NorMak3
NorMak3
About
- Username
- NorMak3
- Joined
- Visits
- 547
- Last Active
Comments
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1072014#Comment_1072014
That last one. Point blank hatchets are hard to hit, consume a hatchet and aren't even a foolproof combo.
Huntress is a 110% Killer with time wasting built into her kit and has the largest effective Terror Radius with the lullaby. So she should be the best at ending chases quickly in the entire game by far.
I just realized I hadn't clarified her hatchets (in this scenario) would be able to down someone if they were hit for a third time. I understand that Huntress has limited hatchets and point black hatchets don't always work, but the fact that they are as effective as they are (being able to down an unsuspecting survivor from across the map or stomping new players since point blanking is what most huntresses seem to default to and is also one of the more effective strategies) indicates there needs to be a change. Does that seem reasonable or do you think that's too much of a nerf for her?
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
Suggesting that the Huntress can't down people makes me want to kill someone.
That would be terrible. Her entire point is to be a ranged attack, so why even bother if it's not threatening?
We already have the Plague for that.
Well NuclearBurrito, the reason I suggested that (the reasons for all of them I will be trying to add in over the weekend) was due to the tendency to abuse the lack of cooldown on a hatchet throw in order to get point blank hits instead of ever using her melee weapon, since the point of the hatchets is to get long range hits. Would it perhaps work better if there was a range that it couldn't down in or is the idea of nerfing point blank hatchets a bad idea all together?
-
@Pulsar said:
I have read through your entire document and I felt you deserved a response.
Your work ethic and commitment is commendable. Not many people would put that much effort in. However, the overarching issue is that it is completely untested. Not only untested, but will never be tested.
I appreciate the thought you put into this, it is AMAZING. I would love it if some of your changes happened, but realistically, they will not.
Hey Pulsar, I'm glad you liked the work and I guess you're right about it not being tested, but I hope that perhaps these articles will get enough attention that it will allow the community to stew it over and maybe reach the devs who actually have the capabilities to test some of these things. Mayhaps it's not realistic, but if it's possible, I'll give it my best shot. Glad it caught the attention of someone with over 2,000 posts here! Thank you, your attention could really help us out a lot.
-
@Xetoil said:
Hello Mate,
I want to keep this brief, but that probably isn't going to happen. I see you've put a lot of your time and imagination into this document, and I've had a flick through it. Considering it's 57 pages long I doubt there are going to be many others doing that, but your approach to the subject kind of reminded me of myself, so I thought I'd give you a response.
I'm not going to address specific points, because there are 57 pages of them, but as an amateur game designer myself (mostly with board games), I have a couple of things to tell you about your overall approach to the subject.
You propose a lot of changes in this document, and it is unclear to me from reading it why you believe these changes to be necessary. I'm not saying that they are unnecessary, but, for example, what made you decide that a new scratch mark system was necessary? Many would say it is completely unnecessary and overhauling it would potentially kill the game, and so it is very difficult to give constructive feedback when we don't know what issue you are trying to address by overhauling it.
The second is that the number one mantra of game design is playtest. You would be surprised how many seemingly good ideas turn out to be just plain bad (and vice versa) after they are playtested, I've run into this myself many times. Every single idea you have put forward has to be tested before it can really be validated as useful, and 57 pages of ideas is a lot of playtesting. I understand that part of the reason you might have created such a long document was because it was gratifying to do so, but in terms of practicality, the Cannibal entry alone would require at least seven different iterations of playtesting in order to implement, and even then, as I mentioned above, it isn't even very clear why we would choose your changes to implement, as your reasoning for the changes isn't stated at all.
You seem to be quite passionate about the subject of balance and game design, and so if you'd like I could recommend you some books to deepen your knowledge on the subject (I would recommend them in this post but it would be on the border of breaking forum rules and I do not want to risk that).
I think that my feedback is best summed up in your opening chapter "Rules of Balance". This section doesn't actually mention anything about balance at all, and instead focuses on what is known as "Game Feel", an entirely different subject. Ideally, you would want this section to include
- The rules of the game (which can be harder than it sounds to pinpoint)
- The tools which players have at their disposal
- The limits of what these tools should be able to reasonably accomplish
- And optionally, things which inhibit these tools from acting within their boundaries
To elaborate a little, I am going to take pallets as an example of a tool. You could identify three types of pallets, defined by their limits and accomplishments:
- Pallets wherein survivors can use windows and walls in conjunction with the pallet to extend the time before they have to drop it. Accomplishes the main killer/survivor chase interaction. (Mindgame)
- Pallets where here is little space for the survivor to obstruct the killer short of a direct stun. Allows the survivor to feel like they have a fighting chance, whilst giving the killer the opportunity to end the chase quickly (Unsafe)
- Pallets where the killer can not score a hit at all and has to break the pallet to proceed. Allows a limited amount of guaranteed safety and potentially minimum chase length overall (Safe)
Then you can identify factors which inhibit these tools from acting within their boundaries:
- Strong pallets which spawn close to one another can create areas which are potentially stronger than anticipated.
- An abundance of safe pallets can feel stale for both sides as there is little interaction between players
- A bad ratio of the pallet types can leave the game feeling biased to one side
- etc. etc.
Once this is all done, you can then propose solutions for each individual factor. This way you can isolate and amend issues with the game in a way which is logical and achieves a select purpose. For every change made you must also consider:
- How does this change affect other systems in the game?
And then verify that the affects of that change won't create further problems.
If DBD could be used as an example, it's clear that even when you think you have a new addition worked out and completely tested/well implemented, there will always be something you didn't consider which will break your game, it's just part of the trade.
So I left you a long response in regards to your list of changes. It probably isn't exactly what you wanted to hear, but trying to discuss the details of a 57 page document on a public forum has its challenges. I don't mean to insult you or put you down or anything, I can see that you've put a lot of effort into the document and I think thats a great thing, I often make very similar documents, and so I suppose you just reminded me of myself somewhat, and I wanted to reply.
I hope my feedback is of use to you somewhat, I'd be very happy to hear what you think, and I would be down for further discussion of your ideas if you presented them on an single-idea basis (for example: hag changes only), but as it stands I wouldn't really be able to start with the amount of ideas you've presented.
Take care and I hope you are able to take something away from my feedback :)
Thank you Xetoil, that's really helpful. I'll make sure to make some changes over the weekend for the reasoning for each of the changes listed as I go along, try to fix up the Game Feel/Rules of Balance distinction and maybe split each of these up into separate documents out here on the wiki. I'll just have to be careful not to spam with too many new discussions :). And as for the critiques themselves, this is exactly what I wanted: honest, but kind analysis. Thanks for the warm welcome!