Incarnate
Incarnate
About
- Username
- Incarnate
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Entità said:
@Incarnate Maybe in these two years the Devs have changed their mind about the suppression of perk tiers. If you think about it, it is not mandatory to use the perks or to fill all the slots: those who want an extreme challenge play without equipping anything, and, in this perspective, the perks of tier 1 or 2 can be a valid intermediate solution between the best equipment and the extreme challenge. The tiers contribute to the game longevity and playstyle variability, so I do not consider them bad: it is wrong to treat perks of different strength or tier in the same way, due to a rarity system unjustifiably reduced compared to normal...It most certainly becomes necessary when the opposition is using addons, equipment, perks and offerings to maintain a somewhat equilibrium in regards to game balance - so in regards to maintaining the balanced is mandatory. The game is designed and balanced around the use of addons, perks and equipment, so if the opposition isn't using it, then game balance-wise this play would be giving the opposition an advantage, in otherwords the player will be playing at a disadvantage. The game is most certainly not balanced around the few people who want a more extreme challenge. You may think it's wrong to think of them as perks of different strength or tiers, but that doesn't change the fact that they're of different strengths depending on their tier. Now, if people want that extreme challenge, sure they can go right ahead, but the game should certainly not be balanced in regards to that. It may be that the tiers contribute to the longevity but they most certainly also contribute to fundamental balance issues, and game balance issue hurts the longevity of the game and most certainly also the gameplay experience. Game balance is much more important, and there can still be done things to increase the longevity of the game, as I indicated above.
-
@not_Queen - The PTB clearly indicated that the legion was NOT ready for release, and yet BHVR goes ahead with its release, it would've been a lot better to wait with releasing it, because now we're going to have to deal with a broken killer that has no real counterplay to it, and we're going to wait a really long time before it's even somewhere near being just slightly reasonable.
It's not a matter of the legion not being for everyone, but a matter of it NOT being balanced and not having any real counterplay to it, seriously when so many people express their concerns BHVR really should not release it until it's ready, because it releasing content thats not ready and not balanced, will wreck all sorts of havoc to the game's balance.
-
@TheSavageLycan said:
@Incarnate said:
Before anything else, maybe you could explain a few things about the purpose of the site is and how exactly the roleplaying is going to be conducted - like for instance is the purpose of the site to run post by post style roleplaying?The RPG is post per post and the entire set up of our ranking system is in a WIP status at the moment. But with each post that you collect you'll gain blood points and what not and you can spend those points on the blood web to gain items and perks like in normal game..
Alright, one of the reasons I was asking was also due to the fact that I've been working an idea to make a DbD pen & paper rpg, but obviously, if it's something that should be released commercially, then BHVR would have to be willing to license/greenlight it.
In regards to you seeking staff, I have been an admin before on various websites and also moderator in a few forums, including a larger WH40K community. But currently I don't know if I will have the time for it, but certainly something I would be open to.
-
Before anything else, maybe you could explain a few things about the purpose of the site is and how exactly the roleplaying is going to be conducted - like for instance is the purpose of the site to run post by post style roleplaying?
-
@Entità said:
@Incarnate Your suggestion is legitimate, but off-topic: open a thread about perk tiers suppression, then.
I don't really find all of it to be off-topic, only the perk tier part is.
@Entità said:
I believe three things:1) balance tests are made on perks of tier 3, because they are definitive, while tiers 1 and 2 are temporary: they last until you get the best version of every perk, and then are immediately replaced;
No matter if they're temporary or not, the players still have them, and might have them for a long time before they get the highest tier perk, due to rng. So until they get the highest tier perk they will be at a disadvantage when against one of higher tier perks. And it doesn't make it any better that character perk slot limitations also tie into this.
@Entità said:
2) the Developers are busy with bug fixes, localization improvements, frame rate optimization and Christmas event, and I shouldn't charge them with big reforms, not today;They've been aware of this since at least devstream #59, where it was mentioned by Dave Richards, which is like two years ago, so considering that, they've had that much time to actually fix this, that this really is something that should've been dealt with a long time ago. I know they're busy with many things, but game balance and actual game performance should have the highest priority.
@Entità said:
3) until perk tiers will stand, a 5-level rarity system is better than a 3-level one, not for colors, but for a proper balance (I explained in the OP why).Setting higher prices means people have to grind even more, and the grind in the game is bad enough as it is.
However, I can see a benefit of a 5-level rarity system, terms of being able to increase the potential spread of bloodweb items. -
As far as I recall they have stated that they do intend it so be somewhat balanced and fair for both sides at the core of it, which is quite tricky apparently. Unfortunately they're adding certain mechanics which doesn't seem fair, namely the RNG, and RNG if used improperly or for the wrong things then it can be really bad for balance. Furthermore they allow players from both sides to apply powerful offerings that have the potential to tip the scale quite drastically for one side. But the worst part which is really at fundamental level, is the addons, equipment and perks, more specifically the perk tier and amount differences than the opposing sides.
Whats more interesting is that Dave Richards who's the creative director specifically said that addons, equipment, perks and their tiers affect performance hugely, so considering that, then one would assume that they're aware of the issue and would seek to fix it, and yet they haven't fixed this, which probably would make people wonder, because stating that also leads to the obvious, that amount differences only makes the imbalances greater.I have an entire post dedicated to debunking why this is severely imbalanced at a fundamental level, if this is something that might interest you?
-
@Entità said:
@Incarnate You want to reform radically the perk system; I want only to restore the proper classifications and colors, in order to guarantee that more powerful perks are rarer to find and more expensive to buy, aside the fact the five colors are beautiful per se.I'm not sure if you realize what is more important, gamebalance or colors in in the UI?
What I'm talking about is gamebalance, and what you're talking about is primarily something that affects how it looks. The rarity system is only in place because of the tier system....but you know, the rarity system could still be in if they made the perks only have 1 tier, even with the 5 level rarity system or more, but really the perk tiers needs to go, they really only should have one level because they affect gamebalance so hugely - as Dave Richards said on devstream #59. So basically what they could do with the rarity system is make more unique perk icons, with various different themes and styles - and that they could even monetize if they wanted. So people could still get the pink perk emblems, in same style and color the ultra rare perk emblems used to look like. -
In my opinion it shouldn't even have tiers, it should be uniform because that is much, much better balance-wise, especially when considering there are perk slot limitations based on character level. So when there is both perk amount differences and perk tier differences, it just aggravates it.
-
I think escaping with the RBT should equal INSTANT DEATH!
...WHY? Thats really simple, because when they're escaping they're escaping without the key, and not having the key means CERTAIN DEATH! So thats why! -
I think the solution would seem obvious here, basically just extend the time with the amount of time that particular victim has left on the hook + possibly the amount of time it takes for the victims to run directly to the closest exit. This way the particular save can still be done while allowing a chance to escape, where if more gets hooked then it's the same deal, this basically ensures that the match can be prolonged for "legitimate" reasons.Peanits said:@Onionthing said:
It could be as soon as the gates open there is a countdown timer. Fail to leave and the entity eats you anyway. Doesn't count toward blood points but at least you arent stuck for 20 min waiting for survivors to leave.To give a scenario: Someone is hooked, gates get powered. A survivor goes for the save, waits for an opening, unhooks them with borrowed time. The killer has NOED and instantly downs the rescuer, the other guys runs out. Now the other survivors run around the map looking for NOED, cleanse it, and go in for the save.
That could easily take a couple minutes, so there's a good chance that the timer would cut that off. The obvious move would be to make the timer longer, but if you do that the timer runs the risk of being too long. If it's too long, not much has really changed. If you're stuck sitting around for five minutes waiting for the timer to kick in, you're still not going to be having much fun.
-
@Boss said:
@Incarnate said:
In my opinion they should remove the shrine and just make every perk accessible in the store, but only purchasable with shards... Why? Because with the amount of perks in rotation and with many new coming in, it's very likely that people will either miss or have to wait a very long time before the perks come up in the rotation.That would put cosmetics far far FAR behind in IS purchases.
Why would that happen? As far as I know you spend shards on perks from the shrine, the same currency you'd be using on the cosmetics. So if you're spending shards on perks from the shrine or the store would still result in one going down in shards. So if you were spending shards to purchase a perk from the shrine, you'd still have less shards to purchase cosmetics from the store, so either way the end result would be the same.
-
In my opinion they should remove the shrine and just make every perk accessible in the store, but only purchasable with shards... Why? Because with the amount of perks in rotation and with many new coming in, it's very likely that people will either miss or have to wait a very long time before the perks come up in the rotation.
-
@Avariku said:
The devs NEED to fix the blatant imbalance between solo and SWF. period. Survivor is not fun for solo and the lack of earning any significant BP by playing that role is just a slap in the face.I completely agree with this statement!
-
@Iceman said:
I would love to see an ultra rare addon where The Legion doesn’t have a terror radius. I think this could add more game play to their power.What do you folks think?
Just no! A killer being that fast with no terror radius would be insane. Think of Myers who almost have no terror Radius in EW1, who only has a movement speed of 4.2m/s in EW1 and cannot benefit from bloodlust, so why do you think it would be even remotely reasonable that a killer as fast as the legion should have an addon that completely removes it's terror radius.
-
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
the game should be unfair for killers.No, that is completely wrong and would be very imbalanced and onesided - the game should be as fair as possible for both sides.
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
killers just complained and complained, rather than trying to get better at the game, and now we have a bunch of idiots playing killer, no one playing survivor, and a broken game where no one can play how they like.I don't think you can say it was only killers who did that, I'm quite sure survivor/victim players were just as guilty of it.
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
I always said to stop moaning survivors were op, but all i got called was salty survivor main. Now look where you've got us...I'm quite sure it was the devs that got us here - stop pointing blaming players, because either side were both doing it and both were actually right. Both sides were both right, something for either side were detrimental and quite possibly at a fundamental level.
-
@Mercury said:
I being held hostage in the game right now and got some video proof. This is going on for about 20 minutes already. Just wanted to ask where to submit the video and profile link.I think you will find the information you seek here:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/19450/game-rules-and-report-systemIt sucks when the game or even specific players are being held hostage in the game.
-
@Wolf74 said:
Why not just use M&A and a Dead Rabbit?Because that forces you to use an addon a perk to achieve it and thus it uses an addon and a perk slot, where it should be in the base power instead one having to run an addon and a perk to achieve it. Plus M&A also increases your terror radias while in a chase, which may or may not be beneficial depending on the situation and what the killer player wants to achieve.
-
@TheHourMan said:
This allows the devs to make the killer stringer without hurting solo. It's the first step toward it. You can't expect them to be able to shift the balance of the game in one move. That would take an enormous amount if dev time and might make them lose a good chunk of their playerbase. It has to be bit by bit. The only way to really remove the advantage if swf without killing matchmaking is to remove swf entirely.They can't fix this the way they're doing it now, no matter how much they implement. The only way they can fix it, is by either bringing the solo survivors up on the same level as the SWF - which won't happen unless they implement VoIP for the victim players and even then that might not be enough - where they then could balance the killer accordingly, and the other way would be to seperate them from each other - which can be done in several ways.
-
I'm sure this would change once the dedicated servers are in use.
-
@TheHourMan said:
They aren't buffing killers to accommodate swf, they are buffing solo survivors. How? By making communication easier and more in depth. Of course nothing they add will ever be as powerful as voice comm, but it really does make a big difference in terms of solo survivors. And in turn, they are balancing killers around these new survivor changes and additionsWhich in no way real substancial way makes up for the imbalances between SWF and killer.
-
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
"Delayed Instadown"
Not trying to be rude in any way, but there's a bit of a problem with that statement.
I agree, no killer should from a baseline perspective be able to instantly down anyone.
Because if you consider it, every killer who has the capability to instantly down either has to use very rare or ultra rare addons or have to put in a great deal of effort for it. -
@Caretaker said:
We want actual viable killers, and changes based around players who actually know how to use a killer properly. When the entire community says a character is awful to play against, and as, maybe it's time to step back and look at them to see why. I see this argument brought up so much and it's infuriating, because I know many killers and survivors. They all generally agree Nurse/Billy need adjustment. If anyone wants a killer that level it's because they're the only ones that can really stand up to a coordinated team. Even non-swf can ruin killers and just burn through gens.There are many issues that make this a problem. Namely map design, hitboxes, and gen speeds in general. As well as dumping all of killer's power into addons. Why do we have to play the game, to get points, to waste on addons, to play effectively? I'm a purist, I don't like using addons. I don't feel a killer should be based around addons either. All we want is a fun killer for both sides, that can be effective.
Yea we're gonna go for the 4k, and we're gonna try our damndest, but the worse you make a killer the more likely they are to play like a dick and tunnel/camp. Look at Legion, that's all he's good for since his power doesn't do anything.
You're completely right, we want viable killers, and viable killers doesn't mean stronger than Nurse or Hillbilly, in fact a lot of players have expressed they want Nurse and Hillbilly to be slightly less powerful than what they are now. I think every killer should equally strong and viable when compared to each other, not stronger than, but equal to, or least as close to as possible.
The addons shouldn't make a killer more effective, if anything they should change some mechanics to make them work slightly different, both to better fit ones playstyle, but also to be able to fluff if up a bit, so it actually adds diversity to the killers.
Personally I think it's a bit stupid that we have to keep grinding to get points to so we can waste more time going through the bloodweb, to be able to get those addons we want to play with.
You're quite right, we'll be doing our best to get everyone killed, and the less viable the killer is ie. the weaker the killer is, the more we're going to be resorting to EFFICIENT strategies, which for most people for both sides isn't going to be fun. Another reason why killers need to be viable is simply because if no new viable killer who's equally strong when compared to all the other killers, then the it's going to be the same killers we keep seeing at the high ranks, namely Nurse and Billy. It also means that people are forced to play Nurse or Billy if they want to play a killer who's viable for competitive play at high ranks, and it absolutely sucks not being able to play your favorite killer at high ranks simply because it's not designed to be competitively viable at high ranks.
-
@EntityDispleased said:
As for shape, I think he's one of the most balanced killers in the game. Sure you start with a disadvantage but you get a huge advantage when you get to EW3. Each EW level has a much different playstyle than the other and I think switching freely between different playstyles as you wish would be a bit much.It was ONLY intended to be between EW1 and EW2, E3 would still require you stalk up to activate it, and it could even be made so if you switched to EW1 from EW2 you'd lose some or all progress towards EW3. Furthermore, you should not be able to switch from EW3 to EW2 or EW1, it would naturally have to wear off.
The intention with making it more freely to switch between EW1 and 2, is primarily to be able to retain the ability to be stealthy when you need to be - in other words so you can play stealthy stalker and chaser when you need to, rather than completely lose the ability to be stealthy once the EW2 has been attained.@Janick - do you think this would be something you could consider adding for testing in the next PTB?
-
It would actually add an incentive to go to the killers basement, just to see what kind of customizations that the killer had made to his basement. Maybe they could even make it so that when you were in the killer screen it had loaded the basement or something like that.
-
@Nickenzie said:
Incarnate said:@Nickenzie said:
Incarnate said:
@Nickenzie - In regards to your suggested the deep wound mechanics. I think there needs to be two different timers, as indicated just below. 1 - healthy -> DW'ed - Longer than the normal DW timer to compensate for timer going down during a chase. 2 - injured -> DW'ed - Longer timer than the one above. I think the deep wound timer needs to keep going down in a chase, but slightly slower, so that way if the killer decides to apply pressure on the same DW'ed victim, the killer will not be severely punished for it. If a victim gets DW'ed while injured and while mending the victim gets "find help" the DW timer will stop before 5% left, here the victim can only stop the bleeding by keep mending, which would be different from the one who got DW'ed while healthy. In this situation the victim who keep mending will occasionally get a skill check where if they fail it, the timer will automatically decrease by 1% - which basically give a maximum of 4 failed skill attempts before going down. The result from this will be that if they're unable to actually get to another victim, they still have the option to stall the bleeding until another victim will get there and help, which will make this DW'ed victim unable to move and will pretty much be a sitting duck, unless they're willing to risk going down. Either way at this point the victim should consider it lucky if it manages to recover from this state. In regards to the legion, I think it's base move speed should be 4.2m/s, or maybe even 4.1m/s as the legion is based of a victim, also because it's way too easy to keep chasing one who's already DW'ed who also happen to have a timer that keeps going down while in a chase, and with the changes suggested by Nickenzie, it might be necessary. ..and perhaps make legion unable to actually benefit from bloodlust, because legion already has the feral frenzy, which should be more than enough speed boost. Don't take this to heart but I feel like the skill checks can over complicate things with the DW status effect. However, I see that you understand the main problem with DW: It has the same effect on injured and healthy survivors.
A 60 second DW timer is a lot if you think about it and most survivors should have enough time to mend (or find a teammate to mend if was previously injured). This and having Frenzy get stronger as you tag multiple survivors should help him slow down the game since he's able to DW multiple survivors. Consequently, we need to a way to balance this out because just these two buffs will make him a killing machine. The Legion will have to wait for his power to completely charge to 100% before using it and it takes more time to fully charge it (as well as lasting just a little bit longer). While my changes will definitely make him better, he should stay at 110% because it's the only thing he has when he doesn't have Frenzy.
I'm will not, as I'm just trying to throw some ideas so we can better fix the legion. The skill checks would only begin triggering when the injured victim with DW has reached 5% or less of the DW timer and has also reached the "find help", as this will ensure that unless the victim keeps doing the skill checks it will eventually go down, unless it receives help in time.
However one thing I would say probably would be needed, is that the last survivor should still be able to progress through the "find help" stage, but only if it's the last victim, where it will progress slower than normal. So that the last victim won't be completely depending on someone who isn't there.
Also, what I were suggesting of course were intended to work with what you already have suggested.
You're right, 60 seconds is quite some time, hence also why I suggested two different timers as, one is able to self-mend completely without help and the other will need help with the last part.
However with that said, we may have to realize that a rework will be a lot easier and better in the long run.
To be fair if the Legion DW'd you then attacks you again with Frenzy, you can still loop the Legion for 40 seconds before going down (assuming my Frenzy suggestions were implemented to the game). Those 40 seconds can be used to complete half of a generator per survivor so if you do go down because the Legion chased you till your timer expired, at least you'll know the Legion wasted a lot of time. My changes makes him better at stalling the game while being like the Pig where you can catch them mending and down them. If they run away then their timer will still decrease since my changes will not stop or slow the timer during a chase. Basically, if you go and tag multiple survivors then you're increasing your chances of catching a survivor off guard and downing them.
That is fair to have two different timers, both because there are mechanical differences but most certainly also because that if you're DW'ed while injured you cannot mend yourself completely, which is obviously quite different from being able to mend yourself. There were a reason why I didn't put a specific value on the timers, namely because they were meant to be relative to what you're suggesting value wise, or what a dev would for that matter.
So the slightly longer than normal timer were to compensate for the fact the the time would be going down while chasing, albeit slightly slower. Where the second timer would have to be longer than the one if you had been healthy when the DW was applied, to compesate for the fact that cannot completely mend yourself. So I weren't saying it should be 60 seconds, that was your initial value, what I'm suggesting value-wise is relative what you're suggesting. So if the first DW timer normally is 25 seconds, then maybe make it 30s (increase by 20% from the base of 25s), and make the second DW timer 40 seconds (increase by 60% from the base of 25s). I think that seems reasonable.
Also I don't know if you saw the recent dev stream were @Janick mentioned that one of the changes in the next patch would be, if one were applied DW while being injured it would start at 20s rather than at 25s.
One thing I think might be a good idea to change as well, would be to change when the slightly slower bleeding occurs, from being in a chase to when being within the terror radius. The reason being that currently what we see legion do is this: 1-First Apply DW, then follow up with a second DW strike, then break from chase to see if it's possible to apply it to someone else nearby, if so then do the above, but then return to the first victim to DW strike them again which resets their mending progress and then breaks chase and follows until the victim goes down or does a final DW strike. So changing it from the when chasing to being within the terror radius would make legion not being able to exploit just breaking chase to have the bleed begin at full speed, so that legion actually needs distance him/herself from the victim to achieve that.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
@Incarnate said:
@SenzuDuck said:
Also as for the "SWF was never intended"
https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=5829 Mins & 14 Seconds will answer you
That still doesn't change the fact that players weren't actually meant to be able to communicate, but it's 2018 so they won't say to people that cannot do that, which Mclean specifically says. The point is, that it wasn't intended for players to be able to relay ton of accurate information to their fellow players, more than a perk or several perks ever could, so by allowing them to do this, it's basically is like saying it's completely ok that you have all of these "free" perks that solo survivors only can have a total 4 of, and actually have to spend perk slots to be able to get some of this information that is completely free for the SWF players - which is completely imbalanced. So attempting to balance for SWF would only really work IF they brought solo players up the same level WITHOUT having to use perks to get it.
Playing against a group of solo victim players is way easier to play against, than a fully coordinated SWF group, like I said, this is something they will not be able to balance, unless they actually bring the solo victim players up to the same level as SWF players. Which basically would be to implement VoIP capability in the game for the victim players. However that wouldn't work either, because there are people who do not have this, even considering we're in 2018, and there are also potential technical issue people could have so they could not use this feature. So the only real way to deal with this, is to have a seperate mode where solo players and swf players being matchmaked together won't be such a big balance issue.
I still stand by the statement that if your issue with the game is SWF then you're just a bad killer imo. I bet you dodge as many lobbies in a day as I have full matches.
Is that what you call killers at red ranks, interesting. I guess they are being very, very bad, because it is very bad to kill people. But if you stand by that statement, you're also basically saying it's completely ok for SWF groups to a have a massive benefit by in having "free perks" that solo players never would be able to have or get. Because despite your statement, that is EXACTLY what SWF groups have, which also why it inherently makes it much more difficult to play against an SWF group than a solo group who do not have these massive benefits. So if you disregard that, then you're just being dismissive and ignorant, and really should take a few steps back and review things again from a different perspective. Why? Because I've haven't said anything about my skill level or me having issues with dealing with SWF groups, however I can clearly tell when I'm playing against solo victims or a group of SWF, it is that apparent because SWF makes that big of a difference to not notice.
SWF isn't my only issue with the game, but me finding SWF groups to cause balance issue, has absolutely zero to with my skill level as a killer player, as I happen to play at the red ranks.
I have many issues with the game, because this game does have a lot of issues, which it could be without if the devs actually cared to do what is right, like for instance when they allow things that are clearly exploiting unintended game mechanics to avoid detrimental game mechanic to get an unfair advantage, when they obviously shouldn't have allowed it.
The only lobbies I dodge, are the ones with bad ping or if there are players I know I won't play against, like if they're usually going to be playing toxic or being toxic afterwards or similar - so thats really not that many I dodge, and it happens to be the high ping ones most usually. I don't really dodge any others, I even play against full p3 Claudettes all with toolkits or flashlights, even without Franklin's demise, because I don't need that to be able to win.
-
@Carpemortum said:
Incarnate said:@Carpemortum said:
Attackfrog said:
@Carpemortum said: Someissues said:
This needs to be done tbh. If they are refusing to balance all killers to equal or close power (Which they acknowledged) then ranked needs to be removed altogether. There's no rank rewards anything. you are only being punished at higher rank with no rewards nor incentive, which leads to people derank If theres a casual mode, there wont be any needs to buff any killers. every killer will be fine as is as is it for casual mode. "Rank" isnt a ranked system. It's a way to SOMEWHAT better match the player base. Without it you would have literal pros vs new players. There has to be some sort of rank or mmr or the game is a complete clusterfuck.
Not to mention it resets monthly. ..so.... right now, I play with people at just about any rank ALlso, ranking is so ridiculous that bad players can easily achieve higher ranks and good players know how to "depip" Getting rid of the ranked system is a good solution because it really wouldn't change the makeup of matches to anything different than you see now. Instead, it would make the pool larger, resulting in faster q's with just as much chance of playing against a "noob" or "pro" as we have right now.
It would easily and quickly result in many more, very mismatched games. You CAN depip, or pip up easily, but not everyone does or can. It's at least limited to an extent. If they placed game history matchmaking into the game, people would make smurf accounts to troll. Someone will always WANT to play against worse players, and try to make it happen. Removing the rank completely would force regular players who dont troll the rank system into hellish games on the regular.
What they could do, is remove the ranks from player view, but still somehow retain it for matchmaking purposes, so then they could still more accurately put everyone up against more relatively equally skilled players. However I still think that killer rank should be individual.
Right. Some form of MMR or ELO.....sort of like a rank that's not really ranked......hrmmm......
But in all seriousness, I would agree that simply hiding it would help more than it would harm, but some people would still have issues not knowing their rank, or how good they were. They like the competitiveness of a top rank.
I doubt that creating seperate queues would help THAT much. It may, but most people play at their best. They try to achieve. It may cure all problems, but it would definitely split the playerbase a bit.
There is probably some way to fix the "ranking" system, but completely removing it and its effects, would be terrible.
As it is now, there are already those who're playing the game competitively, and there could be made incentives to playing actual ranked matches, like putting actually rewards up for when the season ends, or something similar. So even if it splits the playerbase, it will still be possible to find a match to play, because if they couldn't find a ranked match right when they wanted to, they could still go play casual and hone their skills. They could even add a tracker/counter, so you'd basically have an idea how many is playing ranked now and how many is playing casual now, maybe even display the actual amount of matches being played for either mode. So I don't think we should worry too much about the playerbase being split a bit, DbD has a very large playerbase to support it, furthermore, there are so many games that have casual and ranked modes, why should DbD be any different?
Personally, I play both casually and competitively, but not both at the same time, which also kind of leads to a dilemma, because that usually makes me hold back on playing, until I'm in the mood and feeling I have enough energy to put in a good competitive effort for the matches I'm going to be playing, but it does happen I take some matches where I'm like screw it, I can get this back easily, especially if there have been a rank reset. I'm sure there are lot of DbD players who're like that. Like I said, casual and competitive don't mix well.
So if they were to make a casual mode, which basically just were like what it is now, just with it's seperate rank that wouldn't be displayed, would be a great step in the right direction.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
Also as for the "SWF was never intended"https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=5829 Mins & 14 Seconds will answer you
That still doesn't change the fact that players weren't actually meant to be able to communicate, but it's 2018 so they won't say to people that cannot do that, which Mclean specifically says. The point is, that it wasn't intended for players to be able to relay ton of accurate information to their fellow players, more than a perk or several perks ever could, so by allowing them to do this, it's basically is like saying it's completely ok that you have all of these "free" perks that solo survivors only can have a total 4 of, and actually have to spend perk slots to be able to get some of this information that is completely free for the SWF players - which is completely imbalanced. So attempting to balance for SWF would only really work IF they brought solo players up the same level WITHOUT having to use perks to get it.
Playing against a group of solo victim players is way easier to play against, than a fully coordinated SWF group, like I said, this is something they will not be able to balance, unless they actually bring the solo victim players up to the same level as SWF players. Which basically would be to implement VoIP capability in the game for the victim players. However that wouldn't work either, because there are people who do not have this, even considering we're in 2018, and there are also potential technical issue people could have so they could not use this feature. So the only real way to deal with this, is to have a seperate mode where solo players and swf players being matchmaked together won't be such a big balance issue.
-
@Carpemortum said:
Attackfrog said:@Carpemortum said:
Someissues said:
This needs to be done tbh. If they are refusing to balance all killers to equal or close power (Which they acknowledged) then ranked needs to be removed altogether. There's no rank rewards anything. you are only being punished at higher rank with no rewards nor incentive, which leads to people derank If theres a casual mode, there wont be any needs to buff any killers. every killer will be fine as is as is it for casual mode. "Rank" isnt a ranked system. It's a way to SOMEWHAT better match the player base. Without it you would have literal pros vs new players. There has to be some sort of rank or mmr or the game is a complete clusterfuck.
Not to mention it resets monthly. ..so....
right now, I play with people at just about any rank
ALlso, ranking is so ridiculous that bad players can easily achieve higher ranks and good players know how to "depip"
Getting rid of the ranked system is a good solution because it really wouldn't change the makeup of matches to anything different than you see now. Instead, it would make the pool larger, resulting in faster q's with just as much chance of playing against a "noob" or "pro" as we have right now.
It would easily and quickly result in many more, very mismatched games. You CAN depip, or pip up easily, but not everyone does or can. It's at least limited to an extent. If they placed game history matchmaking into the game, people would make smurf accounts to troll. Someone will always WANT to play against worse players, and try to make it happen. Removing the rank completely would force regular players who dont troll the rank system into hellish games on the regular.
What they could do, is remove the ranks from player view, but still somehow retain it for matchmaking purposes, so then they could still more accurately put everyone up against more relatively equally skilled players. However I still think that killer rank should be individual.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
@Incarnate said:
The game isn't casual, there are ranks, even if the game mode doesn't actually have a name, it's still ranked alright and players ranking up and deranking all the time - so do go saying the game is casual when clearly it's competitive. Even if some people play it more casually, that doesn't make it any less competitive. For the record competitive and casual don't mix well, and quite clearly there are both types of players playing in the same mode because they don't have any other mode.SWF groups with VoIP does break the intended balance. The game was never intended to have SWF in it, and players weren't intended to be able to communicate. So it does upset the balance quite a lot.
The game is 100% casual.
The game can be played both casually but most certainly also competitively, and casual and competitive don't mix well. But with the ranks in, it's quite obviously more oriented towards being competitive, where whether if people play competitively or casually doesn't change that fact.
@SenzuDuck said:
Moris = Easy wins
Iridescent Heads = Easy Wins
Insta Heals = Easy ChaseIf you're going to claim this game is competitive when it has those things in then you're beyond reason.
Hold on a second there, so you're saying just because there are moris, iridencent heads and insta heals then all of a sudden that makes it casual as that represents easy wins? First of all, no, that doesn't mean easy wins at all, and second all they do is tip the scale, but both sides can bring in things to tip the scale to some degree.
@SenzuDuck said:
When one of the most effective tactics is running around and slugging everyone there is no competition, when you can add insta downs to a lot of the killers there is no "competitiveness" to that.Just because that is an efficient strategy, doesn't mean it's any less of a competition. Because both sides are trying to beat the other. The insta-downs, insta-heals just makes it harder, that still doesn't mean that it isn't competitive. I know the "spirit" of the game "was" intended" to be casual, but the reality is that it isn't. People play the game BOTH casually and competitively, and playing casually don't mix well with playing competitively.
Like if you're five friends sitting down to play everyone's favorite board game, to have a bit of fun, where the spirit of the game is casual but certainly can be played competitively. You're all sitting down to play, three of the players are playing it casually, but two of them are playing it competitively and completely ruining the fun for the casual players, because they're doing what is most efficient, uses the best strategies, and so on. It's exactly the same deal with DbD, because guess what there are people optimizing their builds, discussing what are the best strategies, what is the most efficient, etc. If it isn't intended to being competitive, then they completely remove the ranks, because those are especially making people take it to that competitive level.
@SenzuDuck said:
The game is casual, the ranks are reset every month, and there's no incentive to be at rank 1.Ranks are reset? No, they're not really reset, there is only a bit of rank loss based on your actual rank, one is not completely reset to rank 20, and even if one were that, it isn't indicative of it being casual, because thats exactly what happens in ladder based modes, which you're essentially doing in DbD, moving up or down one rank at a time.
..and there is an incentive to be rank 1, that is supposed to reflect you one the best players in DbD
@SenzuDuck said:
ITS CASUAL.No Kill you friend is actually the casual, but it has several drawbacks, it requires friends to play with who owns the game, and you cannot queue alone or as several players, and that mode has everything unlocked and everything is at the highest level and the host has full control of which map it's going to be, etc. So the game does need and actual casual mode that is pretty much like the normal matchmaking, just without the ranks, which shouldn't be very hard to do.
-
@SenzuDuck said:
@Incarnate said:
@SenzuDuck said:
That being said, a major change that needs to happen to "SWF" is the hiding of the perks at end game screen until it's finished, this should be a priority. People need to stop pretending every match they queue into is a team of 4 that do swat coms, it's utterly ridiculous.Thats no where near enough, because of the possibility to be communicating together as an SWF team.
Solo and SWF cannot exist in the same ranked mode because of the balance issues they introduce, even if you were to attempt to balance it around SWF and bring solo players up to the same "level" as the SWF players it still wouldn't be the same nor would it be balance, and balance is the issue here.The game is casual, not competitive, stop asking for Ranked/Non-Ranked.
If you want to play comp go play in a tournament... oh... where they all voice chat btw.SWF Is not hard to beat, I'd wager the majority of people on this forum that complain about SWF probably dodge the mere whiff of SWF and simply want to complain and ruin the game for SWFers.
The game isn't casual, there are ranks, even if the game mode doesn't actually have a name, it's still ranked alright and players ranking up and deranking all the time - so do go saying the game is casual when clearly it's competitive. Even if some people play it more casually, that doesn't make it any less competitive. For the record competitive and casual don't mix well, and quite clearly there are both types of players playing in the same mode because they don't have any other mode.
SWF groups with VoIP does break the intended balance. The game was never intended to have SWF in it, and players weren't intended to be able to communicate. So it does upset the balance quite a lot.
@TheHourMan said:
They are already in the process of balancing the game for swf, calm down..that won't work for obvious reasons. Because solo players will still be at a severe disadvantage if they buff the killer to better balance against the SWF.
-
@Carpemortum said:
The problem with that is that if someone is rank 1 with nurse, or billy, then decides to play a new meyers, that's someone with rank 1 abilities with rank 20 survivors on a damn good killer...
Yes, in the beginning it would be an issue, but that would quickly rectify itself as this killer would be gaining ranks. And I do think they should be calculating skill level rather than what they're doing now with "pipping" or "de-pipping".
-
@SenzuDuck said:
That being said, a major change that needs to happen to "SWF" is the hiding of the perks at end game screen until it's finished, this should be a priority. People need to stop pretending every match they queue into is a team of 4 that do swat coms, it's utterly ridiculous.Thats no where near enough, because of the possibility to be communicating together as an SWF team.
Solo and SWF cannot exist in the same ranked mode because of the balance issues they introduce, even if you were to attempt to balance it around SWF and bring solo players up to the same "level" as the SWF players it still wouldn't be the same nor would it be balance, and balance is the issue here. -
@Carpemortum said:
Incarnate said:@Carpemortum said:
Incarnate said:
@Carpemortum said: Someissues said:
This needs to be done tbh. If they are refusing to balance all killers to equal or close power (Which they acknowledged) then ranked needs to be removed altogether. There's no rank rewards anything. you are only being punished at higher rank with no rewards nor incentive, which leads to people derank If theres a casual mode, there wont be any needs to buff any killers. every killer will be fine as is as is it for casual mode. "Rank" isnt a ranked system. It's a way to SOMEWHAT better match the player base. Without it you would have literal pros vs new players. There has to be some sort of rank or mmr or the game is a complete clusterfuck.
Not to mention it resets monthly. ..so.... It actually is a ranked system, which also is there to attempt to better match the player base, which is an attempt to reflect your skill level, unfortunately that isn't working so well due to the imbalances caused by SWF, however SWF isn't to blame alone for this. One of the reasons is that victim and killer ranks are global and not specifically linked to an individual character, so you may be rank one killer and you're maining Myers, but when you then switch to another killer whom you're not nearly as skilled with nor do you have good perks, addons, etc. on that killer, but you're still being matched with others as a R1. ..and the monthly resets - are really stupid in my opinion, because you don't suddenly become less skilled. Instead that should most likely be based on a certain amount have passed since you last played, rather than you just dropping a few ranks once every month.
Did you just ignore the point of my message and just argue the terminology? It's a rank. Yes. As I said. But not a ranked system as in the competitive sense. As in the ranked OR casual sense. It's there to make sure it's not pros vs potatoes.
No, I did not ignore the point of the message, but I disagree with you about that to a certain extent.
It is a competitive ranking system, which isn't without it's flaws, and it's also by many players being perceived and treated as a competitive ranking system. You're right it's not as complex as for instance the elo ranking system, but the elo system is there for the same reason, to put people against each other of same relative skill level. It's the same with CS:GO, there you also have individual ranks that is attainable and whether you rank up or de-rank is based on your performance, same deal with DbD, granted there different parameters that detemines if one ranks up, de-ranks or nothing happens, but essentially it's the same. So if you disagree with me here, then by your logic CS:GO wouldn't be using a competitive ranking system either.
My point also holds true here, because when ranked isn't linked to a specific killer, it doesn't do what it's supposed to, namely to put you against others who would fit your skill level with that particular killer. Where with survivor/victims rank it's a different matter, because every victim is really more a skin than anything else. However, when the players don't have the perks from the other characters, they're really playing with a more limited toolset, until they unlock the perks that allows them to play to their skill level, and thus they shouldn't be having a global rank either. The reason should be quite obvious, because in essence it's the same issue you have with the killer global rank when you switch to another killer where you don't have the same skill, addons and perks that allows you to actually both attain and keep holding that rank.
Rank should not be global... It should be linked to each individual character. But it's not, so it doesn't ensure pros don't get matched vs. potatoes as you say. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to climb the ranks as a survivor when playing an SWF group as opposed to playing as a solo victim climbing the ranks.
To that end, it's easier to reach rank 1 with nurse than freddy. But both are possible....
Its global based on your skill at that "rank" with all possible killers or possibilities. Otherwise wed have to rank based on specific perks as well.
That is one of the main issues with the global rank, because it does a really poor job at reflecting one's skill level with each individual killer, as every killer performs differently and requires one to play differently, which also means that people will have varying levels of skill the killers. Like for instance, I'm sure we both agree on that Nurse has a much higher skill cap than for instance Freddy, but Freddy will require even more skill to make it to the red ranks than it will with Nurse, which basically means that if a Freddy player makes it to the red ranks, then by comparison to the Nurse, then this killer player would have a much better rank than what the red ranks actually reflect. There are many good reasons why rank really should be tied to each individual killer rather than being a global rank for all. So if the extremely awesome player who's achieved the red ranks with Freddy switches to Nurse, but really haven't played much nurse, then guess what then this killer players skill level suddenly isn't on par with what it was supposed to be. Global rank doesn't reflect your skill with all possible killers, it reflects the skill level with those killers you used to attain the rank with, period!
Another good reason why we actually need a game mode that doesn't use the rank system, is mainly due to the reason that if you want to play other killers for instance, and you're at say rank 1, but really your skill level, is mayb only rank 10'ish with the killer you want to play, furthermore you don't have all the perks on that killer that allows you to play with better efficiency and thus to perform better, but you'll still going to be matched against R1 survivors who will be bringing the best. So essentially being locked to play at a specific rank even though you don't want be playing competitively but are forced to do so if you want to retain your rank - that is a problem. And it's the same deal with victim players, they're also forced to play more competitively if they want to retain their rank, which means people might decide not to play because they don't want to lose rank and they don't feel like playing competively that day.
-
@Carpemortum said:
Incarnate said:@Carpemortum said:
Someissues said:
This needs to be done tbh. If they are refusing to balance all killers to equal or close power (Which they acknowledged) then ranked needs to be removed altogether. There's no rank rewards anything. you are only being punished at higher rank with no rewards nor incentive, which leads to people derank If theres a casual mode, there wont be any needs to buff any killers. every killer will be fine as is as is it for casual mode. "Rank" isnt a ranked system. It's a way to SOMEWHAT better match the player base. Without it you would have literal pros vs new players. There has to be some sort of rank or mmr or the game is a complete clusterfuck.
Not to mention it resets monthly. ..so....
It actually is a ranked system, which also is there to attempt to better match the player base, which is an attempt to reflect your skill level, unfortunately that isn't working so well due to the imbalances caused by SWF, however SWF isn't to blame alone for this. One of the reasons is that victim and killer ranks are global and not specifically linked to an individual character, so you may be rank one killer and you're maining Myers, but when you then switch to another killer whom you're not nearly as skilled with nor do you have good perks, addons, etc. on that killer, but you're still being matched with others as a R1.
..and the monthly resets - are really stupid in my opinion, because you don't suddenly become less skilled. Instead that should most likely be based on a certain amount have passed since you last played, rather than you just dropping a few ranks once every month.
Did you just ignore the point of my message and just argue the terminology? It's a rank. Yes. As I said. But not a ranked system as in the competitive sense. As in the ranked OR casual sense. It's there to make sure it's not pros vs potatoes.
No, I did not ignore the point of the message, but I disagree with you about that to a certain extent.
It is a competitive ranking system, which isn't without it's flaws, and it's also by many players being perceived and treated as a competitive ranking system. You're right it's not as complex as for instance the elo ranking system, but the elo system is there for the same reason, to put people against each other of same relative skill level. It's the same with CS:GO, there you also have individual ranks that is attainable and whether you rank up or de-rank is based on your performance, same deal with DbD, granted there different parameters that detemines if one ranks up, de-ranks or nothing happens, but essentially it's the same. So if you disagree with me here, then by your logic CS:GO wouldn't be using a competitive ranking system either.My point also holds true here, because when ranked isn't linked to a specific killer, it doesn't do what it's supposed to, namely to put you against others who would fit your skill level with that particular killer. Where with survivor/victims rank it's a different matter, because every victim is really more a skin than anything else. However, when the players don't have the perks from the other characters, they're really playing with a more limited toolset, until they unlock the perks that allows them to play to their skill level, and thus they shouldn't be having a global rank either. The reason should be quite obvious, because in essence it's the same issue you have with the killer global rank when you switch to another killer where you don't have the same skill, addons and perks that allows you to actually both attain and keep holding that rank.
Rank should not be global... It should be linked to each individual character. But it's not, so it doesn't ensure pros don't get matched vs. potatoes as you say. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to climb the ranks as a survivor when playing an SWF group as opposed to playing as a solo victim climbing the ranks.
-
Seems like an interesting concept, it's worth exploring.
-
@Carpemortum said:
Someissues said:This needs to be done tbh. If they are refusing to balance all killers to equal or close power (Which they acknowledged)
then ranked needs to be removed altogether. There's no rank rewards anything. you are only being punished at higher rank with no rewards nor incentive, which leads to people derank
If theres a casual mode, there wont be any needs to buff any killers. every killer will be fine as is as is it for casual mode.
"Rank" isnt a ranked system. It's a way to SOMEWHAT better match the player base. Without it you would have literal pros vs new players. There has to be some sort of rank or mmr or the game is a complete clusterfuck.
Not to mention it resets monthly. ..so....
It actually is a ranked system, which also is there to attempt to better match the player base, which is an attempt to reflect your skill level, unfortunately that isn't working so well due to the imbalances caused by SWF, however SWF isn't to blame alone for this. One of the reasons is that victim and killer ranks are global and not specifically linked to an individual character, so you may be rank one killer and you're maining Myers, but when you then switch to another killer whom you're not nearly as skilled with nor do you have good perks, addons, etc. on that killer, but you're still being matched with others as a R1.
..and the monthly resets - are really stupid in my opinion, because you don't suddenly become less skilled. Instead that should most likely be based on a certain amount have passed since you last played, rather than you just dropping a few ranks once every month.
-
Would be awesome if killers could have more options, like be able to have more than one power to chose from within their kit. So like you know what killer you're up against, but won't know for certain until the killer uses it's power.
-
I definitely am in complete support of this, because this has been an issue since they implemented SWF, and it does break balance. I do have one note to add, and that is that the devs really should be very careful with what they sanction/whitelist, because they've made certain sanctions in the past that should not have been made but instead have been blacklisted and specifically should have attempted to make some kind of fix, because sanctioning something that would normally be considered an exploit and something where you're avoiding an intended detrimental game mechanic by using an unintended game mechanic to gain an unfair advantage is by definition what is considered an exploit and it breaks balance.
I've also personally advocated for a ranked and casual game more, for several reasons, but especially because of the balance issues SWF causes in ranked play, and really shouldn't be allowed in RANKED play.
-
It's kinda funny you think he is OP, since victim characters are basically just reskins.
-
@Nokillerinozone said:
He needs a slight nerf to EW3What did you have in mind? The duration or that it deals double damage?
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Jacoby2041 said:
With just what you have there I think slugging might become a bigger thing. Since the killer doesn't want them to die and cause other people to get boosts when the killer can still disable them by downing people without everyone else getting a boost, it might be better to slug everyone.Still the idea is good and you make many very good points. All it needs is testing and some changes, as does any idea really.
If we see slugging becoming an issue, then we'd need to track during what stages exactly. If we see that the problem is stages (memoir) specific than we could use the same system to solve it.
@Incarnate also mentioned being able to recover by yourself, (perhaps at a slower rate).
Testing how the game plays out (and how differently it will), will be a lot of fun to watch, especially when it comes to slower adapting players.Generally speaking, the main reason why the death-effieciency issue is that severe is simply due to certain actions being reliant on other survivors, like for instance recovering, healing, and getting off the hook. So not being able to recover on your own is what leads to the slugging meta.
@Janick could you please review @AlwaysInAGoodShape 's analasis and suggestions, including mine and others feedback and suggestions, and provide your own feedback and suggestions. Would you consider implementing this?
-
I agree, it should be possible to make it completely skip it, so that it doesn't load in the first place, which shouldn't be a problem for BHVR to make it so we can skip it. Not sure if steams -novid startup parameter could disable it as that is intended for source, but it's worth a try.
-
@ReneAensland said:
The Lunge holds up.
Just run Monitor and Abuse dude.
8 meters is 8 meters.I still Myers should be able to switch between EW1 and 2 more freely, for reasons already given, and it would also make EW1 more usable in many situations - it can actually bring a lot more mindgames to the table for Myers.
-
@ApacheLand said:
There is one wierd thing where when there are 4 survivors the frame rate seems to be a bit iffy but as soon as one is dead it looks like it locks to 60fps for the rest of the match which is the dream! (at least for console) thanks to the devs for the hard work and here take my money and give me some auric cells cuz that clown santa is what I'm about.If the fps is consistently below the 60 rate when all 4 survivors are alive, it could indicate a resource issue, which inherently would come from the game being designed to use more than what is currently available, IF the fps is consistently below the 60 rate. Because IF the fps locks at 60 when a survivor dies, then technically more resources are made available. It's one theory at least.
-
@DocOctober said:
It's always been 6 metres in Tier I.@DocOctober said:
It's always been 6 metres in Tier I.I'm quite certain it was 8/16/38 before this patch, especially because I was recently reviewing his stats.
-
@iTz_KilLaZ_x said:
megdonalds said:Too many people in this forum with too many first world problems, ffs.
Its still false advertising. Just because you don’t care or think it’s a “first world problem” doesn’t mean we’re wrong
Indeed, BHVR needs to be more precise and stay consistent with it.
It is noted in case anyone missed @not_Queen 's post about it.
-
From their steam product page it does't explictly state which is in the group legion, but they did state there are 3+1 in the group, so obviously there are four. So can understand why some would feel this misleading advertising, because that it actually is, but it's at the same time also a bit in the grey zone because they haven't explicitly stated on the product page who's in it. So they could quite easily fix this by just one additional different male and female mask and labelling the names of those not currenly there. Because if they don't then they haven't delivered what they have marketed it as.
-
I think it's worth to consider and note this.
A generator that is regressing should keep regressing even when a survivor/victim is touching it, and only by working on the generator can the regression be overcome - it basically means that for every second that passes while the generator is regressing, the -0.25 has to be overcome, where one survivor/victim work on a generator will be enough. The generator in question will have a debuff that lasts for the set duration and will continue to do so until it expires or the generator is completed. So if a victim works on the generator but leaves the generator before the regression debuff expires then it will still keep regressing.Pierce:
I really like this mechanic and it makes a lot of sense why one who's been hooked will receive this, which is basically a limited version of Hex:Ruin. However I think the pierce mechanic should apply to any attempt that progresses something, like for instance also healing and not just generators.Chasing should be considered a passive Terror Action.
I also think there should be more terror actions.
In regards to the memoirs, I think they're really interesting and it would be even more interesting if the buff that they got was depending on the actual victim, in other words that every victim had a unique memoir buff.
I'd even go as far as saying that perhaps it could be considered that every victim character had a unique activable power that could be unlocked through play in each match, and only with set conditions, which could be through the memoir mechanics. Because personally I've always felt it's bad decision to treat the character as skin and nothing else, and same goes with allowing mutiple of the same characters in the same match. You could say, in the face of adversity you either crack or become empowered, or something down those lines.
-
@shadesofjoe said:
Just because they under-delivered on the PTB foesnt make it ok. That's like saying it's okay for a company to mislead customers because they made it clear in advance they were going to be misleading. Still doesn't address the issue.Exactly, and moreso because there are a lot of people purchasing it without having participated in the PTB, this is something that has to be very clear what you're getting from your purchase, otherwise it's what you see is what you get kind of thing.