KayTwoAyy
KayTwoAyy
About
- Username
- KayTwoAyy
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@SuzuKR I love how I will vehemently disagree with you in one thread, then turn around and applaud your comments in another
-
I'm starting to sense a power creep...
If they allow No Mither the ability to pick yourself up at any time, then Unbreakable, Boon: Exponential, No Mither, & Soul Guard will be a disgustingly abused SWF build.
If they give No Mither a 100% recovery speed buff, then Unbreakable, Boon: Exponential, No Mither, & Soul Guard will still be a disgustingly abused SWF build.
I'd propose the idea of No Mither giving survivors 3 hook states, instead of 2. ...but I can also see that becoming extremely problematic.
Either way you slice it, this High Risk/High Reward design presents a ton of problems for the game (e.g. Nurse). I can't think of anything at the moment that I would believe to be a worthwhile trade-off for being Broken all trial, that doesn't also break the game in any way. Being injured isn't SO bad that it deserves an amazing counter-balance. ...but people aren't going to voluntarily play permanently injured if there isn't a good enough incentive.
-
On the plus sides, they already expressed that they do not intend this to be pushed out next patch
-
@VoidOfMe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3199033#Comment_3199033
and then you see topics like this in this forum
makes you question your sanity, doesn't it? lol
Was not evident you were linking to another thread. Thought this was some real esoteric irony
-
I've never seen Nightmare on Elm Street, so I can't contribute ideas about the execution of his power relative to his lore, but I'd like to see more done with the Dream World.
I'd be interested in seeing him explored as a quasi-stealth killer--no more lullaby for survivors in the Dream World--who has a haste bonus, and maybe action speed bonus, for every survivor in the Dream World, while Freddy is in the Dream World. Remove his snares & teleport ability.
Give him the power to move pallets out of whatever 'world' he is in at the time, while walking through them.
Give survivors a secondary objective to try and pull Freddy out of the Dream World temporarily, by turning on several alarm clocks. Freddy would be able to hear these from some distance away and disable them. If 3 are active at once, Freddy is pulled out of the Dream World temporarily.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3198833#Comment_3198833
I'm going to be completely honest, if it wasnt for people defining their own personal win conditions, most of them wouldnt have stayed with the game as long as they have. My point was that there was even arguments for what the win condition was, with people having their own details they prioritized. Whatever their reasons, even just having fun is a valid win condition, especially in a game that lacks inherent balance.
Oh yeah, I remember when that was the biggest topic of discussion.
"12 hooks is a win," "4 BBQ stacks is a win," "5 Stacks of Devour is a win," then the same for survivor side...
"Pipping is a win," "25k BP is a win," "4 WGLF stacks is a win."
Now we have "completing an archive is a win."
Outside of the discussions surrounding what BHVR should dictate as a win--the great Hooks vs Kills debate--I was never really convinced all these people actually considered these wins. They all sound more like silver-linings everyone sees to stay in good spirits despite what may have otherwise been a frustrating or undesirable game.
Maybe this big announcement they teased on Twitter will be another win condition! 🙃
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3198793#Comment_3198793
Pipping arguably had more of an impact on your matchmaking when ranks were used for that, making it closer to a win condition in that regard. Its worth differenciating since you could depip while escaping, making the latter be only part of the former.
But at that same time, rank reset only pushed everyone back a grade. People playing regularly were back to Rank 1 within a couple days--a week at most.
I'm hard-pressed to believe a majority of players were playing with pipping as their win condition when a) Ash, Bronze, and Silver Rank players could expect to pip any time they escaped or got 3-4 kills, because the prereq to pip was so low, and b) Red Rank players had nothing to gain from pipping.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3198585#Comment_3198585
I agree with this but I also feel them defining a win condition for MMR has made the community change too.
The game has always had a win condition--survivors surviving and killers killing.
Regardless of whether or not an individual player put greater emphasis on pipping & bloodpoints than the act of surviving & killing, the goal has always been one and the same.
-
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3197453#Comment_3197453
The early read allows for planning around where the survivors move and preemptively cutting off their path. It also allows for immediately starting chase as soon as you get to them. After the reveal ends, game sense will also narrow down where the survivor could be. It’s not about difficulty in finding people early, it’s about the point of the perk itself being immediate pressure from game load. Also, it reveals the initial course of action which is way more important. Are the survivors splitting up? Which way are they heading? Did they spawn grouped meaning you can immediately wreak havoc on multiple survivors? Etc.
Furthermore, immediately seeing if someone is in a valuable area, or spawned not on the opposite end.
I don’t really disagree with anything you’ve said.
I just imagine if Lethal was to be nerfed because it was deemed too powerful, delaying that initial aura would be a worthwhile compromise.
-
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3197365#Comment_3197365
That defeats the point of Lethal.
Not necessarily..
Instead of providing a sense of direction to killers immediately, it course-corrects them when they head to an area that appears devoid of survivors.
For killers that have little trouble finding survivors without Lethal, the delayed aura reading is arguably MORE valuable than the immediate aura reading. For killers that do have trouble finding survivors, it provides a window to practice finding survivors, but prevents wasted time searching for someone who may not be there.
Killers don't really need to know where survivors are in the first 10 seconds of a trial. More often than not, a killer spawns on one side of the map and should immediately start walking to the other side, where survivors spawned. The delay might even be a buff, because it provides aura reading at a time when killers can actually capitalize on that information.
-
I don't think Lethal is problematic, HOWEVER...
If they were to 'nerf' it, I would suggest delaying the initial aura reading by 10-15 seconds.
-
@KerJuice said:
Add this to the list of things that make this game’s mechanics antiquated: solo/SWF gap, Nurse’s power, the need to camp/tunnel to compete, servers/security/coding. I know this is not a popular opinion, but I really believe BHVR needs to make a sequel (yes I know they said “no” to doing so).
They'd have to do it the way Blizzard is doing OW, because there is no way you can convince anyone to buy the killers over again. Even if they wanted to go that route, I don't think it is in the cards for them. Then again... if they took a 3 year break from updates like OW did, I suppose they could make it happen.
-
Best of luck with content creation, should you to continue to follow that passion!
I've a friend with over 200k subs on Youtube, continuing to upload Fortnite content, despite losing his passion for the game long ago.
You're making the right call here. You'll be happier for it in the long run.
I uninstalled the game this morning, so I'll be joining you in this leave.
Cheers
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3195977#Comment_3195977
Sure, long chases *can* happen. I'm just saying, in a 2v1 in this scenario, why would a killer hard commit for any length of time and let the remaining gens go? It takes multiple parties not thinking about the situation at all for more than 1 gen to be completed in a 2v1.
At some point a killer will need to commit to a chase, because no matter what they cannot defend 2 gens.
Typically, killers will take a healthstate from one survivor and then commit to chase with the other--hoping the injured survivor wastes time healing or will be available later as an easy down.
Unless the remaining gens are in deadzones, a killer should commit to one chase because pinballing between gens is just going to lose them pressure. 60 seconds can fly by faster than most killers may realize; 3 vaults around a T & L is pretty standard and that can take up to 30 seconds--even more when you factor in the time it took to take chase there and to take chase away from there.
-
- No
- Scourge Hook: Monstrous Shrine, Insidious, Save the Best for Last, Deadlock, DMS, No Way Out, Scourge Hook: Floods of Rage, Scourge Hook: Gift of Pain, Furtive Chase, Nemesis, Enduring, Brutal Strength
- I've used it twice.
- Perk is extremely underwhelming, and will need to be significantly reworked for more players to use it. The perk cannot be buffed as-is without breaking the game, because killers would just run it to camp and force hook/health states mid-game--a lose/lose scenario for survivors.
- It shouldn't block generators, it should permanently debuff gen speeds per token.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3195874#Comment_3195874
A gen or two by one person? What killer is getting run for 90+ seconds?
The ones I play against seem to have no problem chasing me for over 90 seconds....
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3195956#Comment_3195956
Yeah, can’t believe hiding somewhere and doing literally nothing to progress the game until the other person dies while intentionally bypassing the AFK alert system to artificially draw out the game to an absurdly long point because of how realistically arduous it is for a killer to find people hiding like that unless they happen to have a power/add-ons/perks that would help is against the rules. Makes no sense.
But hey, there’s something we agree on, the devs can fix this. Improve the AFK crow system to make hiding like this for extended lengths of time literally impossible. Problem solved.
lol, that response is gold 👏
-
They should really solve these problems with the game's design.
This is the only game I've ever played in which playing to win can be interpreted as a bannable offense.
If only the devs could do something about it...
-
@Adeloo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3195824#Comment_3195824
Even if the video file is heavy, you can post it on Youtube as private and share the link in the support's ticket. That's what i always do.
I did that once for a "Working with the Killer" report, as 4 or 5 short Youtube videos.
The initial 2 or 3 videos demonstrated how the survivor in question was bodyblocking me at loops, making it easier for the killer to catch me, and the remaining videos demonstrated extraneous player behavior that proved the player's intent was to work with the killer.
Whoever reviewed the footage never watched past the second video. It left a really sour taste in my mouth, because the latter clips were needed to prove, beyond doubt, that the survivor in question was working with the killer. Each clip was anywhere from 5 to 20s--I editted them down to save time for the viewer--so it was disappointing that they did not look at all the evidence.
I have not submitted any evidence in my reports since then, as I do not believe they took proper action when I did.
The current report system requires too much effort from the parties involved, for reasonable action to take place.
-
@Xendritch said:
Oh a reporting system relying entirely on players to record all their games and do all the work backed up only by a terrible anti-cheat that doesn't really work is leading to the game being miserable? Who could have possibly seen this coming?
BHVR has been ignoring this issue for years and it's finally becoming too much, we'll see if they take it more seriously now that the game is becoming literally unstreamable but probably not.
I played against a Nemesis the other day who was running more than 4 perks.
Because I was running Saboteur, I could see he had Monstrous Shrine. He was also running Devour Hope, Undying, Ruin, Haunted Ground, and cleansing totems took about as long as if he had Thrill of the Hunt.
I said to my friends very early in the trial, "This killer is cheating, but we have no way of proving it to the devs. The video file size to prove he is cheating would be too large for their system to process. Everyone report in post-game, and then laugh about how our report will get thrown out for lacking a ticket and evidence."
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3195707#Comment_3195707
I've been pretty clear about my stance on the subject, so I have no idea how you would think otherwise. This is becoming a pointless tangent.
You haven't been clear with me at all.
You contradicted yourself, so I asked you to clarify.
Whatever 'point' you didn't think I was getting was a biproduct of your ambiguous responses.
If you think I'm missing a point, why wouldn't you explain it to me? I was already asking you to clarify your opinion.
You said X, which sounds like you are saying Y, so I pushed you on that.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3195626#Comment_3195626
I can't tell if you're confusing yourself on purpose. I have never said that i do not think ragequitting and hook suicides ruin other people's games, and have been stating the opposite this entire time.
You haven't stated anything in your replies, hence my need to clarify all of your responses.
-
@OrangeBear said:
Do you have clip for this? Last time i was watching him he said that he wouldn't be taking a break because he feels like that would be letting the cheaters/snipers win.
The first 30min of his most recent broadcast is filled with him discussing his frustrations as of late.
This is more speculation on my part, as he maintains the position that it is just cheaters & snipers driving him away from the game, but I believe he feels helpless (about all of the game's problems) despite his status and contributions to the community, and is in need of something that will give him satisfying returns on his investments.
Here is a clip from his last stream, talking about taking a break. I labeled it 'Part 1' as I anticipate finding something a little more concrete later, which I can link you to as well, because this is in no way an official statement about taking a leave from DBD.
https://clips.twitch.tv/AmorphousCreativeJayCopyThis-RPRT0MHIIi1bXwXnEdit: Otz clarifying to his viewers that he still wants to play DBD
https://clips.twitch.tv/FastPricklyClintKlappa-Na6HBJ3sEXTYPAWv -
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3195509#Comment_3195509
Its certainly not ruining anyone's game, so I don't think you're getting the point.
You don't think ragequitting and hook suicides are ruining anyone's game?
That doesn't make sense, because your words earlier were "ruin the game in protest."
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3194846#Comment_3194846
Yeah, they're not because you can do that by just not playing the game instead of purposely ruining matches for others.
So you're saying you think a post like this one will actually help improve our experience with this problem?
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3194587#Comment_3194587
No, because people not liking something is not a valid reason to ruin the game for others in protest, regardless of which side is affected. Killers didn't give out 4E's like candy to protest CoH, they just stopped playing killer entirely, or moved on to camping and tunneling. Its also why people have been misrepresenting steam charts to try to emphasize that ever since. The most recent wave has been another survivor entitlement episode, but its something that the userbase as a whole does.
Also, how does one "hold the developers accountable?" do we employ BHVR staff? or are you implying targetted boycotting and sabotaging their product as accountability?
There is a direct cause and effect between the recent changes made to DBD and the rise in ragequitting and hook-suicides.
The buck stops with BHVR.
All these posts dedicated to scrutinizing players for demonstrating their frustrations with the game are misguided.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3194354#Comment_3194354
its been an issue on and off since Legion's PTB. It ebbs and flows with people's patience and entitlement.
@SunsetSherbet said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3192101#Comment_3192101
And those same people will complain about killrates or solo queue being too hard.
The amount of tunneling/camping I have seen "ruin my games" is utterly dwarfed by the number ruined by a Bill DCing 2 minutes in, or a Feng refusing to play a winnable game because "KILLER DOWNED ME TOO FAST ;-; "
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3194354#Comment_3194354
Huh? Rage quitting over the smallest of inconveniences absolutely predates a patch from a couple of months ago. This has been a multi year issue.
Interesting…
We’re going to acknowledge that the issue correlates with changes made to the game, but not hold the developers accountable for implementing those changes.
-
@SuzuKR said:
Prediction: Incoming excuses about why it’s okay to ruin the game for the other 4 players.
This wasn't an issue 3 months ago.
If only we knew what the problem was...
-
@humanbeing1704 said:
I ignore people who say wasting pallets if you ask me that's a concept that doesn't exist
actually I would only consider "wasting" a pallet is immediately dropping a pallet after getting hit once while healthy
Pallet economy is a very real thing.
...but it just so happens that most maps spawn with enough pallets for you to throw them with reckless abandon.
-
@Pyrosorc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3192331#Comment_3192331
I'm convinced half the campers just don't know any other way of finding survivors but they win just camping without BBQ so why put it back on.
I follow this same line of thinking.
We had a good thing going--it was ruined--and it is too late to just "go back to the way things were."
-
@JacobiusWick said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3192331#Comment_3192331
I'm not so sure we can continue to accuse them of "increasing the grind."
100 prestige levels for every survivor and killer.. you have to be joking.
Are you?
There is no reason to make that your goal, prestiege exists purely to flex after P9
-
I'm not so sure we can continue to accuse them of "increasing the grind."
The bloodweb price cuts alone have effectively replaced BBQ & WGLF bloodpoint boost.
To your point tho... I think there is something to be said about the influence BBQ had on killers' playstyle.
-
@Krazzik said:
Sorry Power Struggle but I'm with Myers on this one.
Care to communicate your thoughts on the matter?
I'm interested in discussing this issue with someone who will challenge my ideas, not dismiss them.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191562#Comment_3191562
The only "articulate" reason you've given to why hatch breaks the game is this extreme case where survivors all play for the hatch and the game becomes some big standoff. That's such a niche scenario that its probably why the devs are "indifferent to it" as you put it.
Survivors already do succeed and fail as a team, that has nothing to do with the hatch. Having a secondary avenue for escape when the team fails is a good thing.
I'm not cherry picking anything I've responded directly to your points I just think they are rather weak.
Even your original example of the kind of gameplay you are trying to stop has you making a bunch of assumptions about Dwight's gameplay and motivation.
My conclusion is you had a bad game, felt Dwight shouldn't have escaped, want changes that force players to play as a team or whatever you define as team play.
Your rationale for these changes is it ruins player experience when people play selfishly.
You say that it results in player animosity but the only one here displaying any animosity to their fellow players, is you. Maybe not direct animosity but its all very passive aggressive. Even the topic title is "riveting gameplay" a sarcastic passive aggressive dig at the game.
That is a conclusion weighed against all the points you have discussed in this thread with myself and others.
The earth isn't flat but if the evidence pointed to it being flat over the current evidence for it not (a physical impossibility by this point but lets pretend) then as a rational person I'd have to agree that the earth was flat, which it isn't.
If you offered any semblance of a rational mechanical reason to agree with you then I'd have to change my stance, you haven't though. You really haven't.
Your argument boils down to "waah its not fair we're supposed to be a team". While yeah you are and team work wins games, but I have the choice to abandon you if the situation calls for it and I'll take it if I have to. Which is fair.
The only "articulate" reason you've given to why hatch breaks the game is this extreme case where survivors all play for the hatch and the game becomes some big standoff.
Again, a blatant lie. It would be convenient for your narrative if this were true, but it is not. Stop gaslighting me.
The irony here is out of this world.
The moment I provided you with an argument you didn't have an answer for you started acting self-righteous and lectured me about how "assuming is bad form," and that I shouldn't be drawing conclusions about Dwight's actions whilst you praised and supported said actions.
MEANWHILE, you drew your own conclusions about what happened in my game, how I felt about that game, what drove me to make the forum post in the first place, and why I want to see change. FURTHERMORE, you've made judgements about my character in a discussion regarding GAME DESIGN.
I have laid the facts down in front of you brick and mortar, yet still you choose to believe the fantasy in your own head, because the pill I fed you is too tough to swallow.
It's not that you can't be persuaded, it is that you refuse to even consider the possibility of having other opinions.
You've been close-minded through this entire discussion, and if you hadn't you would have pressed me on my critiques of the game as I brought them forth.
Instead of questioning the advantages & disadvantages of removing hatch, you questioned my motive for wanting to remove hatch.
Instead of questioning my experience with DBD, video games & design, you assumed all of my ideas were 'ragey and emotional.'
Instead of trying to form a cohesive understanding of my argument, you continued to boil it down to something it wasn't.
Instead of answering my questions when I pushed you on your reasoning, you sidestepped and deflected.
Don't waste your time responding to this, OR ANY, comment of mine until you've learned how to hold a discussion with someone of a differing opinion--I won't entertain you with a reply.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191343#Comment_3191343
That’s how you make an argument. You formulate an opinion and then stack it up against reasonable facts.
I haven’t moved because you haven’t really provided any good rational to change my view.
Basically you want the hatch removed because it’s not fair that someone who may have contributed less to the team can get an escape.
Your example of this is a guy who clearly contributed to the team based on post game score but decided at some point his team wasn’t doing great and escaped out the hatch after hiding.
You want this removed over nothing more than a bunch of assumptions about how someone else played and being angry that it’s not fair to have an option for solo escape if the team is lost.
You go on to say that they made the right choice and you understand but then in the same sentence say they shouldn’t be allowed to do this.
And why shouldn’t they be allowed to well… feelings, it hurt your feelings that their selfish play got them out and not you.
They didn’t consider the negative impact their decision had on other team mates. Your words.
My take on this is that’s ridiculous. You are being ridiculous. I’m still here because I genuinely engaged trying to figure out where you were coming and it just kept getting more ridiculous.
So no my opinion on it hasn’t changed. You are making a bunch of assumptions about Dwight after being unhappy about the outcome of a game.
You did an ok job of framing that selfish play should get less rewards and I agree.
But the rest is so extreme I.e deleting hatch so no one can escape if the team fails, overall kill rates increasing leading to nothing but selfish solo play for hatch causing a terrible game experience for everyone. That’s just ridiculous.
Sometimes it’s fun to watch the ridiculous. But we are now going in circles so it’s come to a close.
Dwight made the right choice and you’ve completely failed to justify otherwise. I would have left you on hook too in that scenario and having the choice to do that is fine.
And why shouldn’t they be allowed to well… feelings, it hurt your feelings that their selfish play got them out and not you.
This is so blatantly false.
I’ve articulated how and why hatch breaks the game.
My entire argument has been built upon the premise that survivors should succeed and fail as a team.
Edit: Drawing conclusions, and then cherry-picking facts to fit your narrative is not the proper way to formulate an opinion.
You need to test your conclusion against all available information.
You haven’t done that—you’re like a flat-earther.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191370#Comment_3191370
I am also a big fan of encouraging good behavior. So while I gave some easy fixes in my above post of how to punish campers, the other side of the coin would be some small incentive to actually leave the hook.
My dream would be to give killers a small BBQ like effect as basekit: after hooking show them the aura of the survivor furthest away who is minimum 24m away and give them a short but substantial speed burst if they move in that direction and aren't in a chase right now. Old BBQs biggest contribution to the game was that nearly every killer equipped it for the BP gains, but then got drawn off the hook nearly automatically, because the perk gave them a new target. Basekit stuff is always an iffy subject, but I believe that we could change a lot for the better by making "leaving the hook" worth it for the killer instead of giving them the feeling that they are hurting their proposition of winning.
If you take both together, ie basekit mini BBQ+speed boost to get away from the hook AND making Reassurance and Camaradry/Kinship painful for killers to deal with, we will shift the meta from tunneling and camping over to chasing and looping.
I 100% agree with this.
The lack of any information often leads killers back to the hook when their search runs dry.
Some basekit aura reading would go a long way for everyone’s benefit.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3190767#Comment_3190767
Any game risks behaviour that is against game rules, cheating, DCs, abusive players, etc the point is that these things are not equivalent to basic in game mechanics.
People DC'ing isn't symptomatic of a problematic design, my god man you wax too poetic over DC'ers. You make it sound like BHVR should be on their hands and knees thanking quitters for giving it a go, sheesh that's a stretch.
They aren't some poor collective struggling to enjoy the game. DC'ing is people rage quitting when they don't get exactly what they want, the problem isn't the game its the attitude of quitters.
The last thing you want to do when the kid throws themselves on the floor in a tantrum is buy them the toy, it rewards the worst type of behaviour. The last thing BHVR should do is cater to these people.
There is enough people who do enjoy the game as is, these poor people who want to like it... well it seems they'll only like it if they get exactly what they want all game every game otherwise they'll DC. We don't want players like that anyway they aren't healthy for the game.
DBD has a great design, its one of the grittiest games out there when it comes to outcome and suitably matches the theme. That design is a little heavy for some folks so they quit and ruin it for everyone and are locked out of play accordingly.
Don't try to romanticize the struggle of people who DC it's a really silly thing to do.
Name one thing you dislike about DBD.
I’m currently under the impression that you think the game is flawless.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3190711#Comment_3190711
You stated that making team decisions is a strategy, I pointed out the making solo or selfish decisions is a strategy too.
Yeah its a team game and players are already forced to think as a team if they want a greater chance of success
The team as a whole is stronger than the sum of its parts, but parts will fail and when they do you may have to decide what's best for you rather than what's best for the team.
You agree that this is legitimate thinking yet somehow its still unacceptable?
Ugh those stats are pooled blanket numbers with very little context don't read to much into them.
Frankly I don't see a plague of people playing for the hatch because the kill rates go up, coordinated teams still have the best chance of escape, its only smart to play for the hatch when its already gone to pieces. Which it what ol Dwight way back at the beginning of this did and you accepted was the right move, but you don't like it because you feel it was unfair.
I'm sorry but you haven't made a very good argument, it stands purely on you feeling its unfun/unfair if someone doesn't contribute and because of that they shouldn't have the option to play that way, why? purely because you think its unfun.
So again I say 🤢🤮to that as a reason for changing game mechanics solely to serve your personal sense of fun.
If the idea of a solo player having license to make their own decisions about what to do in game and potentially be rewarded for them is to much for you then find a SWF to play with.
As I've said we've come full circle I haven't misrepresented anything you've said I've only responded directly with my opinions of what you've said. Usually responding directly.
Its very clear this isn't a rational argument to you its an emotional one because you don't like this part of the game and want it removed where I say this kind of variability makes games interesting fair or otherwise.
Learn to stop hyper focusing on your sense of fairness and just play the game. Sometimes its gonna be unfair and that's ok.
It is astonishing that you haven’t moved an inch on this matter.
Pretty clear at this point that you drew your conclusions at the start of the conversation, and then formed all of your opinions to match that conclusion.
You’re bending over backwards to try and poke holes in my logic, but you can’t so you resort to calling me emotional.
EARLIER you made other irrelevant comments, to which I ignored, that tried to call my character and intelligence into question.
When your best argument is belittling the person you're debating, and trying to discredit them rather than disprove them, then you don’t have an argument at all.
What are you still doing here?
-
I've always prefered that a survivor is required to run at least one of their perks.
It wouldn't really change anything from the survivor's gameplay, tbh, it would just give the killer a tip as to what kind of playstyle the player may be going for.
I don't think most survivors would like it, however, as it will ruin their emotional and financial investment into certain characters
-
This Bubba would like to have a word with you...
Watch "Feelsbubba" on Streamable. -
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3190362#Comment_3190362
Ah but that would mean that tunnelling was the equivalent of DC'ing. Which is BS.
Let me frame my point directly to what you just posted.
Being tunnelled is just gameplay within the defined rules of play, disconnecting is refusing to play.
These are two different things.
So tunnelling makes someone unhappy, but they sign up to the game with the understanding that its part of the game and may happen.
Unhappy person DC's because they are tunnelled, they encountered a valid game mechanic that they didn't like and rather than play it out they quit in a rage because they only want to play against mechanics they like.
Obnoxious gameplay can be played around and is part of the game like or hate it.
Rage quitting basically ends the game for all involved. It skews the survivors into a bad spot and if killers DC it just ends the game.
The rational for the DC is always the same "I don't like this type of play and I'm going to quit if it happens"
People dress it up as "its bullying, its unfair, its unfun" you know what it is... its rubbish is what it is. Its basically "I only want to play DBD my way!" and I'll quit if that doesn't happen.
There are solo player games for that, go play them and when ready to play like an adult the rage quitters can come back to the adult table and play.
When the trials and tribulations of a person equate to getting knocked out early of an elimination game, people should be welcome to dismiss them. If you can't dismiss your own loss in a game and move on to the next one then you shouldn't be playing, you are taking it too seriously and need to take a step back.
There's an old board game saying, if you rage over dice rolls you shouldn't play games with dice...
Well if you rage over elimination in an anything goes survival horror elimination game then you probably shouldn't play elimination games.
You may not find this a convincing argument and you are welcome to disagree, but its a far stronger point than, "Anything in game that makes people unhappy should be removed or changed" Well that only encompasses about 80-90% of gameplay.
You are right. The former should know what they are signing up for, while the latter have not signed up for player abandonment.
I would consider player disconnection a risk we sign up for when playing online games, but we expect that risk to be relatively low--hence the recent outcry about it.
Either way, the behavior is symptomatic of problematic design, and it is the responsibility of the devs to address it.
BHVR should consider themselves fortunate that their players are making an effort to play the game, then quitting mid-match, instead of abandoning it all-together. People want to like the game, they're just struggling to, which is a much better problem to have than players deciding it's not worth their time.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3190290#Comment_3190290
So the goal of saving others is predominately selfish and based on survival?
Meaning at some point if saving your team mate would result in both you and them dying then its not worth saving them and better to play for solo escape/hatch.
But playing for hatch should be punished because its selfish and reduces chances of the team escaping.. but so does unhooking in some circumstances... but you shouldn't play for hatch to escape its unfair.. but why play for a save if neither of you can escape... and round and round we go.
🤯
This is why what you are proposing is an inherently weak premise.
There is nothing wrong with playing for the hatch if the situation calls for it, that's another good strategy.
We've come full circle back to "it was the right play by Dwight"... you know the replies on the first page that you dismissed as off topic even when your counter point relies on the same argument i.e "altruistic" actions are nothing more than strategy". Selfish acts are also nothing more than strategy.
Rather than going around again, lets sum up...
Its not a great idea to punish the right play even if its not in the teams interest, all you can do is give greater rewards to players whom engage in team actions.
This they already do because team actions tend to garner the most BP's, pips and coordinated groups escape more often.
Someone playing selfish may escape when you don't and no matter how unfair you feel that is, its a possible game outcome and circumstance should dictate when to play "altruistically" and when to play "selfishly."
Making that choice can mean the difference between escaping and dying and that makes the game varied and exciting.
Hence what you are proposing, which is a "Dwight should be forced to try and save me rather than save himself" scenario, is just 🤮 from a gameplay perspective.
Dwight currently has the choice of whether to save you or not and the games circumstances will dictate which of those is the best choice to make just like a real survival horror.
I've saved the team plenty of times, I've saved my own butt plenty of times and both scenarios are valid.
Why are you misrepresenting my opinions in your response?
I already established the fact that hatch is problematic. You can't break down my argument by pointing to a mechanic that I don't believe should exist, and then try to frame me as a hypocrite whose argument is inconsistent.
I can't possibly agree with your premise of "there is nothing wrong with playing or the hatch" when I don't believe that hatch should exist in the first place!
Do I think Dwight made the right call, strategically? Yes. Do I think that strategy should be available to him? No.
Also, I said "we need them to increase OUR chance of survival." I said OUR, as in the team. Survivors should be playing a team game--everything they do should be to progress the objective of the team. Not everyone is going to survive, but everyone should be invested in one another's survival.
The stats that Peanits released today about kill rates is very concerning, given the strength of today's solo-escape builds.
The closer the kill rate gets to 75%, the less incentive survivors have to play for their team. If only one survivor is going to escape on average, than the optimal strategy for every survivor will be to run solo-escape builds and let their teammates die on first hook.
Does that sound like a version of DBD you want to be playing? Because it sounds very boring to me.
-
mmm... I'd be surprised to hear from the team that this is the intended place for feedback.
I'll believe you, but I understand marketing to mean promotion and advertising. I'd think this category would be reserved for other corporations or organizations that are looking to orchestrate some sort of event and are seeking approval for use of BHVR's product.
-
@Araphex said:
Don't forget, "because you got hooked for the first time". I see this almost every single match where they suicide on hook instantly after their first down. It's like what is the point? Didn't give anyone time to go for the save. I mean, i'll do it if I don't see someone coming for the save just to see if I can get off but by then I realize my team doesn't want to save me which is another issue. But those who just trigger it into 2nd stage and miss the skill checks so nobody can get them is beyond me.
Occassionally I'll encounter survivors who do this after being the first one downed with 2 gens left. At that point, I'm even more confused. The game is looking like an easy 4-man escape and they just throw it for everyone else.
If I had to speculate, people who do it because they were hooked first were either already tilted or have pre-conceived notions about a particular killer and are not interested in sticking around to have those notions proved right or wrong.
@Araphex said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187906#Comment_3187906
Submit a ticket. They literally have this feature and it's more than just for reporting bugs or cheaters. And if you don't like the game because you keep getting downed/hooked/killed, then don't play. Why spend so much time ruining the game for others? Multiple reports will result in a ban against an account for griefing, which is what this is.
BHVR does not support the option to submit a ticket for feedback.
Wouldn't change anything even if it did, point still stands.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3188850#Comment_3188850
You miss the point.
While the emotion attached to defeat comes from the same place it is in no way equivalent to genuine loss.
This is a game that emulates a slasher film scenario.
The survivors are already victims, they are victims before they get killed just by their very presence in the entity’s realm itself.
When you queue up to play survivor you are choosing to play victim with a chance to be hero.
A lot of players sign up as heroes and then complain they feel like victims.
If you feel victimised simply by the gameplay of DBD, then playing survivor in DBD may not be for you.
This rides the line between pvp and thematic game, if you want a balanced pvp experience where all is equal and everyone can be a hero then an asymmetric survival horror is probably not where you’ll get that experience.
Nor should it be.
On the topic of egregious parallels drawn from the real world, they don’t stack up because it is only a game.
It has a theme, that theme is confronting, the gameplay within that theme is confronting and if you can’t separate a fantasy game setting from real world pain… then a mature confronting game experience probably isn’t for you.
At least until you can make that separation.
I'm still not following your point, then. If you've moved away from the original discussion, and are just addressing the concept of "feeling like a victim" in-game, then I follow you.
But... It sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, the argument boils down to "it's not that serious."
This same logic could then also be applied to OP and those who share the sentiment about ragequitters.
All-in-all, I don't find it to be a very convincing argument, as it comes off as dismissive more than anything. Who are we to downplay the trials and tribulations other people? It doesn't matter if the struggles people have in DBD are insignificant to the struggles they will have in real life--the response we are seeing from players is matching the energy of the triggering event.
- A) It's not that serious that you're being tunneled.
- B) It's not that serious that your teammate disconnected because they were being tunneled.
Both parties, however, are unhappy. And for the sake of all parties involved, we should try to find a solution to this problem.
It just so happens that the solution to Party B's problem lies in solving Party A's problem.
Could BHVR solve Party B's problem by ostracizing Party A? Maybe. But why should they push out Party A when they are partially to blame for Party A's behavior? ESPECIALLY when keeping both parties happy is best for their bottom line.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3189826#Comment_3189826
You don’t think it’s extreme to just have survivors die if they don’t live up to your standard of altruism?
No, that isn't my point.
It's not about altruism--not in the literal sense of the word.
These actions which the game labels as Altruism (healing, unhooking, protection hits, etc.) are not really altruistic actions. They can be, such as when you hook-trade with someone in EGC--that is a truly selfless act--but by-and-large these "altruistic" actions are nothing more than strategy.
We don't unhook other survivors because we're altruistic, we unhook other survivors because we need them to increase our chance of survival.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3188819#Comment_3188819
No but you can't just auto kill people because they don't contribute.
Yes the survivor objective gets harder the less people contribute but that already lessens escapes for the team. So players have a choice when things go south to continue to be altruistic and help others or try and save them selves.
Just like a real survival horror experience. It may feel a lil unjust but its part of the game and makes it interesting and variable.
Mechanics like the hatch exists because previously you'd have long standoffs that dragged out forever, the hatch largely fixed that but really other than offering a limited but alternate means of escape (hatch) or just auto killing the last survivor there's not a lot of other mechanics that make sense.
Of those two options I'd prefer an alternate escape over just a you lost auto death move on to next game scenario.
The BP requirement is an interesting thought though but is it too punishing against new players, or even circumstances out of the survivors control. I got hooked and camped all game and can't even get a hatch escape because I don't have the BP's.
This is the extreme response I was talking about when I said take a step back and look at what you're asking, is it really rational or based on emotion because you feel the current system isn't fair.
No but you can't just auto kill people because they don't contribute.
Why not? Reap what you sow.
Mechanics like the hatch exists because previously...
I haven't played DBD since its release, but everything I find online suggests the hatch has always been in DBD. It wasn't designed with the intent of preventing standoffs until Patch 2.7.0 when they allowed killers to close the hatch and initiate EGC.
The hatch was made closeable because the game was seeing frequent standoffs in which the killer and survivor both stood over hatch waiting for the other to make a move, because at the time the killer could interupt and grab the survivor as they jumped in the hatch.
We are now entering a new version of that dilemma, in which multiple survivors can standoff against eachother AND the killer, prolonging the game so they can escape through hatch.
The common denominator here is hatch.
This is the extreme response I was talking about...
What about this response is extreme?
My entire argument here has been built upon observation and the conclusions I've drawn from those observations.
The only thing I feel right now is that you are very conservative, and my advocacy of radical design solutions makes you uncomfortable.
-
The counterplay is not getting hooked in basement.
It's not always avoidable (especially if Bubba is running Agi/Iron Grasp), but survivors have enough control over where they take chases to justify this lose/lose scenario.
-
The corner tile that the downstairs god-window vaults into should spawn a deadzone or a pallet loop.
There is no reason why a window that strong is frequently given a longwall facing the same direction.
Also, the god-pallet on the porch should be removed--the house doesn't need a god-pallet. Replace it with a vault on the railing, if it needs something, but the pallet is too much.
Change those two things, and the map will feel more balanced as killer.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187919#Comment_3187919
That's kind of a false equivalency though.
Nothing in a game of DBD is equal to real world bullying or even cyber bullying for that matter. If you truly think it is then you are taking this game way to seriously.
A bad game is just that a bad game, we all have them.
Some mechanics in this game are very zero sum, but zero sum mechanics have been around for a long time in a lot of games.
Two things tend to happen with zero sum mechanics..
- people play and work around them understanding they are part of the game, some more competitive players may try to exploit them but again its understood to be part of the game and you play around it.
- People take it personally, throw a tantrum and quit
Those that find themselves following the number 2 option more often should consider if DBD is the game for them.
Yes zero sum can be annoying and I find some things annoying from time to time but I sign up to play DBD accepting that they are part of the game.
Its a very adult and gritty theme that will involve some confronting gameplay and that's a good thing.
I'd hate to see it watered down because someone taking it to seriously is triggered by the gameplay, that would be bad.
It looks like the mods might find my parallel a bit too sensitive--potentially too confrontational--for the forums, so I won't belabor the topic.
I'll instead just point to ByeByeQ's latter comment, which I felt accurately clarified my message:
If I get unhooked (or worse, farmed) and the killer tunnels me hard off the hook and immediately hooks me again, I am definitely a victim. I certainly feel like a victim. I don't turn everyone else in the game into a victim should I choose to just let the Entity take me instead of struggling.
Plus it's a video game. No one is an actual victim here.
DBD is a great exercise in humility, but it can at times cross a line.
We're all here to have a good time. And as part of that, it is important that we're able to maintain agency--just like that Dwight you and I were talking about in another thread. Even in defeat, we as humans want to feel like we have control over the way we are defeated.
Unfortunately, there are times when we play this game that we encounter scenarios in which we feel completely helpless. The game can put us at such a disadvantage that we feel like a passenger watching our train run off the rails.
It's not really a matter of "taking the game too seriously."
It is the fact that we turn to this game to have a good time, and it hands us anything but that.
As I said in my previous comment, this game has redeeming qualities--it is filled with reasons why people don't outright abandon the game. But it has some wrinkles that need ironing out, and at the moment people are tired of seeing them.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187264#Comment_3187264
I agree, but BP's pips and MMR are really the only 3 things that reward gameplay. (although some might argue that going up in MMR isn't a reward).
We can say delete the hatch but it exists to remove the endgame standoff that would happen when there was one survivor left. It gives an avenue for escape even when down to 1v1. So you can play for the hatch if you want and it does work to the survivor advantage to have it creating an avenue of escape if last one alive.
How exactly can the game punish people for playing for the hatch and not progressing the main objective outside of the 3 variables they have to reward people BP's, pips and MMR.
Hatch doesn't give MMR, I'd also say it shouldn't give as many escape BP's or emblem points as getting out through the gate. However if people play for the hatch as last survivor and get out then they should get something for it just not as much.
BP's pips and MMR are really the only 3 things that reward gameplay.
Do you mean to say that escaping (as survivor) and killing (as killer) are not rewards for good gameplay?
I think hatch is the wrong solution to the endgame problem.
I'm radical--I'd like to see other ideas explored, preferably ones that reinforce this idea that the survivors need eachother to survive.
I'm also practical--I think BHVR has invested too much time and money into the hatch to do away with it. So my best proposal atm for further change would be to institute a bloodpoint requirement to escape through hatch. "The entity wants to be pleased; it'll only let you out if you're deemed worthy of an escape."