Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Phasmamain said:
Sprint burst is still better IMO since it can end the chase before it even starts
That's good in the early ranges, but I started recognising this as a bit of an issue, since back when I was using it, everyone else would be on death hook and I'd still be at zero chases.
-
That is the weirdest perk grid...
Hope listed as a very powerful perk, Fixated considered weak, Autodidact is considered 'strong', Repressed Alliance is considered -at all-, WGLF considered almost as strong as We'll Make It, Desperate Measures considered stronger than Botany, Appraisal (Almost no item is worth searching a chest for, it takes too much time)...
Considering Babysitter extremely reliable. Maybe for the aura reading, but half its effect demands a very specific scenario.
But I have to say that the most laughable thing is Diversion listed as 'extremely powerful and extremely reliable'. It is such a tragically bad perk that I honestly thought it was bugged for the longest time, since no killer seems to react to it. It is excessively situational and not actually useful.
Outside of the big meta 4 (Dead Hard, Unbreakable, Borrowed Time, Decisive Strike), there's a handful of perks that can be considered 'solid' at best.
Pretty much everything else is either unbelievably conditional (Must get 5+ skill checks while healing for Autodidact to have a positive value, must get a safe unhook off someone else first for Deliverance, killer has to walk under pallet for Power Struggle, etc.) or utterly pointless in terms of output value (Technician, Visionary, Deja Vu). And then there's perks that can be counterplayed extremely easily, like Tenacity or WGLF.
Survivors just have way too many duds. Of the last three survivors to be added, none of them have any perks that have any kind of relevance. Smash Hit is too unreliable, Fast Track only activates under the worst conditions and doesn't give nearly as much as it should to offset that. Elodie had nothing of value, Felix certainly had nothing of value. (Outside of his damn good looks)
Meanwhile, on killers, Blight had Undying, which became somewhat meta, and Trickster brought in Starstruck, which has made some killers way stronger.
-
I'd rather have Main Event give bouncy blades for the full duration, and remove the control screw. Just on-demand bouncy blades.
-
That screenshot in the opening post is so painful...
3x Unbreakable in case of sluggers
3x Borrowed Time in case of campers
4x Decisive Strike in case of tunnellers
So much damage to gameplay...
-
A hatch escape is never a 'free' escape. Survivors need to clear enough gens to spawn it, or the killer needs to have already won, or some combination of the two.
I get that it's frustrating (though lol at the rage over getting a 3k instead of 4k) but people need to stop rehashing this meme.
-
@psionic said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2192924#Comment_2192924
If Spirit has no counterplay, than she is stronger than Nurse, right?
Not by definition.
Imagine a killer that moves at 100%, whose power is simply 'put a random survivor in the dying state. 300 second cooldown.'
That killer would have no real counterplay, but they'd be absolutely worthless.
So no, not having counterplay does not make a killer strong by default.
-
It's also about how fun they feel to play against. Nurse has very tangible counterplay and that counterplay is as rewarding as the killer's own plays. If you throw off a nurse, you win about six seconds or more of extra chase time, with the very real possibility of escaping completely.
If you throw off a phasing Spirit, nothing happens. You're still in a chase and you're just as close to getting downed as you were before you outplayed her, if not closer.
Even Bubba suffers more from an outplay than Spirit does, which makes her unbelievably frustrating to play against.
-
I want Felix to get something a bit more show-off-ish. David's going to get an open shirt beach skin, but I wish it'd go to Felix, since David already has a shirtless skin.
-
@TGB said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2193802#Comment_2193802
Why would I leave the vicinity of my hooked victim when BBQ reveals zero auras 40m+ away from me, and I can visibly see, with my eyeballs, 2 Survs right near me?
Again... that's called sandbagging. Intentionally throwing. Deliberately aiming to lose. Etc.
You Survivors are SO entitled, that you LITERALLY believe that a Killer SHOULD RUN AWAY FROM YOU so that YOU can do WHATEVER YOU WANT.
LMAO!
It's absolutely wild.
It's not the survivors that are entitled in this situation, it's you. The survivors are risking absolutely everything for an unhook, and you are coming here to say 'they shouldn't be allowed to do that'.
You have visual on two targets? Perfect. Chase one and down him as fast as you can to make them trade hooks. Or psych them out and intercept the rescuer once they commit. Or just injure them to slow them down and set up the snowball.
If the survivors are putting all their effort into a save, you aren't automatically entitled to keep that hook. I hate to break it to you, but survivors can play -against- you.
-
@SkeletalElite said:
BT is intentionally a deterrent to discourage camping even when not in play because camping is not a fun play style
I mean, the 'not in play' part doesn't work on a camper, since they can just down the unhooker while they're unhooking and then go for the unhooked. If they have BT, it's a hook trade. If they don't, free second kill.
But yeah, the only issue I have with BT is the bodyblocking since I hate going for a freshly unhooked target if there's any other option.
-
@NightmareKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2190527#Comment_2190527
Eh, I think people who are not able to win fair and square and need a mechanic that rewards them because of luck instead of skill are the ones who shouldn't be playing DbD, or any game for the matter.
You're going to be hard-pressed to make any argument about fairness when it's one versus a team. It's not very fair either when your teammates screw you over and force you to just give up, surrendering a free kill to a player that, likewise, didn't win 'fair and square'.
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2190527#Comment_2190527
No, hatch has ruined DBD. Like I said, in any other game where it's 1 side vs another and a random thing appears on the map that gives the other side a free win for you playing well, it's a joke. The game would be laughed out of the whole gaming market, and that's a fact.
Funny you should say that, since Dead by Daylight is the only asymmetrical PvP game that DIDN'T get laughed off the market.
If you can't be happy with a 3K, DBD is never going to make you happy.
-
@NightmareKiller said:
It's even funnier when BOTH ruin and undying get cleansed and at the same time. Funny how they keep adding perks to help survivors find totems.
- I-if you don't want 4 gens to pop at once when the game starts use perks to slow down the game!!!!!
- Oh, oopsie didoopsie haha you picked ruin, you picked an RNG perk so enjoy playing with 3 perks now, not my problem!!
I just proceed to camp and tunnel when they break my hex, Haunted Grounds shouldn't even be a thing, every survivor who destroys an hex perk should become immediatly exposed for the next 60 seconds. Survivors get perks that stun the killer, ruin his plays and save them from mistakes but killers can't even have a match with 4 perks.
When exactly was the last time they added a totem hunting perk? Because I think Detective's Hunch was added a long time ago, and I suspect Small Game preceded it.
-
@Predated said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2161436#Comment_2161436
I mean, to get regular Tombstone, you need to get a full survivor worth of stalk more, while being a 109% killer. Sure, you could theoretically kill all 4 survivors in one go, but Survivors can finish 4 gens in that same time.
Essentially, Tombstone Myers is trading hooks for instakilling and movementspeed reduction. Essentially, you become an even worse version of Myers, for the sake of killing people by hand.
Tombstone piece Myers, however, has little to no negative consequences. It's able to kill every single person in the match if you gather your stalk wisely.
Tombstone Piece needs a rework. Judith's Tombstone is fine.
Doesn't Judith's make Myers a 106%, not a 109%?
-
@danielmaster87 said:
Keys are a symptom of the real problem: hatch. It's a get out of jail free card for survivors that would be made a laughing stock in any other game.
I can understand keys being considered a problem, but if you have an issue with the hatch itself, you should not be playing DBD, it's not good for you.
-
@miketheratguy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2190137#Comment_2190137
I LOVE letting players escape. Not all of them, not always, but I do it frequently. I get my points from the pressure, the attacking, the chasing, the hooking, etc. Yes, getting the actual kills would get me MORE points, but I have a lot of fun just giving survivors freebies. Nodding at them at the exit gate and seeing them nod back means more to me than a sacrifice does.
So many people play this game to win at all costs. I just want to have fun.
I always try to play killer as relaxed as possible. I'll take the hooks I can get, I don't camp, I anti-tunnel, and I don't do anti-hatch slugging. The only killer that I really get frustrated on with this is Trickster, but that's because while I do like playing him, he is absolutely terrible.
-
I think this is a much bigger issue than people realise. The amount of swing between 'survivors spawn scattered, far from killer' and 'survivors spawn together, in front of killer' is probably multiple minutes.
It's super frustrating as killer to go for a gen on the other side of the map and it's done before you can get to it, it's super frustrating as survivor to take two steps and be in line of sight of the killer.
Things need fixin'.
-
I don't see why. I can't really think of any kind of category that makes for any OP builds, so restricting build variability like this seems like a really draconic measure for something that's likely not even a problem.
Weird builds can be fun and shouldn't be discouraged.
-
Competitive games always bring out the worst in people. The ranking system is probably doing more harm than good.
-
@MigrantTheGreat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2179131#Comment_2179131
She does have a counterplay. Problem is, the survivor community is use to holding Shift + W and dropping a pallet, that they don't wanna use their brain to think outside the box.
Upset that Stridor makes her easier and nullifies IW? Yin cannot exist without Ysng, and they are capable of things that the other is not.
The forum is full of people claiming there's counterplay to anything, and the majority refuse to elucidate.
You can't just say 'there's counterplay', you have to say what it is.
-
The corn maps seem to have less everything. They're mostly giant dead zones.
-
@Yords said:
Sounds like a case of git gud, the doctor is fine and needs buffs if anything.
He's one of the best performing killers so he definitely doesn't need buffs.
What he does need is a little fix so survivors know exactly how long they're stunned when getting shocked. The scream animation lasts about a second, but the stun lasts around three, leading to a ton of situations where I'm mashing my face into a window without vaulting it. That needs to be clarified better.
-
The idea I had for a general anti-slugging rule was that survivors can -always- pick themselves up, but only by fully recovering, then reaching a gen, and performing a very long 'back on your feet' animation. Say, fifteen seconds long.
-
@DwightFairfield said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2185335#Comment_2185335
it could just be a flat increase to great skill check progression, like the medkit sponge. Incentivize going for great skill checks and it doesn't really change much about the perk overall.
Sure its an incredible buff, but the RNG of getting skillchecks is a red flag. Besides, we need something new in the meta to fresh up the game.
That wouldn't be the same thing, though. Autodidact is an absolutely terrible perk that's very likely to hinder more than help. If you get four skillchecks, for example, you've gotten a total of -10%.
To put it simply, it's the reverse of this:
@blue4zion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2185272#Comment_2185272
Auto is amazing, unless you get get bad skill check rng
It's not 'amazing unless you get bad RNG', it's awful unless you get good RNG.
It's a really fun and really bad perk. In terms of effectiveness, I think We'll Make It is about as powerful as full-stack Autodidact. Botany probably beats the perk overall.
What Autodidact could use is the guarantee of a token per heal, so I'd suggest: 'When healing a survivor without a medkit for three seconds, press the active ability button to set skill check chance to 100% for one second. 30 second cooldown.'
-
@glitchboi said:
I 100% agree with this, meta is necessary for game balance.
Eh, meta isn't technically necessary for game balance, but it does tell us a ton about it. The more rusted in a meta is, the more likely there's an underlying issue that needs to be addressed.
It doesn't help when certain playstyles that are really bad for gameplay just get hit with 'just use X counter perk, bruh', quickly followed up with 'Why are all survivors running X?'.
-
@immortalls96 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2183656#Comment_2183656
Maybe but not that many I think
I think it comes down to the same value in the end. Max struggle was 899 points, so if it was 100 points per skillcheck, it'd be at nine skillchecks. Not sure how many usually come up for a full struggle phase, though. Might be more.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2182888#Comment_2182888
So you're saying, since you don't like camping, you should get a free escape? 5 out of 5 gens?
You don't seem to understand that Killers camp because it works. Survivors leave gens to crouch near the hook, then snivel and whine that it's 'so unfair that the killer never left!'
What you are arguing in favor of is taking away one of the only ways Killers can pressure gens. And you don't seem to get that it's the Survivor's fault that it works.
But you don't care that the Killer is a player, too, huh? He played in a way you find 'unfair' and thus he should be punished. Because your need to win should trump his. Because your 'fun' should matter more than his ability to win. So tie his hands. Punish him. Make it harder to win as a Killer by removing camping.
Because you don't like camping. So the Killer should be screwed because a Survivor is unhappy that camping made them lose again.
Instead of doing gens, you complain that you should get a free escape because the Killer played in a way you, personally, don't like.
Never mind that every single 'fix' to camping is something Survivors can exploit for easy unhooks. That's fine, because 'camping is unfun' so Killers should be punished for playing 'unfun'.
I mean, killing is their objective, but they should only kill in a way Survivors, the opponents, approve of. Right?
No camping, no slugging, no tunneling.
Get all 12 hooks! Spread out those hits! Make sure you pick people up, even if you know a Meg is 3 feet away with a flashlight! Anything else is 'unfun' for the Survivors!
And Survivors matter first! So hurry up and add abuseable punishments! Slap Killers in the face when they try to win! They don't get to pressure gens! Nothing is a Survivors fault!
Camping only works because Survivors leave gens? Killers fault!
Tunneling makes sense because going after wounded prey is faster? No! It's 'unfun'!
Slugging pressures Survivors to save their friends, but punishes Killers because there's no progression of hook states? Bah! Survivors should automatically get up, to counter it!
If you can't handle that the other side tries their hardest to win by any legitimate tactics necessary, then that's a YOU problem, not a game problem.
That would be like whining that you die first in CS:GO and the programmers should change the game so you can play longer. because you find dying first 'unfun'.
Or you want snipers removed because you find it 'unfun' that someone can shoot you across the map before you see them.
Also; if gens speeds were changed, camping would be less viable because it's boring for the Killer as well. But it's one of the only ways to slow down gen speeds. So don't give me bunk about how gen speeds can't be slowed because of camping.
Camping exists because gens speeds are too fast.
Also; if gens speeds were changed, camping would be less viable because it's boring for the Killer as well. But it's one of the only ways to slow down gen speeds. So don't give me bunk about how gen speeds can't be slowed because of camping.
That has literally nothing to do with viability. And I'm not sure how you can possibly come to the conclusion that making it easier for killers to get more than 2 kills when camping could make camping -less- viable.
But I feel like you're reaching some kind of blood pressure limit, so I'll just let you simmer. It's not like there's gonna be any reasonable discussion from you, anyway.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2182717#Comment_2182717
Your 'sketch' is literally how the Killer takes pressure off of gens. Is it his fault you left gens to check on the hooked Survivor?
Why should he be punished? The fact that you want the Killer punished or moved because you think you deserve the unhook because you 'wasted time walking across the map' shows just how much you want free unhooks and easy escapes.
And hookstates ARE long enough:
It takes 120 seconds to die from first hook.
It takes 80 seconds to repair a generator alone.
That leaves you 40 seconds free after soloing a gen.
And that's not counting: Gens already being worked on BEFORE the hook (IE: The 60-80 seconds chase, hit, chase, hit, carry, hook).
So 3 people working 3 solo gens can pop 3 of 5 gens in one hook camp.
But nope! That's not good enough for lazy Survivors! They want unhooks! They DEMAND unhooks! They walked 'all the way across the map' and the Killer has the GALL to be camping! He should lose BP! He should be teleported away! The hook should walk itself to the nearest Survivor! Because they walked SO FAR!
I mean, the Killer is DOING HIS DAMNED OBJECTIVE but who cares, right? He's not doing it 'properly', according to Survivors! He should be going for ALL TWELVE HOOKS!
Wait; let's do the math on that:
Assuming every chase is around 1 minute long, counting time to find, chase, pick up & hook survivors, that's 12 minutes needed, on average.
Assuming every Survivor solos a gen at different times; the slowest possible result. 80 seconds times 5 is 400 seconds. Which is 6.66 minutes. We'll say 7 minutes.
Oh, look at that. If Killer's do not camp, THEY NEED TWICE THE TIME THE SLOWEST SURVIVORS NEED TO CLEAR GENS.
And yet Survivors stomp onto these forums and DEMAND Killers give up every single unhook possible. Because a Killer applying pressure via camping (And Survivors playing badly enough to hide near a camping Killer INSTEAD OF DOING GENS) is 'unfun' and clearly the Killer's fault.
Instead of DOING GENERATORS, you think it's 'unfair' that you 'walked all the way across the map' and the mean old Killer was AT THE HOOK.
The entitlement of Survivors asking for 'counters' or 'punishments' is wearing thin. It's a valid tactic; one of the few Killers have that people keep falling for. Yet when Survivors fall for it, they blame Killers, and want to tide the Killers hands.
All because they believe they deserve every unhook and easy matches.
So 3 people working 3 solo gens can pop 3 of 5 gens in one hook camp.
And that is the problem. It should be 5 out of 5 plus exit gates if you want to make the argument that camping isn't viable. If camping can relatively safely secure you a 2K, it's not non-viable.
But nope! That's not good enough for lazy Survivors! They want unhooks! They DEMAND unhooks! They walked 'all the way across the map' and the Killer has the GALL to be camping! He should lose BP! He should be teleported away! The hook should walk itself to the nearest Survivor! Because they walked SO FAR!
But nope! That's not good enough for lazy killers! They want dead survivors! They DEMAND dead survivors! They downed someone once and the survivors have the GALL to pull them off the hook! They should not be able to!
What you are arguing in favour of is incredibly stale, non-dynamic play, where the killer doesn't chase and the survivors don't do anything but hold M1 on gen. Camping matches aren't fun for anyone involved, yet you seem to have an aneurysm anytime someone mentions that it's not healthy for the game.
You're in tears over how bad killers have it, but the majority of killers have a 60%+ kill rate at red ranks, suggesting that it's not -nearly- as bad as people make it out to be, so this clinging to camping as 'one of the few things killers have' is pretty nonsensical.
And that's also ignoring the fact that it's hindering development that could solve both issues. As long as camping is a thing, gen speeds cannot be slowed down, because doing so would be a direct buff to camping, and you don't want the game to hit a critical mass of campers because then it'll just flat-out die.
But, you know, you could also keep bawling your eyes out over meanie-poo survivors. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2181294#Comment_2181294
You're acting like camping is some OP tactic that Survivors have no control over. And that's not true.
If the Killer is camping; do gens.
Most players, when they see gens pop, will realize 'Oh crap! I'm not stopping the other 3 people from doing their objective!'
But instead, Survivors swarm a hook, get hit, then come onto the forums and cry that camping is so unfair and needs punishments. Because they are incapable of realizing that they are the ones rewarding a camping play style.
Instead, they seem to think that they deserved that unhook, and the Killer was being 'unfair' or 'unfun' for not walking away like they demand. So the game should push the Killer away, or teleport him away, or teleport the hook, or drain his BP, or give Survivors infinite hook meter.
All of it boils down to one thing; 'Please force the Killer to move away from the hook, so I can unhook when I want. I don't care that this slows down his ability to win. All I want is my easy unhooks. I deserve those unhooks, so force the Killer to make it happen.'
Okay, listen, let me sketch the situation for you.
You're on a gen. Someone is hooked, about 3/4 of the map away from you. You stay on the gen, because you assume someone else will go for the unhook. Time passes, and the unhook doesn't come (You don't know why, they could be in a chase), so you decide to take point and head out to try and save the hooked person from being down a hookstate. You travel allllll the way down to the hook and then notice that the killer is camping. That's a ton of time you lost checking up on a hook that you can't reasonably make.
Repeat that two more times for the other two survivors that also had to find out that the killer was camping, and there's one or two gens left to do by the time the camp victim is dead. At that point, if the killer downs someone, it's likely a 2K. If they have NOED, it could get even worse, because you can't hunt for totems against a camper either, you need to genrush.
Hookstates aren't long enough for genrushing to be a solid counter to camping, unless the hooked target has kindred, everyone else has kindred, or it's a 4 man swiffer on comms.
'Just bring kindred!'
Just bring PH against old DS abuse.
Sometimes a problem is just a problem and needs to be fixed.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2181178#Comment_2181178
Because why let the Killer capitalize on player mistakes? Nope! Better punish the Killer for Survivors screwing up!
That's basically what Survivors want; free unhooks & Killers punished.
How is it a mistake to scout for an unhook? Are survivors supposed to unconditionally refuse to go for an unhook just in case it's a camper?
-
@tolore said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2180989#Comment_2180989
The problem is you are classifying people as "people who camp" and banning them, or implementing stuff that will make them quit. I'm welling to bet MOST of the "people who camp" don't just camp every game for their entire career. The game does a pretty bad job of incentivizing/teaching newer players not to camp.
Like seriously, if you've never played the game before, don't have a bunch of awesome perks, and you hook someone, you go "now what?". You only know where one survivor is, and you know a point(the hooked survivor) that is incredibly enticing to other people, as a new player trying to figure out what do, or even a semi experienced player who is having a rough match, why WOULDN'T you camp. and why shouldn't you be able too?
I still think strongly that if the solution were focused on making sure killers knew that A. camping was a losing strategy against competent survivors and B. made sure that killers had the tools they need to find objectives away from the hook and incentives to get away from the hook that are obvious(a basically unnoticeable point loss for staying near a hook isn't enough) most camping problems would go away..
Driving away players who camp is going to remove a lot of potential non camping killers too, and based on queue times killer population is already low enough.
> I still think strongly that if the solution were focused on making sure killers knew that A. camping was a losing strategy against competent survivors
The issue is, camping isn't a losing strategy against anything but a competent 4-man swiffer on comms.
Because in solo play, without kindred, what happens is that someone gets hooked, and someone attempts an unhook. The time that person loses on checking the hook and finding it camped (not accounting for stealth killers here, either) is already enough to give the killer time for another down after the first target dies.
That's why there's the oft repeated suggestion of making hookstates slow down if the killer is near, since that helps make camping as ineffective as it's claimed to be.
-
@miketheratguy said:
I despise the skill check hook system. I had zero problem with it before. You didn't have to "button mash" (which literally means just randomly, feverishly mashing buttons), you just had to tap a single button to a moderate tempo to stay alive. Tapping your finger to the beat of "Every Breath You Take" was as rigorous as surviving a hook. But everyone complained that doing this was causing carpal tunnel, giving them early onset arthritis and breaking their wrists, so I guess I'm happy for those that the new system has helped.
For me? It feels less like a struggle and more like...well, a skill check. I get enough of those from playing the rest of the game. It's also very easy to get distracted and miss the check when a gen blows up or the killer comes back and swats you when the check happens to come. Lastly, there are times when I'm quite ready to just die and move on but I can't, I have to sit for an extra five or ten seconds waiting to fail more than one check to move on.
I'm not saying that the game has to be "my way" or that I don't have sympathy for those who actually legitimately had some physical issue with the previous system. But I think there was a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of people who believed that you had to jam on that escape button as fast as possible to stay alive. You didn't. Calm, rhythmic tapping was all that was required.
Two issues I had with that:
1) The lowest possible rhythm is something you can't really experiment with, because dipping below it for even a second would immediately kill you.
2) My friends had some latency from time to time that would swallow input and kill them outright.
The new system is much more comfortable, though it does get a bit unreasonable to the end. I think it's fair that it pulls attention to the skillcheck and leaves the hooked person less aware of their surroundings. The fact that you don't get survival points is an oversight that needs to be fixed ASAP.
-
The issue with Ruin as a counter to genrushing is that Ruin strongly encourages it, not discourages it. If a gen is going to bust when you let it go, you're more likely to keep on it for as long as possible.
Ruin baseline is going to make genrushing worse, and it'd be a very considerable buff to killers.
I'd rather turn the co-op penalty on its head. Currently, survivors are -always- better off splitting up on gens, making them harder to track, making them harder to pressure, and getting the fastest results.
If solo gen speeds were slower than co-op, survivors would be more likely to stick together, meaning that finding a survivor is likely to be more disruptive, since you then have two running away. It also means that gens pop on a more one-by-one basis as opposed to three-at-a-time.
-
@Alionis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2177971#Comment_2177971
Why does no one consider them? Because, just like you, they do not understand probability.
When it comes to binomial distribution, as Orion explained, the difference between a 4% unhook chance and a 7% unhook chance, despite the seemingly small percentage difference for laymen, is quite big.
It's 11.5% to 19.5%, and that is only if you count all three attempts.
It goes from 'not worth trying unless you're gonna lose a hook anyway' to 'not worth trying unless you're gonna lose a hook anyway'.
-
@White_Owl said:
I agree with Orion, the majority is not able to handle numbers. Just remember when people thought that changing Enduring from increasing recovery speed by 75% to reducing recovering time by 50% was a nerf.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2175294#Comment_2175294
You made the possibly worse example. Vigo's Jar of Salty Lips increases luck from 4% to 7%, a 75% increase from base, which is considerable.
Yeah, 75% from a -really bad base value-. If Vigo's jar of salty lips is supposed to be 'considerable', why does no one ever consider it?
That's the general point, too. These value judgements are made by someone else and are thus utterly unreliable. As also proven by the slightly/considerably mess-up where both are about a 15% heal speed increase.
Just give an option to switch between value judgement and actual percentage.
-
@Alionis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2175294#Comment_2175294
Yes, by the devs' standard, which should be perfectly fine, since it's their game.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2175984#Comment_2175984
Those are most likely just oversights by the devs when they reworked them. The words don't determine the value, they are independent.
I'm not a fan of the old 'the devs are always right' approach, but it comes off as downright comical when it's back-to-back with a dev oversight.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2175294#Comment_2175294
Unhooks follow a binomial distribution. With the base chance and 3 attempts, there's an 11.5% chance of self-unhooking. With the +7% from the offering, it's 29.5%.
You just proved my point about why the numbers are worthless. People simply do not understand the math.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2175310#Comment_2175310
even if i didn't know the math, which like. isn't hard to do because of calculators
The calculations are not the problem, it's the (often incorrect) way in which people do them.
Unhooks follow a binomial distribution. With the base chance and 3 attempts, there's an 11.5% chance of self-unhooking. With the +7% from the offering, it's 29.5%.
You just proved my point about why the numbers are worthless. People simply do not understand the math.
It's 7% with the offering, not +7% with the offering. So it goes from 11.5% to 19.5%. Still terrible odds. Still not a relevant increase.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2175272#Comment_2175272
My point is that most people can't do the math. Putting it in terms of "slightly", "moderately", etc. is better if you want to convey the idea of how these things affect the game. Those who want to (and can) do the math can check the wiki for the exact percentages.
Those words are assumptions by someone else's standard though, which is a problem.
Take Vigo's Jar of Salty Lips: It is said to 'considerably' increase luck. So if your chance to jump off the hook is normally 4%, how much do you get if it is a 'considerable' increase?
7%
You still have no realistic chance of getting off the hook. That 'considerable increase' is pretty negligible.
Giving the percentage allows people to make the estimations for themselves rather than relying on the judgement of someone else. And it's not like DBD is averse to using them either, because perks, more often than not, DO include percentages in their descriptions.
Ideally, we'd have a toggle option to give players the option to simply choose whichever they prefer, so everyone can get exactly what they want.
-
@Moundshroud said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2171501#Comment_2171501
Fair enough; if incentives has been your point from the beginning (and I missed it) you have my apology. Oddly enough, my new Feedback post is in part inspired by your posts and Johnny_Xman. I recalled that you talked about the game Little Nightmares in some of your earlier posts (a game we have both played) and that one also has games within a game. It seems to me that the initial Hook stage should stay as it it now, because the Entity hasn't been summoned yet.... however...
2nd Stage when the Entity has been summoned could be an entirely different story. While we see the Survivor struggling to keep from being skewered by the hideous, sharp legs what if what the Survivor sees is a mini-game entirely inside a his/her own mind, a spiritual construct where they are solving puzzles, or being chased, or perhaps even fighting something. Their successes inside this mini-game could extend the length of that 2nd Stage. *For the record, I've NEVER been against having the hook time extended, I just think it should be earned somehow by the person on it or the Survivors around (like that Steve Perk). I don't think it should have anything to do with how close the Killer is in proximity to the hook as that goes back to trying punishments (which were always abused).
Now consider this, a game is going on for the Survivor starting in 2nd Stage where they can extend their time. It could certainly be made interesting and not conflict with the spaghetti code as it is game within the game. A face camping Killer might sit there for a LONG time while others worked the Generators or worked out rescues if the person inside the game within a game is putting up a good fight. The key being IF... there is no such thing as a free lunch. Extra time would have to be hard fought and earned. And best of all, the Survivor in this mini-game can be earning BP or Advancement, and perhaps even bits of Lore if puzzles and clues occur.
I'm getting far ahead of myself as the mini-game needs to be carefully considered, but I think it is a good place to start and I would NOT have thought of it without your Little Nightmares context and Johnny_Xman's post.
For the record, I've NEVER been against having the hook time extended, I just think it should be earned somehow by the person on it or the Survivors around (like that Steve Perk). I don't think it should have anything to do with how close the Killer is in proximity to the hook as that goes back to trying punishments (which were always abused).
The issue I have with a generalised hookstate slowdown is that it would make things worse for killers that don't camp, as survivors are under less pressure to interrupt their progress on objectives to go for an unhook. It'd be a considerable nerf to all killers when only campers are an issue.
Honey-potting or rescue-baiting for example would be far less effective if survivors just aren't pressured into actually going for a rescue. I'd really rather have it affect specifically campers only.
-
@PyroDude said:
How is a map unbalanced for both sides?
It can either favor one side or be balanced.
No, really. I would like to know
Technically, if a map heavily favours one side, that does make it imbalanced for both sides. Too hard for one, too easy for the other.
-
Yeah, survivors didn't need a BP nerf, and this feels more like an oversight than any intentional nerf. Please just give survival points for every passed skillcheck.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2170821#Comment_2170821
Sorry, but that's not realistic. That'd mean that every survivor did nothing to try to remove the RBT. And if such a thing were to happen, at that point, it's really their fault.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2170871#Comment_2170871
The numbers may need some tweaking, sure. However, in my experience, it shouldn't take much longer than 30 seconds to find and search a Jigsaw Box.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2170919#Comment_2170919
Instead of RBT timers decreasing with each one that successfully goes off, they should decrease with each one successfully removed, but not by 30 seconds that's a bit too much.
As I mentioned to @TAG, 30 seconds is more or less the time it should take you to find and search a box. However, it would be more or less the same. My goal is to make the traps deadlier without becoming too powerful.
I've played Pig and I quite like her, but...
I don't think it's possible, from a design perspective, to make the traps deadlier without utterly breaking her. There's a reason the game features almost no instant kill effects and why Moris were nerfed down from skipping the game to skipping only the last move-to-hook.
IMO, RBTs should carry other disadvantages and have their RNG limited so they can't come off on first try but they also can't have a survivor die from sheer bad luck. I'd be much more interested in improving her stealth attacks and capabilities than making her into a russian roulette simulator.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2171424#Comment_2171424
But you're not giving options. You're taking away the Killer's choice to camp. Because now he's either giving Survivors more time to do do gens, or he HAS to walk away & allow an unhook.
What is so hard to understand about that? Walking away is the Killer's choice. being punished for making the 'wrong' choice is not a real choice. You are removing player agency you don't like.
And good luck with your Survivor queue times when you do that.
Just suck it TF up. Camping is sometimes needed, same with slugging and tunneling. You can either keep whining for a change that never comes, or accept it and play around it.
I'm over these stupid 'PUNISH CAMPING' posts. It's just a form of whining over losing. Bye.
Just... Just read Moundshroud's discussion with me, since you're now re-treading what they and I already discussed.
@Moundshroud said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2171424#Comment_2171424
We will have to agree to disagree about camping being bad for game play. I would, politely, suggest that you don't know enough about it to make that assumption. Anyone can squat at a hook, but experienced Killers are using a wide variety of camping and honey-potting tactics to not only get downs, but also to pressure generators and gather information. Camping isn't cut and dried, it is a skillset which actually does require finesse to use properly. I'm going to be blunt; you are new and you aren't well-rounded. That isn't a crime; we all start that way. But it does color your viewpoints and blinds you with bias.
Camping forces different kinds of play and tactics from both Killers AND Survivors. Some of the most exciting play, and satisfying is making that rescue from a camping Killer. It happens every day, probably five or six times in just the time you read this post. I've done it, and had it done to me. Having to tackle the additional obstacles of a tough rescue on top of getting Generators powered, and totems cleansed ups the ante. You seem to only look at it as a negative, where I look at conflict and challenge as an expansion of the game. The difference between us is you see camping as an endpoint because you are new and really not very good at countering it. People who can counter it (and do regularly) aren't nearly as put out.
All that aside, dumbing down a game by removing options never helps. I'm glad we agree that incentivizing the Killers and providing them more options is a good way to go. I respect that you cede that point; it means that you are open to finding solutions. That will outweigh anything else. The next step is looking at the history, what has been tried, and what has failed. We have to look at what has worked, and we have to set aside our personal bias. It might surprise you to know that my own bias isn't that different from yours. I also hate (well hated) being camped. My opinion of it changed in time as my experiences broadened. I know it will sound condescending for me to say (and for that I apologize) but yours will too.
Another poster (and your thoughts as well) have brought to mind that if the chief complaint you (and many others) have is boredom on the hook, why don't we look at a game within a game, more options and choices and challenges for that person on the hook. Clearly that is a potential solution if you are being honest about why being hooked bothers you. It may be we have ALL been going about this the wrong way in talking about how to punish or reward the Killer when the best solution might simply be giving the hooked person something to do and look at OTHER than everyone else playing the game. :)
We will have to agree to disagree about camping being bad for game play. I would, politely, suggest that you don't know enough about it to make that assumption. Anyone can squat at a hook, but experienced Killers are using a wide variety of camping and honey-potting tactics to not only get downs, but also to pressure generators and gather information. Camping isn't cut and dried, it is a skillset which actually does require finesse to use properly. I'm going to be blunt; you are new and you aren't well-rounded. That isn't a crime; we all start that way. But it does color your viewpoints and blinds you with bias.
I'm not talking about honey-potting tactics, or baiting survivors to go in for the rescue and then intercepting them. I'm talking about killers staring the hook down, or seeking out the nearest hill and just surveying the area to make unhooks as impossible as they can. I'm talking about basement bubba, or a nurse that spends 30+ seconds just circling within 10 meters of the hook in plain sight.
Camping forces different kinds of play and tactics from both Killers AND Survivors. Some of the most exciting play, and satisfying is making that rescue from a camping Killer. It happens every day, probably five or six times in just the time you read this post. I've done it, and had it done to me. Having to tackle the additional obstacles of a tough rescue on top of getting Generators powered, and totems cleansed ups the ante. You seem to only look at it as a negative, where I look at conflict and challenge as an expansion of the game. The difference between us is you see camping as an endpoint because you are new and really not very good at countering it. People who can counter it (and do regularly) aren't nearly as put out.
But that is assuming that it is possible to get the rescue, which is tied to why Bubba is infamous for being campy. Because Bubba is perfect for it. Yes, against some campy killers, you can get the unhook, and that can be satisfying. But in most cases, all you accomplish is that it's now you that's on the hook and getting camped, not that you actually get to steal the kill.
Listen, I'll be the first to turn around and attempt a genrush the moment I see that someone is camping, but therein lies the issue: In solo queue, without kindred, you need visual confirmation to know the killer is camping. Getting that confirmation takes time, and the fact that it takes time is what makes camping effective. The time it takes to run up to the hook, see it is camped, and then run to the nearest gen to do it can already be enough to make it impossible to clear all five by the time the person on the hook dies, and that's not accounting for the survivor taking the logical way out of one of the worst gameplay experiences and just letting themselves die on the hook.
And if you can't clear all five before the hooked survivor burns out, it's likely to turn into a 2K, and that is not a loss for the killer.
I'm glad we agree that incentivizing the Killers and providing them more options is a good way to go. I respect that you cede that point; it means that you are open to finding solutions.
That is not a point I 'ceded', that is something I've held to from the get-go.
-
@Moundshroud said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2171335#Comment_2171335
On the contrary, I can disprove that myself. I have fun in every game I play, whether I am camped or camp. Those are just tactics, nothing more and nothing less. The game is the fun, the challenge, not the specific things done inside a match. For the record, whenever I enter an extended debate with someone, I want to fully understand their context, the way their mind works. That way I don't assume too much without seeing the evidence. As such, I go read all their posts. Yours first started to hit the board in March, and your very first day you were already complaining about stuff. You didn't even know the game yet, but you knew what you disliked. You have to realize how entitled that is right?
Your posts vary from Lore to a long litany of complaints that when actually laid out and graphed show your bias is horrible. I'm not going to do that to you right now, because it is a bit petty this early in our discussion. I just want you to be aware that I'm a thorough kind of guy in everything I do. When I talk about the game, I'm talking about it from all sides. I am interested in the fairness and fun for all involved and weigh things against viability and balance, not my personal preferences. If I were to base everything on my personal preferences, my arguments would be very different.
In your defense, you aren't a Sluzzy. Your posts aren't all one note, and there are some that impressed me. I think if you turned your very agile mind to this problem in an unbiased way, you would probably come up with some really good ideas. I just think you need to take your blinders off. For better for for worse, camping is part of this game because tactics are nothing but Player Agency, and this game only turns on agency. The entire engine and setup is based on it. I know we are getting deep here, but I assure you that I am not blowing smoke up your behind. If you want more fun, then you have to be part of the solution. You and I (and anyone else serious) have to come up with workable options, actual feedback that the DEV can use which hasn't already been tried.
I am of the opinion that rewards, and expanding Killer options is the best way to go. Barbecue & Chili, for example, is a Perk which has been a glorious success in that it incentivizes Killers to leave the hook. Without it, camping would be far more common. If we look at that success, and extrapolate on it, I'm sure you and I (and many others) could come up with additional things which would expand Killer options and the viability of Search & Destroy.
Yours first started to hit the board in March, and your very first day you were already complaining about stuff. You didn't even know the game yet, but you knew what you disliked. You have to realize how entitled that is right?
You think people come to the forums just to say "I am content, change nothing"? Yes, I started with a confirmation that there is a sound bug. Sue me.
You and I (and anyone else serious) have to come up with workable options, actual feedback that the DEV can use which hasn't already been tried.
And I'd be more than happy to brainstorm (Already had ideas about extended sabotages and utilising something akin to blue glyphs), but that still doesn't take away from the fact that camping is bad for gameplay and should be strongly disincentivised.
Ideally with improvements to the killer role. The idea that the killer role needs to be improved isn't mutually exclusive with the idea that camping is bad for gameplay.
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2171344#Comment_2171344
Except, with your idea, I am ALSO slowing down MY objective progression. So that's a wash.
And if I chase one, the other unhooks.
If I have 1 hooked and 2 idiots standing around; why should I be punished or forced to give away the unhook? Oh, right; because you're entitled and think there's nothing wrong with the game giving you a free unhook.
It was tried. It was abused (even if you are too biased to see it), and it was removed. Twice.
No matter what your views are on trying it so you can abuse it a third time; it's not happening. Camping, slugging, and tunneling are legit strats. Grow up and accept them, or stop playing.
Because, if you can't accept the opponent trying to win just as much as you, then clearly PvP games aren't for you.
It would be like if you logged into CS:GO and whined that 'It's not fair that I keep getting shot first! Being knocked out of the match is unfun! The enemy team should have NERF darts for 60 seconds so I can play before I lose!'
Our goal is to knock you out of the match. You don't get to decide if HOW we did it is 'unfair' or 'unfun', because LOSING IS NOT AS FUN AS WINNING.
So long as a person ain't freaking cheating or exploiting glitches (I'm looking at Survivors who hide behind hooks to avoid being picked up); your insipid little ideas about HOW we won mean nothing.
How about this? If I'm forced to give your entitled butt free unhooks you lack the skill to get normally, then I want all Survivors to be forced to fail skillchecks if they make too many in a row. It's UNFAIR and UNFUN when 2-3 gens pop within one 60 second chase! Gen rushing is totally unfair and unfun and needs to be punished! Stop letting Survivors do their objective!
You're still not forced to give away the unhook if the hookstate still progresses, just slower. You can just sit on the hook and let the last remaining survivor do the remaining gens solo if you want. But you just can't expect to get more than one kill, even against un-coordinated teams, if you go camping.
How about this? If I'm forced to give your entitled butt free unhooks you lack the skill to get normally, then I want all Survivors to be forced to fail skillchecks if they make too many in a row. It's UNFAIR and UNFUN when 2-3 gens pop within one 60 second chase! Gen rushing is totally unfair and unfun and needs to be punished! Stop letting Survivors do their objective!
Slower gens in exchange for no camping? I'll bloody take it. Seriously, I have no qualms with slowing down gen speeds in exchange for no camping. I've stated that before, too.
You need to get it through your head that I want the game to be more fun for BOTH sides. Take the pressure off killers and give them more options while massively weakening the options that take the fun out of the game.
Again, it's not a zero sum thing.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2171300#Comment_2171300
You're ignoring everything to get to that point; The Killer should not be punished for 'camping' when two people are clearly waiting for an unhook.
Why are Survivors so thick that they can't understand this? All they think is 'Camping = bad!' and that every unhook = good, so forcing free unhooks is perfectly balanced. Because they benefit.
The Killer is a player, his goal is to kill you. To. Kill. You. TO KILL YOU.
Should I say it slower? TOOOOO KILLLLLL YOUUUUUU.
So no, he should not be punished because you don't like HOW he is trying to, and say it with me: TO 👏 KILL 👏 YOU 👏.
This is as stupid as Killers demanding Survivors get punished for doing gens; it's the objective. The other side, being biased, does not decide how you do it.
Git fregging gud.
You want to kill, huh?
Well, there's two survivors presenting themselves on a silver platter to you, so you're getting exactly what you want, AND they're slowing their own objective progression down so they give you more time, too!
-
@Moundshroud said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2171277#Comment_2171277
Actually, no I'm not. I address each of those things and where they fall in the chase versus camp dichotomy. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't trying to play rhetorical games to change the subject and simply missed that. Most Killers don't camp, but they have the option. It is the choice, the Player Agency that matters. You are still NOT providing additional options, seeking only to limit the Players in the Killer role. That is a mistake, has been tried multiple times, and demonstrates your bias. That is the difference between you and I. I am aware of my bias and offset for it. You don't.
You have decided on the outcome you want and are not engaging in actual debate with me. That isn't a very productive way to approach it. Let's start hearing some specific policy and mechanics from you. What are your actual suggestions so we can analyze how they will work, if they are any different from what has already been tested (and let me tell you... the DEV have tested a lot of options), and the trade offs of them. Unlike you, I am more than willing to eat crow and accept a viewpoint other than mine if it can be shown to work. Right now, you are showing us NOTHING other than you repeating over and over against what you WANT. That is a far cry from showing us how it will work.
Another difference between us is that I actually offer suggestion and examples of how to give Killers alternate options (choices) to achieve the goal you claim to want. Do you see the irony in that? I don't support your opinion, but I at least make a good faith attempt to talk about how to achieve the goals you want via alternative methods. You do not.
You are still NOT providing additional options
Because that is not the subject of this discussion! The topic is titled 'Camping should not be punished', not 'how can we improve the killer role?'.
And it's kind of rich to pin that on me when everyone here is crying about how boring and one-dimensional killer is, but it's on -me- to fix it because I say camping is really bad for gameplay? You're accusing me of not wanting to fix killer issues but you're content to leave killer as bad as it is, just to have survivors share in the misery.
And that's topped off with the fact that I did actually put forth a suggestion for reworking regression to improve it and make it a stronger gameplay aspect but apparently no one was interested.
Unlike you, I am more than willing to eat crow and accept a viewpoint other than mine if it can be shown to work.
I am accepting of any viewpoints with a solid underpinning, but your argument of player agency is feeble at best and nonsensical at worst. How far does it stretch, for example? Should we just allow killers to cheat since that improves their agency? Or is there perhaps a greater goal to keep in mind that's more important than player agency?
You're putting the cart before the horse. Agency serves gameplay, not the other way around. And if the overall entertainment value is decreased from a certain aspect of agency, it is better to have it removed.
No, camping isn't fun. For anyone involved.
-
@Power_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2170346#Comment_2170346
Slowing the hookstate was tried and abused. TWICE. Let me point out how for the 8th time since I joined a week ago.:
Survivor #1 works on gens. #2 and #3 stand 50 yards away, out in the open. In different directions.
This means #2 & #3 cannot be chased; they are too far away. The chase will not start until the Killer is so far from the hook that it's a free unhook. Because whichever Survivor is walked towards will run away, making it take longer to trigger a chase.
The Killer is now FORCED to either camp, because chasing one guy means the other unhooks, with a Struggle meter penalty giving Survivor #1 extra time to solo generators. Or walk away & let a Survivor unhook.
This means the Killer NO LONGER HAS PLAYER AGENCY. The GAME is telling him he has to allow a free unhook, or be punished. He no longer gets to decide if camping is a good strategy now. The game, uncaring, flips him the middle finger. EVEN THROUGH TWO SURIVORS ARE CLEARLY READY TO UNHOOK.
THAT is what people are asking for with this stupid 'suggestion'. For the Killer to no longer decide what he can do. For Survivors to be gift-wrapped free unhooks from a mechanic, because if the Killer tries to defend the hook, WHICH IS THE SMART PLAY WITH TWO SURVIVORS NEARBY, then the Struggle Meter is slowed.
And you don't deserve a free unhook just because you stomp your feet and go 'Buh camping baaaaad! Bad man not give me my unhooks!'
This is a PvP game. My goal, as a Killer, is to KILL YOU. Not pat you on the head and say 'Go unhook them, champ! I'll go hide until you unhook, and heal, and go gens for 80 seconds.'
STOP ASKING FOR CAMPING PUNISHMENTS. IT'S JUST A THINLY-VIELED ATTEMPT TO FORCE UNHOOKS BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE LOSING. THE KILLER IS A GODS DAMNED PLAYER, TOO; STOP DICTATING HOW THEY PLAY.
The Killer is now FORCED to either camp, because chasing one guy means the other unhooks, with a Struggle meter penalty giving Survivor #1 extra time to solo generators. Or walk away & let a Survivor unhook.
Oh no, not the anti-camping mechanism making camping an ineffective strategy!
Hey, if that's considered abuse of the anti-camping measure, can we also have killers forced to declare they're approaching you when they have undetectable? Since it's kinda abusing undetectable if you sneak up on someone undetected.
-
@Moundshroud said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2170346#Comment_2170346
I can make an argument for keeping the option for it. We are fighting people, not Bots. Killers only have so many choices to make in game, considerably fewer than the Survivors themselves. All Players, both roles, decide on their Build but once the game starts Killers are constrained to a largely reactive function, with the Survivors leading the dance. Consider:
- Killers can choose to enter Search & Destroy mode or choose a 3-Gen. from the start.
- Killers may choose who to chase if multiple targets appear.
- Killers may choose to slug or hook.
- Killers may choose to defend the hook or return to search and destroy or defend Gens,
By in large that is it; if the Killer is thrifty they can hook in proximity to Generators they wish to defend, which tends to make the choice of whether to defend the hook (camp) or not easier to make. If you can get two out of three things done with one action, why wouldn't you do it? It bears noting that Generator Pressure falls under the "Search & Destroy" mode above. When you break down the limited choices above, you find that your Killer really only gets an option of chase or defend (camp).
Now let's put Player agency under the microscope, and further analyze these limited choices.
- Search & Destroy is pretty much chase mode and little else. Defending a 3-Gen is Camping Generators.
- The Killer choosing whom to chase out of multiple targets is pretty much a question of to Tunnel or not Tunnel.
- Hook or Slug is just to Slug or not to Slug (which in turn leads to camp or not camp).
- And finally, choosing to defend or return to Search & Destroy is simply camp or don't camp.
All this talk about either punishing or limiting the Killers options on whether or not they can (or should) be able to camp instantly reduces them to glorified Bots. Who the hell wants to just be a Bot? With so few choices to make, the loss of even one is terrible. The specific loss of the only non-chase option is a stake through the heart of free will. We have enough trouble keeping Killers now. And just to be clear, I'm not advocating Camping. I am simply adamant about the fact that the choice must be there. I think a great solution is to offer rewards which increase the value and number of Killer choices. If we make it worth their while and provide additional options, Killers will take them. Simply trying to punish or regulate them out of what little free will they have is going to fail miserably (as it has in every past test case).
Let me put it another way, if the only real option left to Killers is chase mode, there are better chase games than DbD. People who just enjoy chasing will gravitate to those games which do it better. People enjoy DbD for a variety of reasons but one of the big ones is the unpredictable (and sometimes unfair) nature of it. Playing against PEOPLE is more satisfying than playing against Bots. Reducing people to being glorified Bots would also reduce satisfaction (both sides). More to the point, to keep the game viable and retain ANY Killers, the loss in options would require a massive increase in chasing power to offset. Then people would just be complaining about Killers being too fast, having too accurate hit boxes, and/or having OP Powers. A PvP setup is always a balancing act, and when you remove Player Agency it has less and less wiggle room before it breaks one way or the other.
I know I'm being a bit exhaustive here, but I'm trying to give you the real problems created by trying to take away Player Agency (either role really). As Yords pointed out, if you did try to remove it the game would have to be rebuilt from the ground up and it wouldn't even remotely be the same game. It would be reverse Pac Man, a stilted boring chase game with four Survivors running a simplistic maze chased by a largely mindless Killer constrained to following the only viable patterns at jungle gyms and so on to try and get a down. How long would this interest anyone?
Here's the problem with your reasoning: You're acting as though the only possible choice killers have is to either chase or camp, and that chasing is nothing more than holding W and following the survivor's trail.
You're ignoring builds, power choice, you're ignoring gen pressure, you're ignoring three gen forcing, you're ignoring gen defense, you're ignoring in-chase choices, you're ignoring everything to simply state that the game comes down to 'choosing whether or not you camp'.
If that were the case, we'd already have no killers. You state that the game thrives on unpredictability, but if it's just 'camping or not camping' that means there's literally only two types of matches, and after playing both, you will never get a new experience. You're acting like all non-camping killers act the -exact- same way.
Yes, I get that killer isn't fun to play due to how limited its gameplay is. But camping isn't fixing that, because camping is taking the potential gameplay and limiting it as much as possible. No, you wouldn't need to rebuild the game from the ground up, although you will need drastic changes, but people are asking for those changes -anyway-. And the existence of one problem doesn't mean you shouldn't solve the other. It's not a zero sum game. Killer gameplay needs fixing? We might as well fix camping while we're at it.
As for your statement about removing camping causing killers to quit, I have an inversion of that assertion for you: Keeping camping in is not going to retain killers. Those that commit to camping are probably not going to stay in the game since they already take the option of not playing it.
It would be reverse Pac Man, a stilted boring chase game with four Survivors running a simplistic maze chased by a largely mindless Killer constrained to following the only viable patterns at jungle gyms and so on to try and get a down. How long would this interest anyone?
Apparently for five years, since the majority of killers don't camp.
-
@DoritoHead said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2154440#Comment_2154440
Why would Hag waste all of her resources on one hook when said traps can be avoided by crouching
Because then you also need to crouchwalk out of the hook, giving hag approximately two and a half minutes to come back to it and get you back on the hook.
Unless you run Urban Evasion.
If PH's trail isn't allowed to be put near hooks, Hag traps definitely shouldn't be.
-
@FrostySeal said:
Dang, I never actually thought about this before, it makes much more sense now that I think about it although I'm kind of worried that if they do nerf the spirit and add a fatigue that she'll become too similar to the other killers that can catch up quickly, more specifically Blight.
I do think there's a way to avoid that by giving her a unique alternative to fatigue.
What if she gets phasing sickness? For a couple of seconds after exiting phasewalk, she loses the ability to see scratch marks and pools of blood, and loses her hearing.
That way, if she messes up, she does lose a little time, as opposed to just immediately being on the survivor's tail as if she just whiffed a normal attack, but she doesn't have a standard fatigue.
-
@Yords said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2169799#Comment_2169799
Care to explain why? Camping, slugging, and tunneling are part of the game.
So was perma-sabo. Something being in the game is no excuse, since that's why we have a feedback forum. Game design always goes through many iterations because no design is immaculate.
But out of those three, Camping is the best example: It's simply not fun for anyone involved. The person getting camped is not having fun. The people holding M1 on gen are not having fun. The killer simply staring at their victim or bobbing up and down that hook is not having fun.
The entire purpose of the game falls apart completely when camping. And it's holding other developments hostage as well, since you can't actually improve the issue with survivor objective speed due to any slowdown on that front being a direct and unmitigable buff to camping. It's only a 1K? Well, now the gens take so long that the killer can sit out both hookstates and then find and down a second victim before gen 5 pops and the gates are open.
Imagine what non-Kindred solo queue would be like. Yuck.
Slugging and tunnelling are considerably less egregious, but camping is the literal worst thing DBD has to offer and there's no real argument for wanting to keep it. In particular, the idea of slowing the hookstate progression while the killer is nearby and not in a chase seems a perfectly tailored solution that helps reduce its viability without hindering normal gameplay.
And once camping is done away with, genrushing can be addressed.