Jallybwan
Jallybwan
About
- Username
- Jallybwan
- Joined
- Visits
- 614
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Itslat3ncy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2257795#Comment_2257795
Becuz you'll never go against a comp practicing becuz you wont be that high in mmr
I'm in call with him watching him play right now. He's ONLY getting comp teams.
-
@Unifall said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2207315#Comment_2207315
Every thread does this. Survivors and killers. Not just killers.
It's called whataboutism, and this community does it a lot.
That being said, sometimes people have a point. Like how everyone compared moris to keys and said they both needed to be nerfed, so moris were nerfed, but keys are still the same - people saying keys should be nerfed as well are totally correct.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2206468#Comment_2206468
You know, it was extremely rare for me to meet someone who hated playing against Old Freddy. Most were actually happy, because they thought it was going to be an easy victory. I always did my best to prove them wrong.
As for Billy, in my experience some of his add-ons were a little bit unfair, but that can be debatable. Still, nothing will ever justify Freddy's rework and Billy's nerf. Nothing.
Agreed. Fully agreed.
-
@Techn0 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2207046#Comment_2207046
Given that we’re already pretty happy with the way The Deathslinger performs, the changes to his base kit are minimal. We are not removing any of the options you have with his gun. Instead, we want to focus on the skill-based gameplay and put an emphasis on using your gun effectively, only adding a small drawback to misusing your gun.
In [Patch Number], The Deathslinger's gun will now feature a new cleaning mechanic. shooting the gun will now cause it to accumulate grime, which can be seen both in the lower left corner around the power icon and on the speargun itself. This grime will dissipate over time whenever the speargun is not being used.
Pfft
-
@GeneralV said:
And here I am, once again, to show my support. I really hope this thread take us somewhere. After everything Old Freddy mains and Old Billy mains had to endure it is about time we get our killers back.
Never lose hope, my friend, even when everything seems lost.
@Peppa_Pigsaw said:
Now I was one of the odd players who absolutely HATED Billy. Like I just despised him. Not really sure why but something about him just got under my skin. (Might have been because every Billy player I ever faced was an instasaw, endfury, NOED garbage can but I digress.)
The Billy rework is...in short. Bad. Just awful. I didn't play Billy, but speaking to any old Billy mains and hearing about how their main was completely GUTTED in the rework is absolutely appalling. If the Freddy rework hadn't turned him into a dumpster fire of game design that both boring and unfun to go against, the amount of ire people have against the Billy rework would honestly have me convinced that the Billy rework is the worst one that BHVR ever pushed out.
He didn't need his basekit changes, he just didn't. I never see Billies on the admittedly rare occasion that I play survivor now and it's honestly really sad. He's apparently buggy, clunky, and unfun. BHVR needs to fix that, even if I doubt they will because as we all know
BHVR doesn't do anything unless it directly effects their profits.
Absolutely. I know a lot of people hated playing against Old Freddy as well, but everyone hates playing against New Freddy. At least with Old Freddy, he was around low-mid-tier. Now he's just stupidly powerful for very little skill requirement.
#JusticeForBilly
#BringUsBackOldFreddy
-
@Ferrari334 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2202920#Comment_2202920
Kinda, the tuning guide was busted. Its the chainsaw CD addons that I think are fine.
It is just really annoying to play him without those. I don't mind the long charge time, its just the stupid DS level cooldown after every saw that makes him feel so sluggish now.
Yeah, the reduced cooldown addons (Vegetable Oil, Shop Lubricant, Thompson's Mix but without the charge time increase) need to be brought back. Bumper Billy too! (Reduced penalty for bumping into objects - Depth Gauge Rake, Light Chassis)
-
@BarbecueiChilli said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2202916#Comment_2202916
You know how many people are saying: ,,Bring back old billy, this is your priority'' ? This is not the worst killer in the game, we have clown, pig, legion and more, hillbilly is still fun to play as, not good vs swf but when you're good as him you still can win (if it's lery's memorial institute then F)
Agreed, Clown and Pig may be in more desperate need of buffs, but there's one thing I feel separates Billy from these two - Clown and Pig players don't have anything to miss. Neither of them have been significantly reworked in any way (Clown's piss bottles don't really do much, and either way his purple bottles still exist).
Billy, on the other hand? He went from one of the most played, most balanced killers in the game to one of the least picked killers in the game. And there's a good reason for that; why play Billy when Oni exists? Why play Billy when Blight exists? Old Billy mains lost a lot of reasons to play their killer because of some "minimal" changes that BHVR made that were not at all minimal. We're coming up on a year since the nerf, and it hasn't been reverted. Why?
Here's a video by Scott Jund better explaining the topic of this thread.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2203345#Comment_2203345
Perfect.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2203349#Comment_2203349
Indeed, this is what I've been suggesting for some time. The devs need to give us a option to play as him again, and this can be done without deleting his new power.
New Freddy mains do not have to experience what us Old Freddy mains had to endure.
Yeah. Maybe just a button that shows up when you select Freddy in the menu. Hell, maybe two Freddies. Old Freddy can be the original Nightmare on Elm Street Freddy, and New Freddy can be the remake version. I haven't seen the movies so I don't know how different they are, but the point is, it'd be really really good to have both at once.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2202977#Comment_2202977
And that is the right thing to do, my friend. None of us will give up.
I've seen the backlash. Most people still think Freddy is boring to play as and against. If this is not enough proof that something has to be done than I don't know what is.
It is about time we get our old killer back. We deserve it!
Yeah, definitely. Even if old Freddy wasn't fun to play against, new Freddy sure as hell isn't either. So what do we have to lose?
Now that new Freddy is here though, I hope BHVR gives us the option to switch between the two versions. Somewhere out there is a person who really likes new Freddy, and I'd hate to take that away from them like old Freddy was taken from us.
-
-
@QwQw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2202953#Comment_2202953
Yeah, the roar personally gets annoying for me after awhile.
I wasn't around to play the game in 2016, so I wouldn't know what the "beastly sound" he made was.
You can hear it here at 2:40.
-
@QwQw said:
You forgot to mention for them to fix Billy's animations and get rid of that stupid roar.
That too, although I don't personally mind the roar too much. It doesn't affect gameplay, and I see it as a nice little touch to show the "violent frenzy" Billy's chainsaw whips him into.
I see how you'd dislike it, though. Maybe they could bring back that beastly sound he used to make when stunned in 2016?
-
@HaunterofShadows said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2202936#Comment_2202936
Its likely going to be moved to feedback and spamming might get you banned.
If it's moved to feedback, it's moved to feedback. I won't fight that. And I'm not going to make a new post every day, I'm just going to post in this thread with a progress report on how many demands have been fulfilled.
I'll edit the original post for clarity; thank you for bringing it up.
-
@Brokenbones said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2202926#Comment_2202926
I don't even disagree
If it were up to me, I'd probably reduce his base chainsaw charge time by a little bit and give him some better addons. Not sure if i'd remove overheat though, I get it's not even that bad for him, it's just annoying.
Yeah, having a slightly buffed old Billy in the game would be great - especially since Nurse, Spirit, Oni and Blight exist.
I'd absolutely remove Overheat though, since it's a dumb mechanic that nobody asked for. It doesn't gut him entirely, but it's another example of the result of not listening to the community at all.
Furthermore, overheat hurts curve Billies more than other Billies. Curve Billies' chainsaws don't cool off mid-chase like non-curve Billies' do, and since you heat up faster while revving, the longer charge time on Engravings addons means you reach the limit faster. It needs to go.
Other than that, totally agree. I just want old Billy back (minus instasaw), and by the sounds of it, so does everyone else.
-
@HaunterofShadows said:
Yeah this is about to stay
I'm staying until one of two things happen.
- The list of demands is fulfilled.
- I'm banned from this forums by giving BHVR reasonable feedback. The reason I didn't post this in the Feedback section is because I want people to discuss how old Billy was compared to current Billy.
-
@Brokenbones said:
As long as Insta-saw isn't brought back, I'm fine with Billy getting buffs
Old insta-saw (Tuning guide + Thompson mix) was not fun to go against, I don't care how many people act like billy was the most fun killer to face back then - he wasn't. Those addons deserved to be gutted
Absolutely, those addons should've been gutted. Nobody liked instasaw Billy. But only those addons should've been gutted, and instead they screwed up his entire power. He's still an alright killer, but he should be reverted to what he was before - minus the instasaw.
-
@GeneralV said:
I guess that is one thing us Old Freddy mains have in common with you Old Billy mains: we both want our killers back.
I don't think spamming it is a good idea, but I admire your efforts. Welcome to our world, my friend.
Trust me, I understand. I used to play old Freddy a lot as well. The difference is that old Freddy was hated by a few people, while nobody wanted Billy nerfed - not even the devs. I'd love to see old Freddy back as well; I just think Billy's change was even more unfair.
-
@BrokenSouI said:
O....K..? I hope you know that's a waste of your time.
Maybe, maybe not. I lose nothing. The only reason it'd be a waste of time is if BHVR once again shows they don't care what the community has to say, and I hope they prove anyone who says they don't care wrong.
-
Everyone seemed to realize "oh ######### this killer has potential" about a week before his rework, begged BHVR to not go through with it, and they didn't listen.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2104258#Comment_2104258
I don't think that's the case. If anything, it's about the same level of frustration :D But at least old Freddy was almost never played above rank 10, so that was nice, I'll give you that...
Yep, just get out of Freddy ranks and you're good to go. I'd even argue that he wasn't really played below rank 15 either, since he's a paid DLC killer. Most under-15s play free killers.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Lots of people used to DC on sight. He was very frustrating to play as and to play against, I am so glad he's gone.
Liking something is of course the subjective matter of opinion and it's fine by all means. But there's little to no chance of something problematic previously replaced to be put back.
Maybe, but I'm sure most people would agree new Freddy is much less fun to go against because he's so much more braindead now. Old Freddy actually required thought. New Freddy is just "put snare get down teleport pop win".
-
Update for the new info (sorry, forgot about this):
I did post a screenshot to my friend at some point but it doesn't show the lack of rank, only that I got a quad iri. All survivors died, none disconnected.
-
Yep, happened to me as Wraith as well. Stunning itself is also buggy as hell, and sometimes I just don't get stunned despite being directly under the pallet.
-
@Toblerone007 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2047109#Comment_2047109
It's a balance issue. Just because you've said otherwise doesn't change anything. It's not about it being unfair or not rather it being a net buff to killer where the game has been built around the same base mechanics of low fov. You're asking for a base kit buff to all killers.
It's not accessability. Sit further back from your monitor if you're getting motion sickness. Your peripheral vision should be telling your inner ear fluid that you're not moving.
All of this has been addressed in the thread already. Read up. That doesn't work.
-
Actually, you know what - given the amazing lengths some people are going to in order to "prove" that having an FOV slider would be unfair, I've realized I don't need to bother with arguments around balance. This isn't a balance issue.
It's an accessibility issue, like colourblind settings. Opposing an FOV slider because it supposedly gives killers some huge advantage is just as ridiculous as opposing colourblind settings because someone might misuse them and get an advantage. It's a bad hill to die on, because even if you do get an advantage from an FOV slider, that is 100% worth it to make up for the unfairness of having to waste a perk to not feel sick in this game.
There is no valid reason why there shouldn't be an FOV slider in this game, balance-related or otherwise.
-
@Toblerone007 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2010851#Comment_2010851
You can't discount it as nothing though.
High FOV is a competitive advantage when chasing a survivor. Naturally, there is no reason to set your fov below the maximum.
What you're indirectly asking is for a perk to be added to killer base kit.
What I'm directly asking for is an FOV slider, which in most other modern games is a setting in the options menu.
Also, higher FOV provides a disadvantage for Killers as well. You have a wider angle to be blinded by.
It's still kind of surreal to me that people still unironically think having a higher FOV gives you a serious advantage whatsoever. It's like how people used to argue that exhaustion pausing in a chase would make exhaustion perks useless - if this change was actually in the game, next to nobody would be complaining. Fire Up gives more of an advantage than Shadowborn, ffs.
-
@fogdonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2039046#Comment_2039046
Sorry, but your arguments are not valid.
It is not about hiding in the bushes with dark cosmetics. It is about hiding on the side of the killer, moving away from the eyes of the killer when the killer walks beside you, etc. With a greater FOV the killer would find you. With shadowborn or "monitor and abuse" you can more easily spot survivors on the edges of your vision, so FOV makes a difference.
Sorry, but your arguments are not valid. I addressed them here:
And if a survivor is trying to hide to the left or right of the killer without any cover, they're doing it badly.
-
@ShamelessPigMain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2029512#Comment_2029512
I don't think the FoV limitation so bad that it degrades from player experience. Of course, it's a nuance between having a fair game and letting killers have fun (doubling gen repair time would improve the killer experience, in terms of fun, but it would be ridiculously unbalanced and unfair), but even then the kill rate for killers is reasonably high. I actually find shadowborne quite annoying; it's like looking through a wide angle lens all the time.
- I don't think the FoV limitation so bad that it degrades from player experience.
I... did you read my initial post at all?
- Of course, it's a nuance between having a fair game and letting killers have fun (doubling gen repair time would improve the killer experience, in terms of fun, but it would be ridiculously unbalanced and unfair)
There is a huge difference between "Give us an FOV slider!" and "Make gens take 160 seconds!". That's like comparing "Can we have colourblind settings?" to "Can we have wallhacks?"
- but even then the kill rate for killers is reasonably high.
Sure, but this has nothing to do with kill rate, or balance at all. It's an accessibility issue.
- I actually find shadowborne quite annoying; it's like looking through a wide angle lens all the time.
That's fine! That's why it's a slider - you can set it to the degree you want.
-
@White_Owl said:
Unlinke other games FOV in this game is tied to balance, one of the core mechanics is that survivors have full view of their surrounding while killers are very focused on a small area. Unfortunately a FOV slider would change that balance.
I keep seeing this argument, and it's just not true. It falls apart when you consider the following:
- The core of DBD is its chase, which FOV -- contrary to some of the assertions in this thread -- does not affect to any significant level.
- Having a higher FOV barely even has an impact on stealth, because if you're behind a wall or in a bush with dark cosmetics, FOV will not help you in the slightest. It doesn't make your screen brighter, it doesn't give you wallhacks, all it does is make it so you can see further than before. And if a survivor is trying to hide to the left or right of the killer without any cover, they're doing it badly.
-
@fogdonkey said:
This game is also about hiding from the killer. The killer's lower field of view is therefore a critically important component of the game.
If you're hiding around a corner, or in a bush with dark cosmetics, a higher FOV won't help you. The FOV is not a critically important component of the game at all; it's a small quality-of-life feature that should be in the options menu, not tied to a perk slot.
I'll give an example of why this line of thinking is dangerous. Do you know why it took so long for us to get colourblind settings? If I remember correctly, wasn't it something to do with a certain dev thinking it would give people an unfair advantage?
FOV is an accessibility thing, not a balance thing. And even if it does have a slight impact on balance, that is absolutely 100% worth it for people with motion sickness to be able to play the game without wasting a perk slot or screwing with their resolution (something that is not possible with all graphics cards).
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2029544#Comment_2029544
- Shadowborn has two uses, both of which actually do save you time during the match. One is for tracking. A substantially wider FOV increases the chance of you noticing stealthy survivors, scratch marks, etc. that you otherwise wouldn't have seen. This gets you into chases faster and thereby reduces time until your next hook. The second is for better performance in the chase. For most killers it's a useful but not game-changing benefit in the chase. You're better able to counter 360s and various techs with a wider FOV. Not only is this useful against skilled players, but it also effectively lowers survivors' skill ceiling, which is not a good thing in my opinion. Some killers, like Huntress and Nurse, get an even bigger benefit from a wider FOV. Nurse can usually still see survivors while looking down on fatigue, which lowers the risk of losing survivors. It also gives her better visibility right after blinking, which helps a lot with the split-second decision of where and if to swing. Huntress benefits primarily from the much simpler melee hatchets. Faster chases also reduce the time between hooks. Both of these effects in turn translate into pressure. This is exactly why base kit Shadowborn (or an FOV slider with a max FOV of 102) would be a solid buff to killers, and one that would likely need to be balanced out by some other changes.
- FOV in BF4 does not matter so much to me. I'm just making the point that adding an FOV slider to help a minority of players who have to choose between being sick and being at a disadvantage would not necessarily solve that problem. Players could easily still have to make the choice between optimal play and motion sickness with an FOV slider, as is the case with BF4, and with any other multiplayer game that has a somewhat high max bound for FOV. In BF4, this choice is not a balance issue, though, just like DBD's low FOV is not a balance issue. The game itself is fundamentally balanced. If a minority of players have to change to suboptimal settings in order to play comfortably, that is not a balance issue. Increasing first-person FOV for one side in a game is what makes max FOV relevant for balance. For this to be a balance issue in BF4 they'd have to just buff the Chinese side's max FOV, or something.
- Again, running Shadowborn is not the same as "sacrificing an entire perk slot". I agree it's not a perfect solution, but Shadowborn does offer benefits to all killers beyond just reducing motion sickness and is deserving of a perk slot.
- 30Hz is just fine for DBD. Last-gen consoles usually can't deliver 30 FPS as is, though, especially on the killer side. Increasing the FOV is GPU intensive, so this would only make the problem worse while playing killer. This just adds another disadvantage to playing killer on console, which would be expected to shift the killer/survivor player ratio even farther towards survivor. With queue times as they are, this is not a good thing. In practice, then, I think they'd almost certainly limit the FOV slider to PC and current-gen consoles only if they added one. This would not be a huge deal for matchmaking once MMR drops, but it still increases the gap between killers playing on different systems. This in turn makes the game harder to balance, so ideally they should be striving to shrink that gap, not grow it. I'd rather Behaviour put as many dev hours as possible into improving the performance of the game rather than messing around with FOV. That helps everyone, not a small minority of players, and would also make increased FOV more broadly useful if it ever did get added in the future.
- Side note - If you're on PC, have you tried disabling V-sync, windowed mode, low settings, sitting farther from the screen, etc. to help address the motion sickness? Usually there's something you can do without touching FOV.
- Shadowborn has two uses, both of which actually do save you time during the match. One is for tracking. A substantially wider FOV increases the chance of you noticing stealthy survivors, scratch marks, etc. that you otherwise wouldn't have seen.
You get the same advantage from looking around as you move. Shadowborn doesn't change that, it just makes the game bearable for people with motion sickness.
- This gets you into chases faster and thereby reduces time until your next hook.
See above point, and Shadowborn doesn't actually help you in the chase. 360-ing and window teching are extremely niche maneuvers that you don't need a higher FOV to help with at all.
- The second is for better performance in the chase. For most killers it's a useful but not game-changing benefit in the chase.
drops pallet on you ah yes vaults window I can see how holds W Shadowborn helps doubles back for a mindgame in a chase
Higher FOV does not give you any substantial advantage during the vast majority of the case.
- You're better able to counter 360s and various techs with a wider FOV. Not only is this useful against skilled players, but it also effectively lowers survivors' skill ceiling, which is not a good thing in my opinion.
You're also better able to counter 360s and various techs by moving your mouse to look around. Should killers be forced to lunge forwards and not turn?
- Some killers, like Huntress and Nurse, get an even bigger benefit from a wider FOV. Nurse can usually still see survivors while looking down on fatigue, which lowers the risk of losing survivors. It also gives her better visibility right after blinking, which helps a lot with the split-second decision of where and if to swing.
Okay. So? That's a valid tradeoff for people being able to play the game without feeling motion sick.
- Huntress benefits primarily from the much simpler melee hatchets.
I'd imagine melee hatchets aren't too hard for a decent Huntress.
- Faster chases also reduce the time between hooks. Both of these effects in turn translate into pressure. This is exactly why base kit Shadowborn (or an FOV slider with a max FOV of 102) would be a solid buff to killers, and one that would likely need to be balanced out by some other changes.
This is the biggest mountain I've ever seen anyone make out of a molehill. Every single point you brought up can be achieved simply through moving your mouse slightly more. A higher FOV would barely affect the game at all, and it certainly wouldn't affect survivor experience to the point of requiring other changes.
-
Btw, I would be fine if the FOV cap was 120 or something, or even 110. Unreal Engine 4 doesn't allow you past 120 anyway, which is fair. I'm sure we can at least agree on 105, since Shadowborn is 102 and that's sufficient to not feel sick for me.
Sorry if I've come across as aggressive here; I was admittedly a little frustrated but ultimately, it's a game. We both want it to be as balanced and fair as possible, we just have slightly different ideas on what a balanced DBD might look like.
I 100% agree that there are more pressing issues in DBD right now than FOV, like actual game balance and performance (especially on consoles), but that doesn't mean it's not a problem that needs to be addressed -- because it is. It'd also be a pretty easy change to make, since altering FOV already happens (M&A, Shadowborn, etc.) which means the code to change FOV already exists.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2018729#Comment_2018729
Having a frame rate that isn't unplayably low does give you a huge benefit compared to an unplayably low frame rate. Even stable 30Hz vs 120Hz really isn't a disadvantage in a game like DBD. Increasing FOV substantially on last-gen console would make their frame rate unplayable, though, and would therefore be a big disadvantage. Uncapping your frame rate on PC to play at 120Hz, as in your example, is not comparable, as it does not give you a big advantage over the default capped 60Hz or even a typical 30Hz console frame rate.
Sound is important, but turning up or down your volume is all you can do in game. Every single player has control of that via their computer / TV already, so Behaviour couldn't do anything about this if they wanted to. Provided you are not playing on a volume setting so low you can't hear the game well, there is no real benefit to raising volume. Medium volume is to high volume as 60Hz is to 120Hz; like frame rate, it's only an issue if you can't hit the bare minimum, which everyone without a hearing disability or defective hardware can. There's a reason perks like Stridor and Iron Will exist as well; other games may just have a volume slider for in-game music, but in DBD increasing the relative volume of important sounds in the game is certainly a huge advantage and therefore not something you can change in the settings. This same reasoning is why I like Shadowborn as a perk and not a simple setting.
It's irrelevant if you feel you can only get backrevved or melee hatcheted if you make a mistake because the fact remains that this is a common situation and higher FOV gives the killer a substantial benefit in this situation.
Nurse cannot hear survivors at the same range she can see them with high FOV, especially when you consider sound-based perks like Iron Will and the constant sound bugs in this game. Regardless, tracking by sight and sound is always going to be easier than just tracking by sound. Spirit can certainly locate survivors while phasing, for example, but there's a reason she can't see survivors while phasing too; it does make tracking much easier.
Increasing FOV allows you more vertical space on your screen, meaning you can still see straight ahead while looking down to track scratch marks in the corn.
360s are effective in large part because the survivor suddenly leaves the killer's screen. That's why 360s tend to be more successful if you start to spin one way and then immediately spin the other way; the killer sees you leave their screen to one side and they lunge that way, but you're already moving back towards the other side. With high FOV, the survivor would still be in view throughout, though. 360s would therefore only be effective against hasty-swinging console players with low sensitivity.
Killers wouldn't need to moonwalk to counter window teching with a high FOV, though, meaning they don't need to lose that bit of distance from starting to moonwalk if the survivor did window tech and they don't risk the survivor vaulting back through the window if they're slow to realize. You can play around window teching with a low FOV, but having a high FOV is still a clear advantage.
Spine Chill can currently be countered by approaching a gen while looking at an angle. If you have high FOV, you have more degrees of horizontal vision, meaning you don't need to look as far off-center in order to prevent Spine Chill from triggering when approaching a survivor. You also don't give up nearly as much vision on the other side of your screen as you otherwise would.
This problem directly impacts me in BF4, which is the other game I play most along with DBD. The max FOV is absurdly high in BF4 and from what I gather from watching gameplay, basically all of the top players use that max FOV in order to have better visibility and a big advantage in CQB. Meanwhile I can't increase the FOV more than like 5-10 degrees over the default because it makes me nauseous, so I'm stuck probably a good 20 degrees under the max. As a result, I am at a disadvantage against many of my opponents at the most common engagement distances. If the game had a locked FOV, though, this wouldn't be a concern. Some multiplayer games mitigate this by allowing users to change FOV but in a pretty narrow range, and I think this is a decent solution in most cases. DBD is pretty unique in that only one side has a first-person camera, though, and game balance is therefore inherently tied in with FOV. In the vast majority of other mutliplayer games both sides have the same perspective, so changing the max FOV doesn't also have balance implications.
I could see arguments for making Shadowborn a default perk and giving Wraith a default perk in exchange, or something, so it's easier to get on all of your killers, but this just relates to larger grind-related issues in DBD that should probably have a broader solution. I'd also be perfectly fine with a wider max FOV in some rosy future where they've made some progress in console performance, the game is a lot more stable, and they've figured out the wall clipping issues that others have mentioned in this thread. Then they can certainly focus on relevant balance changes and add that in to improve killer QoL. For now, though, I hope they leave it. Shadowborn really shouldn't be that big of a deal to run, because it does give gameplay advantages; it's not just a dead perk slot in exchange for QoL. As someone who never runs meta builds on either side, and who enjoys Shadowborn on killers like Nurse and Huntress, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal compared to things like queue times / matchmaking, game stability, performance, etc. that I hope are getting all of the attention the devs can spare.
You could condense this post into the following points:
- "More FOV = substantial advantage."
- "DBD is balanced around killers having 87 degrees' FOV."
- "It's not fair if some people can handle higher FOVs, because they have an advantage over people like me who can't."
First point: Having a few extra degrees on your screen is technically an advantage, yes, but there are three main things wrong with this statement.
- Having more FOV is not a substantial advantage at all in a game like DBD. It makes it slightly easier to track survivors who are on the edges of your vision. It does not directly affect gameplay other than this -- you don't go faster, gens don't go slower, survivors don't go slower, you don't break pallets faster, you don't vault windows faster, you don't pick people up faster, it saves you zero time. Fire Up is more beneficial a perk than Shadowborn for people who don't get motion sick, because it directly affects gameplay. Being able to see slightly more does not; you will not be carried by Shadowborn, nor will it actually do anything for you in terms of time, chasing, stall or pressure.
- In other games, including BF4, FOV being in the options menu is not a problem and I genuinely do not understand why it matters so much to you. Sure, you're technically at a disadvantage because you can't increase your FOV to the same level that others can. But I hope you realize that you're much better off than people who have to dedicate an entire perk slot to not feeling sick. At least you can still use your entire kit in BF4.
- You contradict yourself here: "In the vast majority of other mutliplayer games both sides have the same perspective, so changing the max FOV doesn't also have balance implications." In BF4, all players have the same perspective; it's an FPS game. And yet you brought it up as a problem that other players can handle higher FOVs.
Second point: DBD is balanced around two main things - chase and overall map pressure. FOV does not affect either of these things. That's why Shadowborn is barely even considered a perk by most people. If a survivor has enough distance on you to make it to a pallet, you could have 360 degrees of vision and they'd still make it to that pallet. If a survivor is doing a gen and you're on the other side of the map, a higher FOV won't help you interrupt them. If a survivor with dark cosmetics is blending into a bush on Dead Dawg Saloon, having a higher FOV won't even help with that. They'll still be just as hard to see.
Third point: I mostly mentioned this earlier, but I hope you realize how this goes both ways. People who need Shadowborn are sacrificing an entire perk slot. You're sacrificing a few extra degrees on the sides of your screen. And I guarantee you wouldn't even notice the difference, because you would be happy playing at your ideal FOV, and we would be happy playing at ours. Win-win; the supposed unfairness introduced by an FOV slider is extremely preferable to the actual unfairness caused by having to run a perk to not feel sick playing DBD.
Regarding the points about sound and frame rate, I lumped them in with the balance point (#2), since that was the overall topic they were tied to.
Edit: You also contradicted yourself by saying that 30 Hz is just fine for DBD, but some consoles wouldn't be able to run the game well at higher FOVs. Also, the simple solution to that is to not crank the FOV slider all the way up. You barely lose anything at all from that, especially not in DBD. (BF4 is irrelevant because it's an entirely different game, so it's a false analogy.)
-
@ShamelessPigMain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2018733#Comment_2018733
Well, they must have encoded it as such for a reason. The killer is generally to have less situational awareness than survivors; they have third person POV, we have first person.
Of course they did so for a reason. I'm saying that increasing the FOV to a point where some people don't get motion sick is something they should consider doing, because it would improve the overall quality of players' experience.
-
@bjorksnas said:
causes clipping issues, killers used to be able to mash their faces into walls and corners to see through with their old 90° fov so it was decreased to 87° to mitigate the problem
Shadowborn increases your FOV to 102 degrees, and you can't see through walls with it -- this problem used to exist, absolutely, but it doesn't anymore. I have mashed my face into many walls while running Shadowborn and haven't gotten any useful information out of it.
-
@ShamelessPigMain said:
I think that BHVR wanted to retain control on this. There's a reason that they've set it at whatever they have (87 degrees I think), and that you need perks (things you need specifically to benefit you) to enhance it. Clearly, the angle of view is meant to be a restriction or limitation on the killer. They intended for the FoV to be this small; if they did add a slider, it would only be even narrower.
I'm aware that BHVR intended for the FOV to be this small; that's how they coded it. I'm asking them to reconsider that decision, because it's bad from a game design standpoint. As mentioned earlier, it'd be like tying game volume to a perk and just telling people to run that -- I'm sure we can agree that it would be silly.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2018527#Comment_2018527
None of the things you mentioned are comparable because they don't impact balance in the same way. Raising volume, increasing frame rate, increasing refresh rate, etc. are beneficial to players on both sides and only offer marginal benefit. Increasing FOV is a straight killer buff, though, because survivors already have a third-person camera and therefore don't benefit nearly as much from an increased FOV. It also provides a much more substantial advantage than these other settings / performance changes.
More problematic still, there are also very real reasons why someone cannot raise the FOV despite it giving a competitive advantage. For example, it substantially increases GPU load to raise FOV, so only people with current gen consoles and decent PCs would be able to take advantage of the increased FOV while still maintaining a playable frame rate. Everyone else (PS4, Xbox One, lower end PCs) would suddenly be at more of a disadvantage. I feel the devs should be striving to close this gap over time, not increase it further.
Performance aside, though, this would require significant balance changes in order to even back out. Huntress melee hatchets and Billy back revs would now be extremely easy to land. Nurse would no longer have any chance of losing track of survivors while on fatigue and would have a much easier time to land hits while blinking. Visual obstacles like the corn on Coldwind would no longer be as useful for survivors. Killer tracking would generally improve. Survivor skill ceiling would be substantially lowered, as 360s would now be useless, window techs would now be impossible to pull off, feigning like you're running past the killer as they break a pallet would no longer work, etc. Spine Chill would now be absolutely trivial to counter. Shadowborn and M&A would need reworks. I could go on, but you get the idea.
The devs could certainly rebalance the game around a higher FOV, but given the other glaring issues still in the game it would still make no sense for them to prioritize this even if performance weren't a factor. If you would like to get some in-game benefits while also reducing your motion sickness, Shadowborn would be a great option.
Edit: Plus, it's worth considering that other people get motion sickness from an FOV that is too high, myself included. If a FOV slider was added, then, people would still have to choose between motion sickness and an in-game disadvantage. So, it's a problem that won't go away whether or not there's a slider.
None of the things you mentioned are comparable because they don't impact balance in the same way. Raising volume, increasing frame rate, increasing refresh rate, etc. are beneficial to players on both sides and only offer marginal benefit. Increasing FOV is a straight killer buff, though, because survivors already have a third-person camera and therefore don't benefit nearly as much from an increased FOV. It also provides a much more substantial advantage than these other settings / performance changes.
Okay, first off, I used to play this game on a laptop and increasing frame rate absolutely gives a huge benefit. If you think raising the volume only provides marginal benefit, all I can say is that sound is almost as important to a killer as sight is. It kicks in whenever you don't have direct line of sight on a nearby survivor, and it's the only method you have of tracking where they are. As for FOV increase being a straight killer buff, why is giving killers a slight quality of life buff a bad thing?
More problematic still, there are also very real reasons why someone cannot raise the FOV despite it giving a competitive advantage. For example, it substantially increases GPU load to raise FOV, so only people with current gen consoles and decent PCs would be able to take advantage of the increased FOV while still maintaining a playable frame rate. Everyone else (PS4, Xbox One, lower end PCs) would suddenly be at more of a disadvantage. I feel the devs should be striving to close this gap over time, not increase it further.
You literally just said that frame rate only offers a marginal benefit, so you contradict yourself here. And this is quite literally saying it's unfair to have a better gaming rig than other players -- I'm sure you're not actually making that argument, but that's where this leads. You are implying that people being able to play the game with better performance is unfair.
Edit: This logic also leads to the conclusion of "let's introduce a perk that allows players to change the visual quality of their game." I suggest rethinking this one.
Performance aside, though, this would require significant balance changes in order to even back out. Huntress melee hatchets and Billy back revs would now be extremely easy to land. Nurse would no longer have any chance of losing track of survivors while on fatigue and would have a much easier time to land hits while blinking. Visual obstacles like the corn on Coldwind would no longer be as useful for survivors. Killer tracking would generally improve. Survivor skill ceiling would be substantially lowered, as 360s would now be useless, window techs would now be impossible to pull off, feigning like you're running past the killer as they break a pallet would no longer work, etc. Spine Chill would now be absolutely trivial to counter. Shadowborn and M&A would need reworks. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Several things to unpack here.
- If a Huntress gets close enough to melee hatchet you, then you messed up. End of.
- If a Billy gets close enough to backrev you, then you were out of position.
- Nurse can still hear survivors moving around in fatigue, and as I've explained, sound is almost an important as sight in DBD. Her having a slightly increased FOV during fatigue would not change much at all, and it certainly wouldn't make her overpowered.
- I don't know if you've noticed, but even with Shadowborn, corn is still corn. And if you're relying on corn to run the killer around, then you need to take advantage of tiles more often.
- You say "killer tracking would improve" as if this is a bad thing. Tracking isn't even the reason I'm advocating for an FOV slider; myself and many others are physically unable to play the game without it because it makes us sick to do so.
- First off, "360s would now be useless" is a gross exaggeration. Second off, spinning a killer is nowhere near the skill ceiling for survivor, because the killer is the one who literally just needs to move their mouse to hit you. If you spin a killer, it's not because you're good, it's because the killer messed up.
- Window teching is another example of "if this works the killer messed up". Literally all you do to counter this as killer is moonwalk for half a second to see if they tried it. Killers having more FOV wouldn't change this.
- Spine Chill being "absolutely trivial to counter" is a questionable assertion. Please explain.
- I addressed Shadowborn needing a rework in my original post, and with M&A, you would literally just need to drop the FOV increase outside of chase. Job done. Its primary function is the terror radius decrease.
The devs could certainly rebalance the game around a higher FOV, but given the other glaring issues still in the game it would still make no sense for them to prioritize this even if performance weren't a factor. If you would like to get some in-game benefits while also reducing your motion sickness, Shadowborn would be a great option.
Remember what I said here?
Oh, you wanted colourblind settings? Oopsie poopsie! There's a perk for that. Wow, you're one of those people who really, really wants to play the game at 120 FPS! Have I got the perk for you! Wanna play the game in 4K? Well, my friend, you're in luck!
Edit: Plus, it's worth considering that other people get motion sickness from an FOV that is too high, myself included. If a FOV slider was added, then, people would still have to choose between motion sickness and an in-game disadvantage. So, it's a problem that won't go away whether or not there's a slider.
I hope you realize that this problem has quite literally never come up in any game that has an FOV slider. You can adjust your FOV so that you can play comfortably and not get sick. You're making a mountain out of a molehill with the "FOV gives you an in-game advantage" argument, because -- as unpacked above -- the benefits you gain are negligible. The main factor here is comfort, not competitive viability.
FOV in other games is an option in the settings menu. DBD should follow their example.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2018039#Comment_2018039
No, Shadowborn is not OP. It's just deserving of a perk slot.
Shadowborn gives a few killers particularly large advantages. For example, I run it on Nurse because it makes it far easier to track survivors during your fatigue. It's also common on Huntress because she's deadly but struggles to find survivors, and it makes melee hatchets easier too. It's also generally useful for all killers for more than just tracking. For example it significantly reduces the likelihood of you ever getting spun by the survivor you're chasing.
Alright, let's take your logic and apply it to other areas of DBD.
Sound should not be something you can alter in the options menu. The game is balanced around sound, right? What's that? You wanted to increase your in-game volume? Oops, gotta unlock a perk for that. Oh, you wanted colourblind settings? Oopsie poopsie! There's a perk for that. Wow, you're one of those people who really, really wants to play the game at 120 FPS! Have I got the perk for you! Wanna play the game in 4K? Well, my friend, you're in luck!
There's a perk for that.
Do you see why this logic is flawed? FOV belongs in the settings menu; this is a basic element of game design that, respectfully, BHVR should have added a while ago. The majority of modern first-person games contain an FOV slider for this very reason. No shade on the dev team -- this is my feedback, and the feedback of many other people in the DBD community. Having an FOV slider would not suddenly make killers OP, even Nurse or Huntress. It definitely shouldn't be tied to a perk.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2010583#Comment_2010583
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2010755#Comment_2010755
The game is balanced around the low FOV. That's the reason Shadownborn is a perk and why there's no FOV slider. Increasing your FOV gives you a massive advantage.
"Increasing your FOV gives you a massive advantage."
So... Shadowborn OP. Got it.
Edit: This game is balanced around chases and map pressure, not something as tiny as the killer being able to see slightly more at a time. Stealth will barely be affected at all, and that's... literally the only thing increased FOV would affect in the first place. So no, increasing your FOV does not give you a massive advantage, unless you count "I'm not literally throwing up trying to play this game" as an advantage.
-
@Gay_Police_Dept said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2010774#Comment_2010774
But that's how the game was designed, there's a reason why killers play in first person while survivors do it in third person.
FOV sliders belong to games in which all players experience and play the game the same way, like Rocket League.
"That's how the game was designed" isn't exactly an argument when I'm asking the devs to change an aspect of game design. And as for the second part, see what I said about motion sickness and accessibility.
-
@Gay_Police_Dept said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2010755#Comment_2010755
Kinda, but i really think there shouldn't be a FOV slider in this game. It would be funny though if they added one and its maximum was 87 🤣
I mean... there's no reason not to have an FOV slider in DBD, at least for killers. Having to use a perk slot for something that belongs in the options menu is bad game design imho, and can easily be rectified.
-
@Gay_Police_Dept said:
Just use Shadowborn.
This is bait, right?
-
@Seraphor said:
The issue is that if there's a slider for FoV, every killer will just set it to maximum.
So what's the point in having a slider? Just set it to the maximum they feel it should be.
I mean, I think it's a much better option to let people choose the FOV they want. Some killers might prefer 87 (current default), 90 (industry standard), 102 (current with shadowborn) or 120 (max that Unreal Engine 4 will allow afaik). Most killers will probably set it to maximum, true, but it's good to have that choice.
-
@scottymo said:
Sure there is screens and screw. Settings than can mitigate so of this. Tuning gamma maybe. Hard to accommodate every possible persons need.
what even is accessibility
nerfs legion
-
Interesting, but you could also just make it deactivate once another person is hooked, and/or once a gate has been opened. You could make it last forever in a chase to balance that out, and further prevent tunnelling.
-
Oof, been a while. I got caught up playing other stuff. Sorry!
Here's the thing... Pig's dash is only "unfair" around short loops. Autohaven-length debris loops and truck loops, which are much more common, give the survivor a much better chance of predicting and outplaying the Pig. Her dash is almost the perfect length for that kind of thing; you can't just hold W around it. You need to actually succeed a mindgame to land the hit.
That's why I don't want Pig's dash to necessarily become longer, or faster, or anything like that. I just want her initial crouch to be quicker.
-
@Withered8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1776234#Comment_1776234
There's no guessing to it though. Do you guess which way the pig is goign to dash when you play survivor? No because that would never work. If a pig has ears or line of sight they can easily flick back if they see you've just ran straight for one direction. There's no reacting to or outplaying a pig dash unless you play extremely well in a situational situation.
Like i said even if there was a fair 50/50 created with that ppl will drop pallets instantly like they do with deathsligner and other annoying killers because theres no point taking a 50/50 random guess as surviovr if its often gonna get you killed. It'll create boring and stale gameplay.
So... let me get this straight.
- It is not possible to avoid Pig's dash if she actually gets it off, because Pig's dash is unfairly strong around loops
- Therefore, if Pig were able to get her dash off more consistently, people would just camp pallets
Have I understood you correctly?
-
@Withered8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1776091#Comment_1776091
It's not hard to land a pig dash if a survivor doesn't run away tho. I just read ur other comment and its more than just a 50/50. All you have to do is flick one way and then run the other and the survivor literalyl cannot react intime. It's like spirit's "50/50". That's why the skill comes with baiting it or not, because if a survivor stays at a loop with an ambushing pig then they will go down if the pig is half decent. It's like staying at a loop with a pyramid head. You never do that.
Also loops which are bigger are almost impossible to land dash hits at, there's almost no inbetween. The big problem i see coming if runnign away from a loop was made a bad tactic as survivor is that pig's counterplay will become drop the pallet instantly, just like deathslinger and freddy and all that stuff.
If the survivor literally cannot react in time, I wish I had your survivors :P
There's a 50/50, and it's fair unless the loop is ridiculously short. (Or long, since dashes are nigh-impossible around those huge brick loops on Temple.) Comparing Pig's dash to Pyramid Head's judgement is also not ideal, since one is a straight line going through the loop, and another is a dash around the loop. It'd be like comparing Demo's Shred to Huntress' hatchets. They aren't the same thing.
-
All Nurse proves in the stats is that the correlation between kill rate and effective ceiling of a character isn't 100%. It by no means proves that there is no correlation at all, only that the correlation isn't perfect. Nurse is an obvious outlier in that correlation, almost all the other killers seem to be roughly ranked where they should be based on kill rate and popular tier lists.
Also note that a low kill rate can be pretty easily explained, as with Nurse, if the character has a particularly steep learning curve. Explaining away a statistically high kill rate though is more difficult. If a character has a really high kill rate then what exactly is the dynamic that is causing them to get more kills than average that also doesn't make them a "good" killer?
Would you not accept that Pig is also an outlier? The community agreed on Nurse being the best Killer before those stats came out, and we did so based on theory and practice.
And tbh, this is all irrelevant to my point anyway--I'm not arguing that Pig is bad, I'm saying her dash needs to be slightly more usable in more situations. My bad for debating you on it, sorry.
Where did I say that you said that? I said that the thread has that argument in it, I didn't attribute that argument to you specifically. (e.g. about the third or fourth post down is a post saying Pig is D-tier)
Alright, fair. That's something you'll have to ask the person who said that.
Random events average out over a significant number of games. If the traps actually give a statistically significant number of extra kills for Pig it makes her stronger on average than if they didn't.
Even if we did have reliable stats on trap kills, traps are based on pure RNG. I think it would be better for game balance to shift the majority of Pig's power toward her ambush, wouldn't you agree?
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1759402#Comment_1759402
Theory only really matters if it’s backed up by statistical evidence. We players unfortunately don’t have a ton of stats to go by, but that doesn’t make the stats we have entirely meaningless. If a theory seems to disagree with the general stats we have then you can’t just assume the theory is correct without addressing the discrepancy. In this thread the theory in question is that Pig is the weakest killer in the game next to Clown, but the stats we have indicate Pig is one of the stronger killers in terms of kill rate. That obviously doesn’t mean the stats are the full story, but it certainly also doesn’t mean they can be entirely ignored nor that the statement about her being the worst killer is right.
Also, let’s say hypothetically that the Pig’s traps do kill people in a significant number of games. If anything that makes her stronger, not weaker, as a killer overall and would be yet another contradictory piece of data against her being the weakest killer.
"Theory only really matters if it’s backed up by statistical evidence. We players unfortunately don’t have a ton of stats to go by, but that doesn’t make the stats we have entirely meaningless."
The stats are meaningless, or at least close to meaningless, because "kill rate" is not influenced solely by how good a Killer is at high levels of play. The fact that Nurse is ranked last in kill rate undeniably demonstrates this. I'm not saying that "Nurse has a low kill rate because she's hard to learn, and new players pick her a lot" is an invalid defense by any means, because of course it's a valid defense. My point is that it proves "high kill rate" and "low kill rate" mean very little when it comes to how good a killer is.
"If a theory seems to disagree with the general stats we have then you can’t just assume the theory is correct without addressing the discrepancy. In this thread the theory in question is that Pig is the weakest killer in the game next to Clown, but the stats we have indicate Pig is one of the stronger killers in terms of kill rate. That obviously doesn’t mean the stats are the full story, but it certainly also doesn’t mean they can be entirely ignored nor that the statement about her being the worst killer is right."
Where have I said that Pig is the worst Killer, or even a bad Killer? This is a strawman argument; we agree that Pig is not necessarily a bad Killer, so let's not waste time arguing it.
"Also, let’s say hypothetically that the Pig’s traps do kill people in a significant number of games. If anything that makes her stronger, not weaker, as a killer overall and would be yet another contradictory piece of data against her being the weakest killer."
Not necessarily. That doesn't make her stronger, because RBTs are luck-based. There is no consistent strength in RNG.
