what you proposed, made you see what everyone is doing if someone else is on hook, on top of other players seeing each others' auras while you're on hook (as it used to be before)
That made the gap smaller.
That's also why they added the totem counter to small game, rather than make the totem counter base kit or for solo queue only (another suggestion solo players kept making "boohoo SWFs know how many totems got cleansed but as a solo player I don't" well now you have the tools to do it)
Use the perk, dont expect every perk in the game to become basekit for you just because you're solo. That's not how things work. And it would make things broken as heck.
In Pathfinder, there's a problem with certain feats being such obvious picks that they practically became mandatory. There's an alternative ruleset that refers to this as the 'feat tax'.
DBD has a similar issue. You say 'just pick Kindred and Bond' to try and fix solo queue. Okay, that's two slots down.
How do we deal with sluggers? Bring Unbreakable/Soul Guard. 3 slots down.
Camper? Borrowed Time. All slots filled.
Tunneller? DS.
Spirit? Iron Will.
The problem with this kind of approach is that the tax removes any kind of build variety. There's quite a few servicable/good perks that players can't pick up because there's so many mandatory picks that stuff up their roster. And that's just the gameplay value for survivors that's suffering.
Because when you attempt to balance the game, it's not really a good idea to have one gamemode where some survivors get Kindred and Bond for free, and some survivors don't. Because then how do you balance killers against these two?
So you're saying solo queue should play with 5 perks compared to SWF?
It's not a case of solo queue playing with 5 perks, it's a case of Swiffers playing with 6.5 perks, since they get Kindred, Bond and the totem counter for free.
And Kindred in particular should be baseline because any kind of buff for anti-camping measures should be STRONGLY encouraged, considering camping is the absolute worst aspect of the game and is most likely to kill it.
-
@Marcavecunc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2356305#Comment_2356305
No, but unless you revamp the entire perk, it's still a perk that gives you an instant 50% healing, bypassing any slowdown perks the killer might have. Yes, it's 100% RNG dependant. But if you make it less dependant on that, they'd need to make it less effective as well.
No, they don't. Autodidact, as is, slows down your healing dramatically, on average. At 4 skillchecks, it has still slowed you down more than it has helped you. Improving its average output would simply make it functional.
And keep in mind that it is in direct competition with three other healing support perks, one of which grants roughly the same bonus, with -zero- RNG reliance and almost no build-up.
Because in the instance you mentioned of Jill getting plucked off the hook and healed to full in 3 seconds, guess what'd happen if the unhooker was running We'll Make It instead? And that one has -no- set-up prior to the unhook.
-
@Marcavecunc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2356289#Comment_2356289
Only problem I have with that is.. unhook a Jill (or someone with her 50% heal), touch them for 3 seconds, action button, insta-heal
Or squads that all have autodidact.. double heal someone within seconds (assuming they're both at 5 stacks)
Maybe have autodidact do like the needle and thread medkit add-on
- Moderately increases Healing Skill Check Trigger odds.
Or maybe slightly.. wouldnt want skillchecks to happen *too often* either, it would make the perk a bit broken
The situations you describe are unbelievably niche and hardcore built for. I think we can afford letting that slide for a perk that is incredibly helpful to the killer in almost all other situations.
Moderately increases Healing Skill Check Trigger odds.
That doesn't fix the problem of Autodidact's excessive RNG dependence in the slightest.
-
In the vast majority of matches, Autodidact is a very fun perk, but it helps the killer more than it helps the survivors.
What I'd suggest for an Autodidact buff: When healing a survivor without a medkit for at least three seconds, press the active ability button to set skill check chance to 100% for one second. 30 second cooldown.
This guarantees at least one skill check every 30 seconds.
-
@FFirebrandd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2353671#Comment_2353671
It isn't completely solved by NOED since it is somewhat inconsistent. However it is at least helping more than any other perk in the base set. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to reworking NOED after a lot of the current stinkers got buffed or reworked. Iron Grasp, Unrelenting, Distressing, Insidious, and Monstrous Shrine all desperately need tune ups and should get changed before NOED.
Also you are selling the basic survivor perks very very short. Kindred is amazing, We'll Make It and Spine Chill are very good, Resilience Small Game and Deja Vu are all good. What's more is that their base set has some crazy good synergy with itself. Kindred is the best perk in the game for slipping past the Killer and getting safe unhooks while We'll Make It rewards you with an 8 second heal for pulling it off. Then... have you heard of Vault Build? Spine Chill + Resilience gives you 19% faster vaults while injured and the killer is looking at you. That can make survivors much more difficult to catch.
Iron Grasp is perfectly fine though, and I think Distressing is undervalued, especially on small maps where it can almost remove terror radius as a survivor tool for intel. I once played against an M&A, Distressing Doctor and his TR pretty much covered the entirety of Hawkins'.
The rest definitely need improvements, and I'd want Monstrous Shrine to be reworked most of all. Preferably to uncouple it from the basement because the basement itself purely exists to make camping and tunnelling easier, which is a big enough problem.
-
I really like the blood vial idea so I can reward killers that don't camp, slug or tunnel.
-
I would absolutely support this change. Giving Vigil synergy with the Broken perks is effectively a micro-buff to those perks as well, and it would be very fun to see those come into play more often. Especially For the People, which has fantastic playmaking potential.
It could also open the door for expanding the 'broken' perks as a category, much like we have Exhausted perks as a set category.
-
I would assume Boon totems would be created as a replacement for cleansing.
-
Want to clarify that hitboxes are not fine and it is possible for the hitboxes to phase through solid objects. Stand close enough to a thin wall and a Huntress can hit you through it. Saw this happen with a Yui that was behind a standing pallet as she got hit, and she'd been there for more than a second, so it wasn't latency. Killer also confirmed that they knew the hatchet hitbox would phase through the pallet to hit her.
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2353685#Comment_2353685
What do you mean bad unhooks? It's a bad unhook if you go down because you unhooked, not because the servers said you were grabbed even though you were standing straight up. Killers really do just want janky server unhook mechanics to stay.
It's a bad unhook if you try to pull someone off the hook within 10 meters of the killer, because you make it a ton easier to get whoever you unhook killed.
And no, Borrowed Time won't fix it. That's an extra hit and speed burst, but unless they have chase-breaker perks like Quick & Quiet, Lucky Break, Dance With Me or Deception, they're just going to get a single loop out and then get hooked again so the killer gets a quick hook state on an already hooked survivor.
If you hook-bomb me as survivor, I will hate your guts. If I catch you hook-bombing when I'm playing killer, I will tunnel you out of the game as punishment.
Don't screw over your teammates. The only time a hook-bomb is acceptable is in EGC.
-
@FFirebrandd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2352063#Comment_2352063
If you don't include teachable perks... It is pretty close. There's like... 4-5 decent perks in the general perk pool. NOED, Sloppy, Whispers, Bitter Murmer and maybe Spies from the Shadows.
Honestly the weakness of the perks available to newer killers is, in my opinion, the biggest issue with the game right now. I am almost certain that that alone is what is causing the absolute lack of Killers in the middle ranks. Either killer players push through the painful difficulty spike where Survivors have great perks and they don't and get very good or they quit with almost nothing in between.
That might be a problem, but I do think that it isn't solved by NOED, and we'd be better off reworking NOED and turning some of the communal perks into better picks.
Though to be fair, the survivor communal pool is pretty terrible too, outside of Spine Chill.
-
@Product said:
Noed should only activate when the exit gates are opened
That would render it entirely useless, as survivors tend to only open the gates the moment they get out.
@FFirebrandd said:
No.
First. Power wise, NOED is fine. It isn't even one of the most powerful Killer perks. It's good... and doesn't telegraph well, but it doesn't need much (if any) of a nerf.
Second. NOED is fulfilling a very very important job right now. Have you ever looked at the set of perks available to new Killers? Like... really looked at them? It is literally Sloppy Butcher, NOED, and a handful of decent tracking perks. That's literally it. Everything else is bad. NOED is basically the only good perk available to new Killers. The stereotype that bad killers run NOED is partially true because inexperienced killers have literally nothing else. NOED cannot and should not be nerfed until some of the basic killer set gets brought up out of the gutter.
Third. If you don't like NOED, you have plenty of options to help deal with it. Small Game, Detective's Hunch, and Counterforce all help you find totems while Inner Strength give you additional rewards for breaking them. Also Maps exist. If you hate it so much... bring the counters. Honestly I do that half the time as Survivor because Ruin is pretty common. Even if you don't like the counters... here's an idea. Watch for totems and check them when the last gen pops.
I really don't think NOED is the only good perk for starting killers. I mean, you already say it yourself: there's a handful of other decent perks in the communal pool. And killers all bring their own perks to the table as well, of course, so you ARE starting with Nurse's Calling, Enduring, Thanatophobia, Tinkerer, Agitation, Huntress' Lullaby (strong when you start out) and more.
Not to mention that on lower levels, killers have an easier time than survivors, so them having a slower start in perks is a good thing to balance new killers vs new survivors.
Overall, NOED is just poorly designed, serving as a crutch for killers and teaching survivors not to do totems. It needs a redesign.
-
It should just guarantee at least one cake per web, really.
-
@Bran said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2349518#Comment_2349518
do you defend counterforce as being balanced?
To clarify, as someone who was excited for this perk for its cleansing speed: Counterforce is a bad totem-hunting perk.
For starters, it has the trickiest trigger condition: you need to find a totem without its help and cleanse it. This also somewhat defeats the perk's own purpose, since it can't locate the first totem in the chain.
Secondly, it's dependent on keeping the chain going. If you head up to totem number two and find that it's already cleansed, the perk turns useless again.
Third, it forces the least efficient pathing, as it only shows the totem that's the farthest from you. If you try to maintain this daisy-chain of totems, you'll end up spending as much time as possible cleansing them. Not to mention that bouncing up and down the map like this is more likely to get you caught.
Fourth, it is the least effective intel it can give. Unless you have direct LoS on whatever map cell the totem is in, that aura won't tell you enough, as it is extremely difficult to accurately gauge distance. This also occurs on Det-Hunch, sometimes you're too far away and can't tell which of multiple neighbouring cells holds the totem. Difference is that Det-Hunch is focused on showing you nearby totems, instead of ones as far away as possible.
So, all in all, Counterforce is the worst totem-buster perk in the game, and by quite a huge margin. The 20% cleanse speed increase is really its only saving grace, and in my opinion, it could stand to be buffed.
-
The only positive thing about this suggestion is that it would -technically- fix camping.
-
I like the look of them, but the big issue is that they occupy the head cosmetic slot. I'd use the crown on Felix, but can't give up Autumn Beard, really.
-
@Dehitay said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2342191#Comment_2342191
Oh, I forgot about No Way Out. But even with it, I don't see the killer being able to get more than 4 hits in normal circumstances before the switch is unblocked. Hell, it'll probly still be a struggle to get more than 2. Especially if you're using NOED which just lowers the amount of hits you can get. To be honest, Deerstalker or Nurse's would be more powerful than NOED in that build if you're going to focus on getting hits instead of getting your safety hook.
I think you shouldn't really care about NOED reducing the number of hits since you'll be killing the survivors.
Anyway, I disagree with this idea. Post 5 gens should be the last stand and I think it's fair if the survivors earn themselves a bit more leeway. I don't get this idea that killers need to become more powerful for letting survivors clear their objective.
-
@BenihimeWrath said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2343269#Comment_2343269
I think your math might be mistaken. It takes 80 seconds for a generator to be completed solo from 0 to 100%. If 3 people are on 3 different generators, that means it takes 80 seconds to pop 3 generators. So I'm not sure where you are getting 3 minutes, because 80 seconds is not even a single minute and a half.
Because there's five gens. First three pop at 80 seconds, then there's three people to do two more gens. They split up so one gen gets done in about 45 seconds while the other gen is soloed for another 80 seconds.
That's 160 seconds for all five gens, but that does not account for the time taken to locate and move to these gens. Adding 20 seconds for that purpose is very generous as it will likely take longer.
That puts the total over 180 seconds, which is three minutes.
-
@VonCrow said:
Survivors don't care that much about bloodpoints. They prefer to do a gen rush and get 10k per game instead of just trying to enjoy the game and points for everyone. For them, "a win" is everything.
Right now the best thing you can do is run a strong perk regression build. Sadly I don't have that with all killers so some killers I'm not able to play with them.
Survivors actually have to win, since that's a very big chunk of their points. Killers do not have to win, they can hit close to max by 2-hooking everyone and getting zero kills.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2343194#Comment_2343194
You don't 'address camping' that's a choice the killers can make. Maybe when you address flashlight saves, bodyblocking, pallet stuns, DS...
Best solution to camping, is killer perks that reward not-camping. BBQ, Devour, Furtive Chase (if that was useful). Those kinds of mechanics, tied to other effects, like gen defence, would almost certainly reduce camping for the killers that don't want to camp (but feel it's necessary because of the genrush). The killers that want to camp, will camp regardless, no matter how they're 'punished' for it.
The killers that want to camp, will camp regardless, no matter how they're 'punished' for it.
See, that's where I disagree. Because I think camping becomes a lot less attractive if it is guaranteed to not net more than a 1K. As it stands though, a 2K is pretty likely, and that's a decent score.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2343167#Comment_2343167
That's why killers run slowdown perks.
The problem is there's a fine line between gens going too fast and too slow, because as the game progresses, and gens get done, and survivors get eliminated, the killer snowballs.
Make gens slower to slow down the start of the game, and you could make it virtually impossible for survivors to salvage a 3-gen situation at the end of the game.
Best solution would be addition objectives for survivors to do at the start of the game.
Again, not without addressing camping first.
-
@StormLord07 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2343118#Comment_2343118
How do you slow down gens when you chase a survivor? again the problem is that 3 gens (minimum) pop up during an average time of chase ~90 seconds
And that's exactly as it should be considering there's killers out there that make sure that that survivor never gets another chase. As long as camping is an option, gens can't be slowed down.
-
@StormLord07 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2343060#Comment_2343060
Are you serious. Read the description of the perk
15% co-op penalty also stacks though, so three survivors working on the same gen would incur a 45% penalty, reset to 0% with Prove Thyself.
-
@StormLord07 said:
Also please tell me what's slugging?
Putting survivors in the dying state without picking them up and putting them on the hook, and instead going for other survivors. If you get all four survivors downed at the same time, only Soul Guard and Unbreakable can prevent a 4K.
I just got spawned in on Grim Pantry, in the large building's undercroft, and before I could reach the exit, I had a Bubba coming in and downing me, then he spent the full two hookstates staring me down. Guy also had NOED, so he got a 4K. This is why people have to genrush.
We can slow gens down when camping is no longer a thing.
-
@latinfla4 said:
...then you can nerf camping and tunneling since a second objective for survivors seems off the table🤑
NOED baseline is an option, which would still require a ton of work to do. For starters, the totem counter would need to be basekit on survivors, and we'd need to see more of a gradation of NOED levels based on how many totems weren't finished, because survivors shouldn't be screwed over by a nasty godspawn or proxy camp. But overall, I quite like the idea of totems becoming a more pressing matter for survivors. Just not in its current form, where it is doing the exact opposite and basically urges survivors not to do totems.
Corrupt intervention baseline seems... Impractical? And you need to nerf camping simultaneous with any direct or indirect gen speed nerfing, otherwise you're buffing camping.
EDIT: Another option for survivor slow-down is to greatly reduce solo gen speeds, but greatly increase co-op gen speeds. This would make it easier for the killer to pressure effectively, and increases the amount of time survivors lose when one of them is on the hook, making gameplay more rewarding for the killer.
Again though, not without a harsh camping nerf.
-
D/C penalties definitely need to come back, but I'm a bit on the fence about not instantly opening hatch on disconnect, since I -hate- the anti-hatch slug with a burning passion.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2338742#Comment_2338742
I love how whenever something happens people don't like it immidiately goes "Yeah but the code could be bugged" like good job that isn't a counter argument.
Also, like I've said, they haven't communicated if pre-collected crowns already count or not. So
I'm pretty sure they've communicated that of the 2.5 million crowns collected, only 500K were counted for the cosmetic progression track.
Otherwise we'd have the head cosmetics already. (And probably the rest of the set, too)
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2337828#Comment_2337828
That's been confirmed as false on Twitter in literally the 1st comment
That's assuming DBD code is working as intended, which, given the game's history, is about a 50/50 chance.
Also, it would be phenomenally bad design to run it that way.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2338517#Comment_2338517
Keys are fine, it's the hatch that's the issue. See above.
No hatch when there's still gens to be repaired please.
In the situation you describe, the hatch only functions as an extension of keys. So yes, your issue is with keys, not the hatch.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2338178#Comment_2338178
I didn't come to the forums with a solution to propose. I do not work for BHVR--I'm not going to do their job for them. I see a problem, I spoke up about it. ...besides, BHVR doesn't even accept design ideas this community gives them in the first place.
How do you see no problem with survivors abandoning their objective to play hide-n-seek? How do you see no problem with survivors leaving each other high and dry, when they are intended to work together to escape? How do you see no problem with a mechanic that creates stand-offs while praising it for removing stand-offs? How do you see no problem with a mechanic that removes one problem and replaces it with a slightly less shittier one?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2338179#Comment_2338179
I'm sorry, I don't recall filing a complaint about hatch as Killer. Perhaps you meant to place this comment on another thread?
How do you see no problem with survivors abandoning their objective to play hide-n-seek?
Because the alternative is having survivors abandon their objective to play hide-n-seek with the express intent to make the other person quit.
This is why you're being asked to come up with a solution: If you do try to come up with one, you realise that, outside of keys, the hatch is doing a pretty good job of fixing the problem. Any alternative would likely suffer the same problems, if not worse.
-
@Pr0p3r9 said:
I think that there are two things that need to be done for NOED to be a functional perk. As @Firellius has said, NOED currently fails as a timewaster perk because it incentivizes noting and saving totems rather than actually cleansing them. This is the strat as a consequence of several other problems: 1) other survivors can't be counted on to do totems; 2) doing four totems often leaves the final totem as the one that was spawned as the most well-hidden, causing NOED to be immortal barring a survivor grid searching the trial with Small Game; and 3) NOED isn't actually dangerous enough to justify the time wasted cleansing totems because it's only typically able to secure one additional down.
The problem of issue 1 is interestingly self-reinforcing. Survivors can't be trusted to do totems, and the reason why survivors can't be trusted to do their fair of totems is because they don't trust you to do your fair share of totems. So, you won't do totems because you should either do all of the totems or none of them, and if the other survivors won't help you do all of them, then you should do none of them.
The answer to this is to introduce communication and accountability among the team. A base kit numerical HUD counter of totems that remain standing in the trial. Survivors that do cleanse totems now know that they aren't wasting their time in the trial, and survivors that haven't cleansed one yet both know that it won't be wasted effort if they do, and they also feel a mild peer pressure if they continue to fail to do totems. This solution also has the added benefit of reducing the gap between solo and swf play.
2 is a much less straightforward problem to solve, but I think I've got an idea. Essentially, something needs to happen to make it so that the last one (or even two) totems standing in the map cannot be in any hypothetical location that a totem could be. There's simply too much space for survivors to grid search the entire trial if there's one god-totem spawn.
One possibility is to make the dull totem cleanse snap a global sound effect, and cause a broken totem's aura to be visible to all survivors for seven seconds. This means that a group of solo survivors are able to see the location of all completed totems and exclude nearby areas from any future totem search. This is also something that swfs can do base kit, by simply communicating where a totem was broken, so it's not taking anything from killers that swf doesn't already. For solos, survivors with small game only have to search a limited area, and survivors with Detective's Hunch can try to do the gen closest to the uncleansed zone, assuming this broken aura hint wasn't enough to give it away already. This also reduces the gap between solo and swf play. Depending on playtesting, this aura may or may not be affected by blindness. On one hand, Third Seal needs some love. On the other... well, see item 3.
I'm actually a killer main myself, so naturally item 3 is where I get to have fun. The solution to NOED not actually being strong enough to justify the time sink is self-apparent: give NOED a phat, gargantuan, dummy T H I C C buff. There's half a dozen ways you can do this; it's an area where the devs could really exercise their creativity. I sleep on a 4% haste, I wake on a 15% haste status effect. Miss me with that exposed on basic attacks--I want that exposed on all attacks, from all damage sources, all the time--Endurance has no power here. No room for Infectious Fright, 'cuz my bae, my honey NOED gives aura reading within 16 meters of the killer, and within 8 meters of any gate switch. I should be spending more time carrying survivors to hook than I should in downing them once in chase. I want NOED to be the kind of oppressive that survivors currently think it is.
More seriously, none of these proposed changes are necessarily the right change, but the important part is that there is a buff, and that the buff is massive. All else is specifics that I would lead to the dev team, or that I would be willing to argue separately, with the understanding that any given disagreement over the manner of the buff bears no relevance to the underlying concept that a large buff to NOED corrects the power imbalances caused by the alterations for items 1 and 2.
Survivors should get their number counter of totems, and auras to tell them where all the cleansed totems have been, all on top of any of the 3 locator perks; and if they still chose not to cleanse totems against a killer that has it, then NOED should body them for their mistake. Because this will basically declare open season on all totems, certain other hex perks may need to be mildly buffed to retain their strength.
There's only one caveat to this scheme, which is that low-rank players will struggle to understand how to execute this. I haven't played the new tutorials yet, because I'm saving the bp for the next killer that I take a shine to, but I think a quick NOED/totem tutorial for survivor would be best. Something like starting it with the survivor at a high vantage point with all totems highlighted as they spawn with a map. Give a brief explanation of maps, Small Game, and the totem number counter. Have them drop from the vantage point to a gen with an active Hex: Huntress's Lullaby (since that's the only gen-affecting free hex perk), then have 3 bots do 3 other dulls as the player finishes, with an instruction to note the location of cleansed dull totems.
Then instruct the player to search for the final dull using the map and small game. Maybe when they get started on cleansing it, a bot finishes an example gen and another survivor bot instantly goes down to the NOED, to emphasize its importance. This also can be used as a learning opportunity to explain what Exposed does. I know that a lot of first-time players think exposed means that their aura is revealed or similar. The tutorial ends when they cleanse the NOED.
This really shouldn't take too long. A minute to make pop-ups about maps, Small Game, and NOED. 14 seconds to cleanse, then touch the almost completed gen. I'd say that the survivor should be put on rails leading them to the last dull/NOED, using the Bloodwarden bars that the tutorial uses. 10 or 15 seconds of travel later, they cleanse another totem, then end scene.
It sounds like a lot to explain to a new player, but you don't actually have to explain the complex theory behind it. They just need to know to do totems, that totems have assigned areas that won't overlap with each other, and that NOED activating is very bad. New players never really play the game correctly anyway, part of being new is making mistakes, and eventually they will become better and understand how to interact with the totem system.
The gap between solos and swfs is narrowed, all Hex totems are more interactive, cleansing totems in general is easier and now has a fun, zoning puzzle element to it, the method of handling NOED is more explained and intuitive for new players, and NOED remains a strong perk that does an even better job of delivering on heights of the killer power fantasy. Everyone's happy.
This doesn't quite tackle the '4 out of 5 = 0' problem, but I may have an idea for that, as it can tie in to the 'thicc buff'...
HEX: NOED
Once the fifth generator is completed, all remaining dull totems are converted into hex totems. This perk gains a token for every remaining hex totem, and loses a token for every hex that gets cleansed. For each token, the killer gains 3% haste and additional, cumulative benefits.
1 token: The entity blocks a hook when a survivor is put on it, disallowing rescues.
2 tokens: All survivors are exposed.
3 tokens: The killer can break pallets and walls with a basic attack, and any window that a survivor vaults becomes blocked indefinitely.
4 tokens: The killer sees the auras of survivors within 30 meters.
5 tokens: When a survivor enters the downed state, they are immediately sacrificed.
That way, it is weaker but still impactful at just one totem left. It is stronger at two totems left, and it is WAY stronger at 3 or more.
Then maybe we can also ditch keys and rework them into aura reading items with a special effect that makes them ping whenever a totem is within X meters, so that they have a function without demanding an add-on. Just so we have a green item to do soft totem hunting.