Kind_Lemon
Kind_Lemon
About
- Username
- Kind_Lemon
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,464
- Last Active
Comments
-
Disappointment is my new favorite flavor of candy this Halloween, too!
-
@TheWarNung said:
It does? I mean it gives you exhaustion, so you can't use your other perks until the cooldown is over.
^this
you could make an argument to extend the Exhaustion timer if you wanted tho.
-
I might not use lying, but going back on your word to the community, BHVR, is not cool especially when you give no reason why you abandoned what you said previously.
-
this discussion's title is too much XD
-
@Exerath1992 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1709387#Comment_1709387
Hmmmm. I don't use anything that gives oblivious, but I've definately seen the obsessions aura during the chase when OoO is the only thing that would cause that. Does the OoO only work one way with undetectable? (Killer can see obsession but they can't see killer)
yes, OoO still lights up with Undetectable (outside of TR), but since Undetectable hides auras, it's a one-way thing. Therefore, it also still serves as a way to detect where a tier I Myers is lurking or any killer using Undetectable even if the red stain doesn't show around loops.
-
ehhh... I just prefer playing hide and go seek with the Insidious on Myers. The first survivor to find me gets tombstoned :D
-
@Exerath1992 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1709275#Comment_1709275
Hmmmm. I didn't know about the TR aspect. I have definately seen it proc when close, but maybe I had tinkerer go off at that time or something
yeah, OoO only light up when the survivor can't hear the terror radius and is within the max range. It's why you can't see the auras of killers in chase unless you're oblivious or something. It also lights up when the killer is undetectable, but you can't see the aura then.
-
@DerpyPlayz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1707696#Comment_1707696
Yep, im confused.
You can have your cake back... just don't eat it too.
haha, my whole post was about how the devs said they largely use their gut feelings (1/3 of a of 3) when balancing and how that's not so great of an idea.
I just bring in Freddy and Legion just to remind people what happened and how the community's desires just happened to align with the devs'. I didn't say this explicitly, but I was trying to get at: the devs (for the most part) only take community feedback when they have already thought of the same thing. The only solid evidence given to us otherwise was with the STBFL rework, which was credited to a poster on reddit (?), and that's only one example in a long line of dissatisfied community criticisms.
-
@Exerath1992 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1707485#Comment_1707485
Well the movement speed penalty would just straight up prevent them from being able to look play the killer during chase, which is key to looping. So that would make it completely useless. The repair speed debuff isnt a terrible idea, but 15% is just like an extra 20 seconds per gen, they don't have any real danger or urgency because they can see the killer approach, and it doesn't address the issue of them hiding their own aura behind the gen aura.
Basically, that idea neuters them in a chase too much, and doesn't deter them feeding info to teammates, which is the whole point of it needing a change. I still think having OoO only in effect when they're not performing an interaction is a more fair balance.
OoO only activates when outside of the killer's terror radius and looking in the killer's direction. Things like Spine Chill only have the action speed increase and the skill check modifiers when active, so I'm not sure why you would assume OoO would work differently...
That specific change was for preventing any excessive abuse of OoO on Midwich (because survivors can just run in circles without using OoO). Edit: It just generally reduces the distance gain from users of OoO immediately running in the right direction when they see the killer approaching.
-
@Deadeye said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1706850#Comment_1706850
well, my main point was that I totally disagree with the devs not listening to the community. And Freddy and Legion are a major example for that. Not gonna repeat more as I think this should be clear now
...we're getting nowhere with these replies back and forth. I've laid out my reasoning (and sarcasm) already, and I, too, think we should stop.
-
@DerpyPlayz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1706850#Comment_1706850
Firstly, the premise of "feeling" im removing from the topic. As you can argue with "feelings" but its fallacious and pointless because it goes nowhere as you can argue ANYTHING, truth or not truth with feelings.
Freddy is not a "great" slugger by any means, he is a M1 killer other then his ability put down stares really. If Freddy is "great" at slugging, then almost every killer is "great" at slugging.
Now I will demonstrate how "Gut feeling" is just as much a waste of time to bring up in argument as "feelings".
Firstly its not something you can prove, and its not something that has an argument therefore its unfalsifiable and every claim that can not be false for that reason is not creditable.
Secondly, it is not asking anything and is an assertion.
Lastly, your adversary can make the same argument that goes against your argument based on the same thing (feelings, gut feeling) and you would have to agree with it just as much as your own statement.
For example, you said "There aren't stats, but from "personal gut feelings", those were my experiences.". Its the same as I could say from my "personal gut feelings" those were NOT my experiences. In doing this the two making these point got absolutely nowhere, and are now both right as there is no way to falsify the others claim.
I really don't think being legion and being able to down a survivor via exploit of Deep Wounds was patched because it was OP, but more so because it was not fun to go vs and not only that but also that it didn't really promote gameplay.
I'm talking about OG Freddy, where a dying survivor had to be woken up before being healed. I haven't even talked about anything regarding new Freddy.
About "gut feelings": that's not what I said, it's what the devs said drive their decisions, and I think that's an incredibly stupid principal reason.
"There aren't stats, but from "personal gut feelings", those were my experiences." was said to show how stupid that statement of listing extremely subjective gut feelings as a valid reason for major balance changes is.
About Deep Wounds; I only meant to say that it didn't fit with the developers' vision of the killer as a "partial health state" (hope I quoted that correctly :/) killer and wasn't trying to say anything about it being OP or not.
So, I think my post caused some confusion?
-
@APoipleTurtle said:
So here's the part that worries me: "Any survivor who has wiggled off once previously in a match can be subjected to a memento mori."
That's an easier requirement than the current single-hook condition that the Ivory/Ebony Mori's already have. Plus killer can force the issue by just dropping the survivor until they are automatically "wiggled" free.
This would make mori's more powerful and punish survivor teams that can successfully pull off risky altruistic plays without actually fixing what people don't like about these offerings. Discouraging altruism also makes survivors stay on gens and avoid both you and their teammates much more frequently (meaning fewer interactions and more gen-rushing).
Just my opinion of course, but I think this change would actually make mori's worse than they already are.
I had the same concern about that line, and I considered stating that the killer must not contribute the final wiggle off progress for the final escaping of the grasp, but then I wondered, "How would someone code that?"
Then I decided to add this: "Memento mori offerings tremendously decrease the wiggle out bonus given to survivors after being dropped by the killer." And this is something that can be coded somewhat easily, I presume, and would prevent killers (if the percentage that a killer contributes to the wiggle bar is low enough eg. 1% instead of the ~30% it is now) from abusing it, requiring survivor interaction to trigger the mori. As a side effect, memento moris could also be burned just for the effect of not losing a survivor when deciding to drop a survivor late in the wiggle progress.
So, I would argue that this makes for a harder prerequisite in most, if not all, circumstances. I already rarely see killers losing survivors to altruistic actions, and if a survivor is going to be in struggle phase or dead on hook, stunning the killer while he/she is carrying a survivor is going to be the right play if possible.
To assess if this is a move in the right direction or not, we always have to look at the extremes and then the most common course of action. A positive extreme would be that a killer who is getting 12 hooks and doesn't lose any survivors isn't using the powers of the mori to unnaturally shorten a survivor's gameplay time. At the bad extreme, we now have a killer who picks up a survivor and stands still, waiting for the survivor to wiggle off. The survivor stops wiggling and just sits there. The killer can't feasibly add any meaningful progress to the wiggle bar, so the killer either drops the survivor, carries the survivor to the hook, or walks around with the survivor, finding other survivors to injure. This extreme seems to decrease in probability from an Ebony memento mori to an Ivory, so we could change the stipulation to have, for the Ebony mori, both the hooking prerequisite and the wiggling free prerequisite. That would cut down this bad extreme (which is a self-destructive act by the killer) to almost non-existence, hopefully.
The most common course would probably be burning a mori and then hooking survivors until the killer can spot an opportunity to get a survivor to wiggle off.
The chief complaint about the memento mori is that it unnaturally decreases a survivor's gameplay time without any extra work from the killer, and this change addresses that.
I just want to see this in a PTB even if it doesn't go anywhere else 😢. i.e. the double requirement for Ebony, single for Ivory, final survivor stipulation for Cypress.
-
because the devs hate you /s
-
"counter [argument]:
Any survivor who has wiggled off once previously in a match can be subjected to a memento mori. Cypress is an exception. Numbers of survivors stay the same. Memento mori offerings tremendously decrease the wiggle out bonus given to survivors after being dropped by the killer.
Why? A memento mori now serves to make up the difference between survivors doing over-the-top well and the killer getting hooks. A Memento mori can no longer be used to shorten the length of a match, since wiggling off inherently elongates the match (in the survivors' favor) similarly to how a hook elongates the match.
#PTBplz"
-
It dates back to the first event. Survivors would just sabo event hooks to prevent killers from getting coins and survivors would also bring in the best things that they could to pressure the generators to make sure they all got their coins.
-
The game was intended to have camping, so it is an "intended" mechanic. See the dev diaries.
-
I mean, it's not just that; OoO users are often more cocky and get themselves into trickier situations where everyone else lives while the OoO user dies. In recent memory, all the OoO users I've faced die just before the game finishes, whether after all other survivors are dead or after other survivors have escaped.
The killer gets to have very limited options on who to chase, and with less chase resources around, going after the OoO user makes the most sense.
-
poor customer service seems to be a trend...
this is not saying anything about the devs as people but as a subgroup of BHVR.
-
you mean the non-event.
-
I quite enjoy this place.
That specific spawn is the bad spawn tho. The better spawn is with the windows closest to you open. That way, you climb through the window as killer and drop right on top of the survivor under the pallet, which is under that window. Even if the pallet isn't there, survivors will still stand there to try to find where you are coming from next. They never look above until you're already on top of them. It's even better when the gen is there, too.
-
licenses and legality.
@Weaslbee said:
Okay thanks for the quick responses.
I still don't really get why you would allow your character to be implemented in a game like dbd but then deny the creation/release of cosmetics for them.
Doesn't this actually help push the franchise to be more known?
Characters often have iconic images from the franchise, and the copyright holders often don't want to have newcomers to the franchise to look at someone like Detective Tapp in DbD, decide they like DbD's version of the skin without knowing the original (or knowing the original), watch the film/source, and then criticize the film's/source's bad character design and aesthetics.
-
@GeordieKiller said:
You do realise the biggest counter plus the biggest downside is just do bones it is a hex perk aswell if you are having trouble bring a map, small game and detective hunch.
but let me throw this in so if i read this correctly your issue with undying is that if you get ruin not undying 1st it waste your time trying to find another lit totem and hope that its undying then finding ruin so it takes time away from the survivors trying to do their objective.
If that is the case would it be fair to say that DS or UB needs a nerf as it takes away killers time on doing their objective, cause if you down the survivor before 60 seconds since they got off hook the killer is unable to do their objective as they cant pick you up or slug so those two perks waste time for the killers to do their objective aswell.
Undying doesnt need a nerf or a buff its a good perk and it gives something that i have noticed a few survivors were asking another objective to do instead of just doing gens. So in a way killers are giving up two perk slots to give survivors something more to do in the game.
okay, so, no. Undying is not a "good perk" in the sense of healthy for the game. It quite literally encourages the devs to not work on implementing more robust hex totem mechanics (such as place-able hex totems) because they can just point at Undying and say, "shut up, we gave you a perk to make up for what's wrong with the base game, so use it".
That's why I'm against Undying. It would also be better if Undying replaced the broken hex totem in the exact same spot rather than moving the hex totem somewhere else. That would already be a perk designed better.
-
by "wobble", I presume you're suggesting sporadically inconsistent survivor movement speed while in the gas to make it harder for survivors to judge accurately where they will be by the end of the effects' duration.
I would like to see that in a PTB for sure, because that sounds interesting.
--
Kind_Lemon
An advocate of place-able totems, an "untethering from obstacles" pallet interaction (required before pallet usage), and the removal of Exposed from tier 1 Devour Hope.
Also supports changes to how many survivors need to be present to start repairs on a generator.
#revertNurseaddons #reverttieroneDevour #reverttiertwoBL #nofreechaseresources #placeabletotems #revertBillysounds #workwiththemusicyouhave
-
@Chechia said:
Huntress is fine besides a few hitbox issues on both sides.
High reward for high skill. It isn't easy too hit survivors who are very good at dodging and if you are using your surroundings smart against her, she will most likely not hit you anytime soon. Sure... if you are outpositioned she has a higher chance but that goes for every killer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFtUIDhYFE
If you watch tthis video you can see that these survivors are doing very well with evading Coconut's hits and he is by far one of the best huntress in this game.
I don't want to question your experience in this game but you have obviously never played huntress for a long time for saying that her hatches are unfair and not counterable.
Everything else on your list is personal opinion I guess. I also don't enjoy the executioner but you can doge his range attack pretty well in most scenarios. It's a gessing game in the end. Doctor is annoying, I agree on that. Just spamming his power till he got you. Deathslinger is also high reward for high skill and his punishment is very large considering he has only one shot. His shot is obviously harder to doge because it is instant but I still don't really see that big of a problem with it. He is very slow and he needs to pull people in to hit them. That cost time as well.
Survivors tend to have a problem with killers that are able to down them fast. But this is not a 1 vs 1 game. Even if a killer has quick chases the team can still win because the game isn't about looping a killer for 5 gens. It's totally fine that we have strong killers who can actively end a loop faster without relying on the survivors for making mistakes. Because all the other killers are not winning because of their own skill but because the survivor has made the wrong read. There is a huge difference between a power role killer and a normal killer. And people enjoy the power role. Tha'ts not a secret. And that goes for both sides. Survivors are liking the weaker killers the most because guess what: they can loop them easily from pallet to pallet and they only get caught if they make a mistake. That's very funn for survivors but not for killers.
So no, for the balance of the game, there is no need to nerf these distance killers. As long as the game isn't designed for long chases we need killers who down people fast to actually have a change besides effective tunneling, slugging or pseudo camping.
@Chechia said:
Huntress is fine besides a few hitbox issues on both sides.
High reward for high skill. It isn't easy too hit survivors who are very good at dodging and if you are using your surroundings smart against her, she will most likely not hit you anytime soon. Sure... if you are outpositioned she has a higher chance but that goes for every killer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFtUIDhYFE
If you watch tthis video you can see that these survivors are doing very well with evading Coconut's hits and he is by far one of the best huntress in this game.
I don't want to question your experience in this game but you have obviously never played huntress for a long time for saying that her hatches are unfair and not counterable.
Everything else on your list is personal opinion I guess. I also don't enjoy the executioner but you can doge his range attack pretty well in most scenarios. It's a gessing game in the end. Doctor is annoying, I agree on that. Just spamming his power till he got you. Deathslinger is also high reward for high skill and his punishment is very large considering he has only one shot. His shot is obviously harder to doge because it is instant but I still don't really see that big of a problem with it. He is very slow and he needs to pull people in to hit them. That cost time as well.
Survivors tend to have a problem with killers that are able to down them fast. But this is not a 1 vs 1 game. Even if a killer has quick chases the team can still win because the game isn't about looping a killer for 5 gens. It's totally fine that we have strong killers who can actively end a loop faster without relying on the survivors for making mistakes. Because all the other killers are not winning because of their own skill but because the survivor has made the wrong read. There is a huge difference between a power role killer and a normal killer. And people enjoy the power role. Tha'ts not a secret. And that goes for both sides. Survivors are liking the weaker killers the most because guess what: they can loop them easily from pallet to pallet and they only get caught if they make a mistake. That's very funn for survivors but not for killers.
So no, for the balance of the game, there is no need to nerf these distance killers. As long as the game isn't designed for long chases we need killers who down people fast to actually have a change besides effective tunneling, slugging or pseudo camping.
I mean, just like in my games, his greatest enemy is hitboxes and not necessarily the survivors.
-
I'm much more in favor of having it apply an action speed penalty of 15% and a movement speed penalty of 6% whenever OoO is active than any Blindness effect.
I think the goal should be to discourage obsessive OoO use rather than prevent it, like how the Billy changes should have been done (i.e. not at all because that dynamic already existed).
-
@Milo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1706885#Comment_1706885
I mean, perks technically still do this.
With your example a brown medkit has less impact (even if only by little) than other rarity medkits.
Wouldn't you say Iron Will 1 has less impact than Iron Will 2 or 3? In their own little triangle, it works.
On the grand scheme of things, if they kept the old system, they would have to change rarity of perks they just released every mid-chapter (because this perk wasn't as strong as they anticipated).
I was considering adding a line in my original post about this, but I can do it here.
The only reason perks change rarity with tiers is because sensibly, if a perk is increasing in tiers, it must be getting better than it was previously. That means at least an increase of 1 rarity between tiers. With old NOED, it probably would have made more sense to have tiers one and two be uncommon and rare, respectively, and have tier III be ultra rare, but the devs raised the rarity of the lower tiers to keep them all one apart. I didn't have a problem with that.
While you say "perks technically still do this", you've taken a small subset of a larger issue and reduced the problem down to that. The rarities are currently redundant anyway for tiers because the tiers exist as that indicator of changing in worth. Perks don't follow the rules for applying rarities any longer, and the only way it may seem that way is when tiers and rarities coincide, with tiers taking precedent and rarities being dependent on tiers.
So, yes, higher tiers for Iron Will being more impactful than others still is the case, and this is indicated by the tiers themselves.
The only reason for rarity to exist is to provide a way to balance the different perks, add-ons, and offerings against one another in each's respective category. Common rarity things are common because they're least impactful, and the devs wanted to make sure that these were the most seen in trials. For every higher rarity, the devs made the node to acquire it on the bloodweb more expensive and appear less frequently to ensure that they couldn't be used every match (players either couldn't find it, couldn't pay for it, or both). The devs are throwing that out the window, which is why we're stuck with piles of hundreds of iridescent heads on Huntress that we'll never use up before we acquire more (I talk about this problem more in this post:
@Kind_Lemon said:
(for bloodweb and perk leveling, skip past the spoiler/italics)
First and foremost, I think a White Ward should prevent add-ons from being lost upon an escape if the devs do go through with this change. I personally dislike it given that I have very few clean rags or rubber grips despite having upwards of one hundred of brown bloodpoint offerings each. Keeping these add-ons after a successful escape is the only way they can compete with the amount of bloodpoint offerings without burning through tens of bloodwebs worth 50,000 points each.
About killers keeping add-ons: I think considering adding the rule that killers lose their add-ons only if a survivor escapes would be an intriguing idea even if only for the sake of lore (eg. the Entity rewards killers for doing well). However, before considering this, the issue of bloodpoint gain, the cheapness of bloodwebs, and perk acquisition needs to be addressed.
Perks and Bloodweb leveling
As it stands now, perks can only be obtained through the bloodweb, and the sheer number of perks in the game requires an inordinate amount of bloodpoints to be spent and bloodwebs to be run through in order to acquire most (if not all). The developers decided to make the bloodweb cheaper to combat (among other things such as 8k common bloodpoint offerings) the grind to acquire all the perks. In doing so, the developers allowed players to breeze through bloodwebs and accumulate hundreds of add-ons and offerings that can't be used in enough games before the player reaches the bloodpoint cap and has to start leveling again or waste the points.
The BEST solution (not the easiest) is to add another menu in the bloodweb tab that is designed solely for upgrading perks and then increase the prices of items on the bloodweb. I have incomplete drawings I may edit in later, but for now, imagine it as similar to the UI structure of the loadout tab (add-on choosing, offering choosing, etc.). There is a bloodweb section and then a perk section that can be switched between with ease.
How it functions:
- The bloodweb no longer spawns perks higher than the first tier and teachable perks, so once a player has purchased a perk in the bloodweb, he/she will have to travel to the perk upgrade menu.
- In the perk upgrade menu, players will be able to see the perks they have purchased off the bloodweb. All perks (other than the first tier of teachable perks) not purchased from the bloodweb will not appear. If a player clicks on a perk, a prompt will show up asking the player if he or she would like to upgrade the perk a tier (or downgrade, but I'm still not sure about having this option) and will show a price twice that of the next level's rarity (eg. upgrading from common to uncommon will be 8,000 and upgrading from Very Rare to Ultra Rare will be 14,000).
- Purchasing a perk on the bloodweb does not immediately consume another perk node. Instead, The Entity will first consume the highest rarity node in the furthest ring.
I think this solution is best because it removes the problem part of the grind from the bloodweb, the sole way for killers to get items and add-ons and the only way for anyone to get offerings. It gives the developers more flexibility in the future to play with prices and the numbers of rarities of nodes on any given bloodweb. Even perhaps more crucially, it allows players more agency in deciding which perks to be able to upgrade, avoiding (for the most part) unwanted perks and giving players more of an option to plan out builds and strategies without relying on chance to such a degree.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/YQKFIWTIZGMM/perk-leveling-282-29.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/LLMYBPPJFFWX/perk-leveling-286-29.png
(ik the amount is inconsistent with what the above post states. Follow the post and treat the pictures as rough drafts.)
(P.S. This also brings back Ultra Rare and Common perks)
).
If the devs stuck with the grand scheme of things, then, yes, they would have to occasionally go through and change perks' rarities as the game developed over the years (almost as if they were actually doing balance passes, hmm...). It's not like they haven't done this for the Odd Bulb or the Haemorrhagic Syringe, but this process of going through the game and making sure perks, items, and offerings had the right rarities would be something we would all become accustomed to and appreciate (the devs did it early on in the game's history with things such as the murky reagent). I didn't plan on ending on a somewhat negative note, but I'm going to do so anyway because I ended up writing myself to here.
Devs, we've been shown evidence from years ago that you do actually care about balancing the game and having rarities make your lives easier by automatically scaling usage and availability for everything that has a rarity in this game, so please do it again. Please properly care for your game's built-in balance features, devs. I know that you often seem like you don't care (eg. OoO comments, Clown comments, etc.), but I do have a small amount of faith I really want to give you guys, and that's what I'm doing right now. I've explained why you did what you did in the past and all the logic that went into it and why that logic works. I haven't talked about (in this post) how sticking to such a rigid formula for chapter releases makes for a balancing nightmare, but it does. I see you making things so much more difficult on yourselves than you need it to be. The game was built to support balancing updates through the use of the rarity feature, and you should use it! Getting rid of it doesn't make things easier for achieving true balance. I know you rely heavily on gut feelings (one of three key factors you stated in a recent stream), but allowing for systems already in place to do the work takes the brunt off of your gut.
I will even direct this @Almo because of how important I think this is, and I don't think that doing that once in a blue moon will annoy anyone (I hope). This ended much more hopefully than I expected...huh. I'm looking back at my comment, and I'm realizing that the tone shifts quite drastically from beginning to end and might not be suited for being shared around BHVR offices, but I'd be happy to edit this later on if it seems like it would benefit from being accessible to a larger audience.
Anyway, that's been my schpiel :P
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1706885#Comment_1706885
I'll take your word for how they were organized before. Territorial Imperative and Monstrous Shrine were both Purple for instance but are pretty terrible perks. Deerstalker is actually a bit underrated (it can save you 10-15 seconds looking for a slugged survivor), and Bamboozle was also Green and it's a decent perk as well. Agitation was Purple but is not that great, and Unrelenting is also Purple and not that great. Honestly I ignored the old colors way more than I ignore the current color scheme.
haha, most of my examples come from Huntress and before because after that, the decline into different rarities even existing for perks began.
But you, good sir dugman, have not seen my builds which use both Agitation and Unrelenting* to great effect. Agitation is really useful when survivors are trying to pressure a gen after you've picked up a survivor somewhere nearby (downed two people with Devour Hope at five stacks on Huntress while I was carrying another because I'm crazy like that). That combined with how well I can just say "nope" to any potential saboteurs makes Agitation really powerful at times. For Territorial, being able to see someone walk into the basement as soon as the match starts to try to nab an early chest can be really powerful too (but tbh Territorial should work also with survivors entering the killer shack). The three perks you mention (other than Monstrous Shrine because....well...we know why) are all worthy of their rarity due to how much they can influence the outcome of certain scenarios (I mean, it's quite honestly surprising how many downs I can regularly get with Agitation). Bamboozle is part of the newer wave of perks that didn't give a **** about the logic behind perk rarity, so it's another example to show how things have declined rather than an example of how the system was flawed to begin with.
I don't really think the perks should have ever been stuck sorted by rarity for so long, but I know why it probably happened in the first place (i.e. the devs had to make some decision back when DbD was being first released, and the organization by which perks were most likely to be used sounded like a good enough reason to them then, which it probably was). I do think there should be a sort feature (just like there should be one on the forums cough cough), but this perk rarity change is coming across as their replacement for that, and I'm not a fan of that just as much as I'm not a fan of abandoning the logic behind rarities on perks in the game.
*this is mainly for Hag because not swinging immediately after teleporting often ends up with not getting hits you should have otherwise gotten, and the missed hit reduction is just a pleasant perk to have, especially when a survivor then thinks he/she has time to medium vault a nearby window.
-
@Darkskies said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1707117#Comment_1707117
The main issue is people think oh If I don't support it doesn't matter...it totally does people unless we make a stand things won't improve ps4 is in a terrible state right now I've lost my temper a few times tbh ill probably get banedd for insuring people don't fund bhrv. I am have been wholesome for a reason people do not understand I don't wish to be banned I hope my wholesome attitude respect will save me but love for the game improvements will speak for itself. And I honour those that stand with me!
Why I'm careful here on what I say or what I do but I do all I can to not support bhrv till I see an actual support in console players ability play the game.
As for advents I doubt bhrv will ever return to the game changes as to many complaints and frustration plus to many people will pay to get. We accept the back pedal and saulte them when issues still remain. 😭🐷
It's a broken system broken game but not enough people stand up.. Its a mess and if I'm banned I'm banned 🐷💖 (Kind tried of being held back on what I say tbh)
Being sheeple is what people tend to love, and fundamental change like what we want to happen to BHVR's philosophy requires a significant amount of use to not be sheeple, which is a very big challenge. That's true of most everything tho.
-
there have been posts made with this exact idea before...
Do you know what it's like to play killer with the amount of unexpectedness in games with good survivors? Unexpectedness in the form of random stuns that the killer has no control over is really not a good idea.
-
yeah, he's not OP, he's just the kind of killer that gets survivors to kill themselves quickly on hooks to be done with the match. 10/10 great design. Shouldn't be changed.
-
thought this was going to be about Minecraft's Warden. My mind is stuck too much on how that has so much more horror than DbD rn lol.
-
I gave you an upvote because going back on your word, BHVR, without any reason provided to the community that explains why you disavowed your previous reasons is not cool.
-
counter:
Any survivor who has wiggled off once previously in a match can be subjected to a memento mori. Cypress is an exception. Numbers of survivors stay the same. Memento mori offerings tremendously decrease the wiggle out bonus given to survivors after being dropped by the killer.
Why? A memento mori now serves to make up the difference between survivors doing over-the-top well and the killer getting hooks. A Memento mori can no longer be used to shorten the length of a match, since wiggling off inherently elongates the match (in the survivors' favor) similarly to how a hook elongates the match.
#PTBplz
-
retention of hex perk effects is a BIIIIIIIIIIG change, and I'm generally against it.
Simple buff:
same effects for 1-4 stacks. Applies to all skill checks.
5 stacks: same reduction in delay as 4 stacks but with a 50% chance to not have any sound at all.
6 stacks: same effects as 5 stacks but with a 20% chance to trigger the skill check noise without any skill check
7 stacks: same effects as 6 stacks but with a 15% increased chance to trigger skill checks.
I would like for the hex to also play for all survivors at all times The Huntress's lullaby once the hex has 5+ stacks, but that's probably not going to happen.
-
@MusicNerd_TC said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1707127#Comment_1707127
Good riddance to prayer beads.
:,(
I liked playing against them...
I never even quite understood what the issue people had with Prayer Beads that wasn't just an issue with how Spirit is designed. Prayer Beads should have stayed and Spirit should have been changed to accommodate.
I bet you've never even played against an Insidious Spirit, so you wouldn't know why her interaction with the perk is so special...
-
The devs have ensured that so much frustration exists in their game that it seeps into the community and toxifies the waters for everyone. People have nothing personal against you; it's just that this pent up animosity has to be directed somewhere, and anyone defending BHVR rn without being incredibly clear on his/her qualifiers is going to see the brunt of that.
-
It makes playing Insidious Spirit really difficult. It was already difficult enough with the change to Prayer Beads (RIP).
-
The tension of playing against a good Nurse and not having been found yet.
Except that never happens anymore because the devs made Nurse so distasteful to play (and remember, everything is relative, and in Nurse's case, to how she was before/what her optimal design could be).
-
@Darkskies said:
People will never learn that is the issue tbh. They think oh look we won we got them to change the advent we get stuff now huzzah we won!!
No no you have not the only reason why bhrv is doing this Is because they are losing people fast they need people logging in and playing.
To be honest I got a bad taste in my mouth when they deleted the console frame rate thread. I knew what I deeply feared that this company is no longer the bhrv that once was.
But it doesn't matter only a handful of us won't or haven't been buying skins and more shady things will still go on.
So it is what it is until another game can offer what dbd does they know people will forgive forger and buy.
I have been for while not supporting bhrv with any buying of cosmetics and dlcs. I used to have so much faith things would turn around defended bhvr as well but Sadly that has gone.
🐷💖
I haven't looked at any statistics to be able to make a judgement about the state of affairs regarding how many people are playing the game, but it sure wouldn't surprise me to see any trend of rapid turnover in playerbase because of how frustrating this game can be and how that issue isn't being deeply addressed.
Ever since the rift released, I've kept in mind the predatory nature of all the pop ups and text forced on the player constantly reminding that the rift exists and will be gone soon (preying on fomo). I honestly think having only one game like this in a somewhat niche genre (horror) as a lifeline for an entire company is bad for both the benefit of the game and the aspirations of a company like BHVR, because while this company will always want more mainstream, more people, more engagement, more money, the game will not move away from needing tender care and an insightful eye on how its original design philosophy should be interpreted for today's horror fans.
sigh
-
stbfl is your best friend.
-
but fr, the perk rarity changes are a big nono from me.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1705857#Comment_1705857
I’m not sure I follow, the higher the rank of a perk the more powerful it is so this ordering does, in principle, order the perks by power level ( then alphabetically within that I think if I remember right). Ideally all rank 3 perks are supposed to be roughly the same power level for instance and they all are better than the rank 2 versions.
Of course there are in practice perks that are underpowered (e.g. Monstrous Shrine) and perks that are popular in the meta (e.g. Undying plus Ruin combo) but on the overall that’s more an issue with individual perks than the general concept that rank 3 perks are the best perks assuming the perks are otherwise mostly equally effective.
That being said I will say that I actually think the best way to do this is to have an option in the game to select how you want the perks sorted by having a drop down button that says “order by rarity / order alphabetically / order by most recent”, for example. Having only one default sorting option that everybody uses is just going to always make some people not happy with the way it’s done.
The point I try to make is that rarity in this game has always been tied to how impactful an item/add-on/perk is in the match. For instance, brown medkits are less impactful on a match than yellow medkits than green medkits than purple medkits, and a brown battery on a flashlight is less impactful than a low amp filament than a green battery than an odd bulb.
It used to be the case that like everything else, perk rarity told the players how impactful the perk was on the match (with a few exceptions such as Monstrous Shrine). For instance, Deerstalker (I) was less impactful than Stridor (II) than Devour Hope (I) than Brutal Strength (II) than A Nurse's Calling (III). Over time, this changed slightly (i.e. Brutal Strength was nerfed, pallet count was generally reduced, and its rarity stayed the same), but rarity was clearly tied to impact on the match.
This held true for survivors as well. Iron Will (I) was less impactful than Quick & Quiet (II) than Lightweight (III) than Leader (II) than Sprint Burst (III).
It all made sense: a higher rarity meant the perk was more impactful regardless of the tier.
However, the developers started paying less and less attention to this as they strangely wedded themselves to a "formula" for perk releases (and add-on releases) for newer chapters that made it so that balancing was harder because inherently powerful add-ons / perks by their use on a killer could not be made a higher rarity if there was already a perk occupying the space for that rarity. Furthermore, with the bloodweb rework, the devs mashed together the bottom two rarities and the top two, muddying the logic in greater amounts.
Then we started getting things such as: NOED now gives Exposed at green rarity (doesn't make sense at all for the system). Balanced Landing now gives a speed boost at (what used to be common) tier I. Ruin now affects how much regression is happening vs number of survivors per tier (made rare Ruin much more powerful than the corresponding rarities of perks like A Nurse's Calling or Thanatophobia). Discordance starts at uncommon rarity and moves to rare at tier III (even though it was significantly more powerful than other perks at the same rarity).
The change the devs did most recently was basically: "Well, we ****ed the logical system we set up, so let's just get rid of it entirely while keeping the grind." The reason higher rarities are more expensive is because they're more impactful, and what we have now does not reflect that at all.
So, this is why I don't agree.
@APoipleTurtle I think the intention was misplaced. If the devs wanted to make a change for the sake of organization, they should have implemented alternate sorting systems rather than throwing the logic behind why things were the way they were in the trash.
-
@Deadeye said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1705854#Comment_1705854
No. The problem was that survivors simply had no fun as it was hard to escape chases, while Legion just frenzied over and over again, countering every pallet and window until the survivor is down. But old Legion was horrible in performance, because it took him ages to down survivors, meaning that others simply had plenty of time to do gens, while Legion HAD to commit to a chase to not waste the time put into that chase. Old Legion HAD to Frenzy 4 times on every survivor to down them, because without his power he was only a powerless 110% killer. And you know how long you can loop a hatchetless Huntress.
Which stats do you mean? I'm pretty sure that old Legion had a pretty bad killrate, also the quotes on Freddy were basically the unfun things like having to wait 7 seconds before you can hit someone. Old Freddy was regarded as being one onf the weakest killers. I can remember when people said Clown is new Freddy
And your bullet points are... wow... great summary. Very objective
I'm just saying that I don't know of the other circumstances around the changes to Freddy and Legion other than what the community was doing was not what the devs wanted (eg. Legion moonwalking to cause Deep Wounds to tick down). There aren't stats, but from "personal gut feelings" (see how unnaturally powerful these are?), those were my experiences. The Legion was basically unable to be stopped from downing a survivor once they set their eyes on a target, and Freddy had mechanics that allowed him to be a great slugger that weren't the slugging powers given to all killers universally
Also about the list: I went back and have quoted below what was on the summary of the stream posted to the forums by GoodBoyKaru
"
- Stats
- Community Feedback
- Personal Gut Feelings
"
My point was that personal gut feelings play an unusually large role in terms of balance, so I'm really not sure why "[not] very objective" comes into play here. There's no need for me to represent more than just the last point because the other bullet points are already being represented by other people in this thread and other threads. Additionally, your characterization as a "summary" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
All in all, it feels like you took the last part of my post and ignored it because you felt like I needed to not have my goal be what it was: pointing out how gut feelings are disproportionately impactful because even their acknowledgement as a major factor of balance significantly affects the reception of the other two.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/200393/bhvr-transparency
We take the most upvoted questions, we've said in the past why we're doing this. If we don't take the most upvoted question we get accused of cherry picking the questions but quite often the most upvoted question is about upcoming things which we are not in a position to discuss yet - that happens for many different reasons.
Although in yesterday's stream I think a lot of questions were answered fully, there were a few things that can't be answered further but we gave out as much information as we possibly could.
Is there any specific reason the dev team doesn't take the Mojang approach to combat changes (i.e. giving the community more than enough knowledge about developments so that the dev team doesn't end up making people frustrated or annoyed when the changes are finally sealed prior to release)?
-
@Murkoffz said:
fr. new macmillan looks amazing, but wheres the blue tint? badham, yamaoka, macmillan, all look the same.
I think it looks ugly. Also has terrible hatchet collision on a number of the newer assets.
And about the trees: Those broken off branches are characteristic of conifers like white pines, but the foliage on those trees is definitely deciduous.
It's like someone came in and said, "let's make things look nice" while forgetting about gameplay, accuracy, performance, and overall sensibility. There's no need for all the weird detail on the undersides of certain objects; the fun part about DbD is the anticipation of the killer-survivor interaction and the killer-survivor interaction itself. The aesthetics need to facilitate that and not stand out on their own (which they do) without regard to the core of the game.
-
yeah, I'm sad it's a bug too. It means it won't stay like this forever :,(
The distasteful music will return once the next patch rolls around, I guess. I might consider playing Doctor again in the meantime...
-
I don't. I'm not explaining here, but I think it's bad design, considering how it further pushes the needle to making perks' power not correspond to rarity at all. Everything else in the game that functions with rarity tiers works like this, but now perks, for no reason, work this way. This is far worse than just having everything be alphabetical and have perk rarities not dictate arrangement; the change they should have done.
-
@Deadeye said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1703041#Comment_1703041
My opinion is that the devs DO listen to the community. Freddy and Legion rework are solely based on community feedback for example, they don't just go like "let's shake things up a bit". Perk reworks are more like reactions to stats, but even these are sometimes caused by community feedback.
I actually took OP like "what if they listen MORE to community". If OP is expecting devs to not listen at all, I can simply say it is not true
Really? I was under the impression that Legion was doing too well downing survivors, the stats showed that, and probably some DbD dev had a bad experience in a Legion game, so they decided to change him.
Same for Freddy: people didn't like him, but the reason the devs changed him were because of their own "gut feelings" and stats showing how he overperformed in certain areas (like slugging at first).
The devs certainly don't decide to just shake things up (except for A Lullaby for the Dark, which had things like No Mither and The Huntress, which were wacky), and that's shown in how they treat survivors' looping ability and how they constantly decline to address issues like universal lack of survivor objectives (optional for assisting in survival or non-optional). The only reasons they change things (and this is from their Q&A stream) are
- something
- something else lol
- their own gut feelings
And that last point is really a problem because since they don't play the game in the way many players do, their feelings are often not aligned with the community's. Ethan is a great example of a man who constantly surprises us with how out of touch he is (no offense if you're reading this, Ethan).
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1703033#Comment_1703033
Minecraft is a single player game were any given change isn't opposed. Nobody said "God, Screw minecraft i hate these lava boats"
DbD is a multiplayer game where every chance has an impact for the opposing side. Making it easier for one side usually make it harder for another. You can't make any meaningfull change without someone being against.
I also find some of the decisions questonable but I can't deny the game has only improved over the years so what do I know?
I'm specifically talking about the multiplayer aspect of Minecraft, and that even though it's not asymmetric, PvP is an incredibly tender subject.
I didn't mention this in my original post, but I was specifically thinking of the 1.9 combat update, which introduced weapon cooldowns and critical attacks into the game in order to combat spam clicking as a low skill tactic. The players who were incredibly used to the combat previously were among many who hated the changes, and this was in large part because of the PvP community (I acknowledge that solo play was a factor, too). There were other good changes at the time that made combat more involved and interactive, and that served to lessen the dislike of the feature, but most still thought it was a bad change, and Mojang listened. Even though nothing's in the full releases of the game yet to change what was done, the devs have made numerous statements that the reason they're taking so long to touch combat again is because they want to "get it right". The most important thing the devs have been doing now is releasing test builds for combat features and often radically changing what's been included between builds, reverting, scrapping, and constantly changing from both Jeb's design ideas and direct community feedback. The DbD PTB, which should be used like this, is nothing more than a marketing stunt for new killers and reworks now, which is extremely disappointing seeing as basically no player feedback that wasn't thought of by the devs themselves has been considered, and many changes are not included in the PTB but are included in the live build (Discordance, etc.).
The DbD devs love saying that they don't want to be more transparent because they're afraid we're going to be sad some features don't make it in the game and that that's a good reason. It's not. I hold that position to be hot garbage, especially seeing what Jeb is doing in terms of combat testing over at Mojang.
Even just logically, the feeling of "oh, that would have been really cool to have" compared to "everything sucks right now and you never asked me" is far better. But perhaps the devs feel like none of the changes they're thinking of are what the community wants at all and realize that if people knew how little good balance was coming down the pipeline, they would dislike the game more, and so in light of that fear, the devs have decided to just stop listening, which is why I take the position that if the devs listened, they would be able to actually give the community something that satisfies all of the frustrations and qualms and complaints and headaches that we all have.
P.S. people would say, "God, screw Minecraft for not listening to the playerbase about combat", which is why Mojang is being so diligent to try many things out first with the community before settling.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1703046#Comment_1703046
I quoted Peanits straight-up saying "don't draw conclusions." Granted, it was from a different chart from a while back, but same thing.
I definitely remember that. And I had the same
reaction last time as this time. Why even bother releasing anything?