Raconteurminator
Raconteurminator
About
- Username
- Raconteurminator
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,504
- Last Active
Comments
-
I'm unable to understand how so many people fail to comprehend what the AFC system is and what it's supposed to do.
-
@jondalfthejrey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3573030#Comment_3573030
clearly i haven't so why don't you humor me and share this info instead of condescending
Okay, Mister Passive Aggression.
1) The premise for your system is that Survivors all have differing play-styles and facing a Killer that counters (the word is "counters," not "exploits" - that's intentionally emotive) their chosen play-style is unfair and unfun, ruinous even. The game is "ruined" because the Survivor has to work for their win or even, shock horror, adapt their play-style or improve upon their weaknesses as a player to deal with a particular Killer. That's not an excellent premise, that's a weird display of entitlement. That's it, that's your entire premise, that you want to go into a match with a set tactic and never have to deviate from it.
2) It will reduce matchmaking to a crawl. Matchmaking, as it stands, is quick and highly inaccurate. Your idea will make it slow and even more inaccurate. Every Survivor has one Killer that has to be excluded from matchmaking and one greylisted Killer that has to be taken into consideration. That's 4 Killers that will be rejected outright and potentially another 4 Killers that the matchmaking is actively looking to avoid. If you've blacklisted Trickster, even if everyone else is fine with him, they have to sit there until a game can be found without Trickster to appease you. This has to be juggled with finding a Killer in the average MMR range of the lobby.
3a) Even if matchmaking wasn't reduced to a crawl, SWFs would gain a massive advantage. Each person blacklists a different top tier Killer, then they each greylist the same Killer. That's four blocked Killers and one that may as well be blocked. They'd just block Killers that they knew stood a better chance of winning against them than others.
3b) Certain tomes have multiple challenges for a specific Killer. People frequently complain about seeing X Killer too often during these tomes, even if the Killer isn't unbalanced. This, no doubt, would lead to the seasonal banning of Killers simply to avoid seeing them every other game. This is massively unfair for obvious reasons.
3c) People frequently complain about facing new Killers too often for the first week or so of release. This would, no doubt, lead to people having an incredibly hard time playing games with a Killer they just paid good money for. This is massively unfair for obvious reasons.
4) If Killers are "universally" blacklisted, all it would prove is that people didn't like facing them. It wouldn't prove them to be broken or in need of a rework. Lots of people dislike Wesker, but he's balanced; would a high block rate for Wesker mean he needed a rework? No.
Consider yourself humoured.
-
If you've seen posts supporting this idea, then you've no doubt seen ten times as many posts listing all the reasons why this is terrible and exploitable.
-
I mean, I'd be happy for the people that really wanted a second Saw chapter, but I'd be incredibly disappointed.
-
I wonder. If I was playing Killer and decided it was memes before dreams, stopped playing and just messed around, would Survivors stop to facilitate my weirdness or would they use the opportunity to crank out another generator or two and then teabag me at the exit gate? You're getting antsy at Killers for not doing something that you know full well 99% of Survivors wouldn't do either.
-
You can crouch walk through the things. Or just disarm them, there's no audible indicator that a drone has been disarmed.
-
It's usually, but not always, a literal switch that interrupts the connection between the server and player just long enough to avoid being kicked from the game. Sometimes it's software that intentionally taxes the user's connection to deliver the same effect without physically breaking the connection. Those few offline seconds can be played "normally" without the other players being able to do anything, then everything gets re-synced once the connection is reestablished. Short distance teleports, avoiding damage, dealing mass amounts of damage in an instant, etc. Depends on the game, but the effect is usually weird and advantageous.
TL:DR; Za Warudo.
-
@EternalRique said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3571573#Comment_3571573
I can get 12 hooks without any issue... It's not hard to not tunnel, just chase who unhooked. If you just hooked Feng Min and she get unhooked and you see her again, go the other way and find someone else? I do this as Nurse ALL the time, it's not hard to do.
1) Expecting Killers to ignore previously hooked Survivors, even if they never intended to tunnel them, is ridiculous.
2) Mandating that Killers ignore previously hooked Survivors under threat of punishment, even if they never intended to tunnel them, would be even more ridiculous.
3) Using Nurse, literally the strongest Killer in the game, as an example of, "See, it's easy! Everyone can do it!" is also quite ridiculous. The fact this is the best example you could come up suggests you don't play Killer often, or even at all. The point of the, "Look, it's easy!" argument is that you're supposed to pick a low tier Killer.
-
@mca240 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3571622#Comment_3571622
They never realised how this game turn out developing it and too scared to change anything to its core. That's Dead By Daylight in a nutshell.
You basically just said the same thing twice, friend.
-
@mca240 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3571581#Comment_3571581
Using game mechanics as intented? Uh, no. The game just isn’t well designed and the developers never realized people would play that way. Doesn’t mean they intented for you to camp and tunnel, lol.
It's a game where Survivors are chased and hooked. Behaviour added hooks, they knew there was nothing to stop someone standing close to those hooks, they knew in all likelihood that someone would, at some point, stand close to those hooks. They very likely observed people doing so during the beta tests. They deemed this an acceptable part of gameplay for a long time.
The game features chases, there are four people for the Killer to chase. The developers aren't perfect, but they aren't idiots - they knew a Killer would, at some point, choose to chase someone that was just unhooked. They deemed this an acceptable part of gameplay for a long time, and still continue to do so despite making changes to adjust its effectiveness.
The developers have explicitly stated that proxy camping is fine, they've said tunnelling is a valid tactic. They're not perfect, but with rare exception, they know how their game works and how it is, at any given moment, supposed to work. Their vision changes over time, the game mechanics along with them, but to say they'd be unaware that players would camp or aggressively pursue an objective (something common in all objective-based games), is just silly and insulting.
None of the fault lies with the player here; we, all of us, simply play the game within the confines of the mechanics that people spent thousands of hours designing. And when those mechanics change again because Behaviour feel they no longer fit the direction of the game, we'll continue to play to the mechanics, whatever they may be. This is not an Us. Vs. Them situation, as much as people keep trying to make it that.
-
@ladyfred said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3570742#Comment_3570742
I never said I don't like them, you are assuming I don't like them and you're wrong, I completely see there value. What I don't like to be clear is the abuse of them. But more to the point, just because something is 'legal' or 'allowed' doesn't mean it can't be abused.
Camping/Tunneling/Slugging in DBD = Legal & Allowed
However, because a disproportionate about of killers have abused these base mechanics...BHVR has had to implement a camping meter that's recently been added. Same goes for tunneling; last year abused tunneling caused BHVR to implement a base BT mech. They also looked into timed slugging before that and got as far as a PTB because of the abuse; the proof is in the pudding.
So yes...anything can be abused whether or not you like said abused thing(s).
Someone using a game mechanic as it was literally intended at the time is not abusing that mechanic. Yes, mechanics can change over time, they can change for the better, that doesn't mean anyone was abusing anything. They were using a game mechanic in the exact way the developers knew it would be used and in a way that had clearly been exhibited during testing (and that they saw no need to change). Behaviour looking at their own mechanics years later and finding them lacking doesn't mean anyone was "abusing" the previous mechanics, it means that Behaviour looked at their own mechanics years later and found them lacking. You seem to think proxy camping is abusing mechanics, so respectfully, you're clearly a poor judge of what is or isn't abusive.
And yes, they looked into basekit Unbreakable and, guess what? It was utterly appalling, never made live and has since been abandoned. By that logic, Behaviour doesn't see slugging as abusive.
You're obviously not coming into this with an impartial stance. Your definition of a skilled Killer seems to be anyone that placates you by playing in a way that negatively impacts their own experience and potential pip gain, you use dehumanising language to refer to the people that beat you and defy your own made up rules, and you seem to be intentionally confusing "mediocre mechanics used as intended" with abuse of mechanics. Abusing mechanics would be to use them in an unintended way to gain an advantage (think Pinhead standing on his own box - that was never an intended mechanic). The difference between calling it "abuse of mechanics" rather than "mediocre mechanics used as intended" is that you're shifting the blame on to the players rather than the developers. If there's no BT and you get downed immediately off hook, that's not the fault of the Killer, that's not abuse, that's a poorly designed mechanic used as intended.
You clearly know all this, but blaming the developers for their mistakes wouldn't feed into the Us Vs. Them narrative.
-
This change would stop tunnelling, primarily because no-one would want to play Killer. Essentially forcing 12-hook games without compensation for the other side wouldn't prove popular.
-
Having played her a lot lately, I feel that time-limiting the stacks of Lock-On or giving Survivors a way to remove stacks would just ruin her completely. Stacks already reset on hook, and I feel that's enough. Getting scanned is supposed to carry with it an element of danger, and without stacks really meaning anything, that danger would diminish greatly.
-
Sometimes it takes a long time to nerf Survivor perks, sometimes it takes a long time to nerf Killer perks, that's just the ebb and flow of things. Most people tend to just remember things from the perspective of the side they play the most.
-
Proxy camping isn't abusing base mechanics, neither is tunnelling, neither is slugging. Things you don't like aren't automatically some form of abuse.
-
You dear, sweet, naive soul; you have no idea of the petty arguments that you've just unleashed.
-
Absolutely fantastic idea, but I have little faith that Behaviour would do it justice.
-
@Ariel_Starshine said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/394982/tunneling
Their fragile ego might sustain quite a lot of damage if they don't make the game easy mode asap by turning it into 3vs1 so they can win and attempt to fill that empty void caused by oh so many things wrong in their lives.
Whenever I get tunneled they usually waste the entire match trying and end up rage quitting.
What is it with you trying to psychoanalyse strangers? This isn't a one-time deal, either. I've seen you accuse strangers countless times of being egotistical, having mental health problems, or just stuff like the above. All because they played a game in a way you don't like. You don't know these people, you don't know their lives; stop trying to belittle strangers to make yourself feel better. If people here decided to psychoanalyse your repeating pattern of behaviour, how flattering do you think their conclusion would be? Would it find you kindly, you think?
There's a difference between disliking what people do in game and writing off said same people as wretched, broken individuals in need of hugs and pity.
-
I've been playing a lot of Skully lately, and Nostromo has been very kind to me. You know what else? Borgo, I've actually been enjoying Borgo. I agree, there's something wrong with me.
-
It's not an exact science, I know, but I look at it from the perspective of STBFL. If you're getting benefit from it, you're very probably playing an M1 Killer; a Killer that, even if they have an M2 ability, is doing the vast majority of, if not all their damage through basic attacks.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3568665#Comment_3568665
This isn't a fair take. The OP not only uses must in the title, he uses it in the post as well creating the impression that not tunneling isn't viable.
OP quotes:
In short: Tunneling in the current gameplay paste is a must-have tactic for some killer roaster to have a chance for at least 2-3k.So if developers announce something like "Anti-tunneling" mechanic, be prepared for a huge nerf to survivors main objective - Gens, or a huge buffs to killers.Either gens be much longer to repair, or killers will get some strong perks such as Deadlock or Corrupt, or maybe even Pain rez as basekit.OP's post is quite clear that tunneling is a must have tactic without substantial changes. You're avoiding the points @ratcoffee is making by pretending that he is arguing that instead of something being 100% true its only 99% true. He's pointing out not only is not a must, its not even close.
And if we're going to argue that the evidence from Hens should be thrown out because of the 1000s of hours, okay, but then let's also talk about the level of survivors killers actually face.
I find the whole thread a problem because no one has defined tunneling, which people talk about in different ways. I do think the concept is backwards though, because the better the survivors are, the easier a time they'll have dealing with tunneling (such as by waiting to do unhooks, body blocking, staying on gens, resetting in deadzones).
I'm not avoiding anything. I never set out to respond to any additional 'points.' I wanted to point out how useless it was to essentially say, "You're wrong because players in the top 0.0001% can do it." With further context and explanation at the time, it may have come across as something other than pedantry and lazy point-scoring. However, with further explanation and taking things in the response to account, it definitely seemed like it was nothing but pedantry and lazy point-scoring. I don't think I need to explain myself any further, friend.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3568596#Comment_3568596
the OP said that tunneling and proxycamping "are a must" in order to win. I provided a sample of games that proves the operative word "must" to be incorrect
the point is that winning without those strategies is possible. if it were not, those results would not exist. the point is not to say "why can't you" because we all know why they can't - some killer players are simply not good enough to win without those strategies (and that's fine! you don't need to dedicate that much time to a goofy asymmetrical horror game. i simply choose to not care about winning, and other people can choose to care about winning but use easymode tactics like tunneling instead of grinding the hard skills). that doesn't mean, however, it's impossible to win without those strats
Yes, I know what they said, and I know what someone being needlessly pedantic and hyper-focusing on one word to discredit the rest of the argument looks like. It looks like you.
-
"Me and many other top tier players"
Other than proving that people with ten thousand or so hours are incredibly good, that experiment has little to no relevance to 99.99% of players. That's less a rebuttal and more, "People who play the game professionally can do it, why can't you?"
-
Click on the fancy skull icon on the bottom left of the screen.
-
The Meg Supremacy.
-
People wanting a 4K isn't an ego issue, as much as everyone seems to be clinging to that notion.
-
I have 169 points. Numerically inferior, but yet...
-
@Ariel_Starshine said:
Yeah it does get old, fast. Then if the two remaining survivors hide and go about opening chests/totems and avoid detection, the killer expresses anger.
It's like, please drop the ego, just hook the person and try to find the hatch. The world will not end if they don't get their precious 4K, I promise. When we lose in soloq, which is nearly every match lately, I don't care. I have a happy life outside the game and "winning" isn't my end all be all. Yikes.
Playing for a 4K is normal behaviour, assigning motives to strangers and suggesting they're egotists that have miserable lives is not normal behaviour. If anything needs removing around here, it's the attitude that one side of the player-base is dysfunctional, damaged or in some way broken, for playing in a way the other side dislikes. It's not even a rare mindset, it's one that's becoming increasingly more common around here. The way to lift yourself up isn't to tear others down.
-
The game is dying again? How many times has it been now, 126?
-
"7 seconds. 7 seconds is all I have to facecamp you" - Albert Wesker, probably.
-
Problem with the second idea is that it completely negates the point of the bloodlust mechanic. It isn't a catch-up mechanic for bad players, it's a band-aid fix to bad map design. It would essentially turn it off, creating the possibility of infinite loops.
-
I mean, I suppose they could. Ghostface is weird as far as licensing goes, because they're licensing the mask from Fun World rather than the character from Scream (as far as I'm aware, at least). You'd have to ask Behaviour what restrictions that license comes with, because they might be equally weird.
-
@JPLongstreet said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3558982#Comment_3558982
The story goes like this:
While developing Nemesis they tried an iri add-on spawning in a third zom zom. It apparently it tanked game performance so badly they scrapped the idea and changed the add-on.
Now assuming they develop using badass PC's I'm much more inclined to lay this one on the game's coding rather than on the capabilities of any of the consoles.
Probably, yeah. I was just feeling unusually charitable, I guess.
-
It would be deeply, profoundly miserable.
-
Apparently, 2 is all the game can manage. Or at least while they're supporting older consoles it is.
-
While it's not 100% accurate, it's an effective enough weather vane to see which way the wind is blowing.
-
@th3syst3m said:
If you're a killer and complaining about survivor perks you're just really bad at the game. I mean there's a guy that got a 300 win streak on myers. I'm sick of reading the "I suck but it because of this perk" post. You're bad at the game, it just that simple. Keeping losing.
It doesn't matter if he has a 300 win streak or a 3000 win streak. That's not the rule, that's the exception to the rule. You can't compare everyone else to the 0.00001% of players that can do that - it's ludicrous.
-
Singularity can play chess all right, it's just that he's using checkers pieces.
-
This topic turned into, "u mad becoz bad" awfully quickly. It's someone concerned that queue times for Survivors will increase, causing their friends to play less. That doesn't sound like a Killer player, that sounds exactly like someone that plays in a SWF and is worried about getting less games with their friends.
I swear, people on this board are so quick to pull the, "You must suck" card that they never get beyond the first sentence.
-
That's not a scuba suit. That's a booba suit!
*audience laughs*
-
Actually, that'd be really nice to have.
-
Problem is, people would always leave. They'd write the game off as a loss and would DC as soon as they were downed.
-
Functionally, I don't see the point of Auric Cells outside of dissociating people from the value of real money by converting it into nonsense shards. In short, it's dissatisfaction of loss (of money) versus the expected satisfaction (of the purchase). If the dissatisfaction outweighs the expected satisfaction, someone is less likely to make the purchase.
To get around that, you mitigate that dissatisfaction by dissociating the customer from the value of their money by first converting it into some nonsense currency. 350 Auric Cells is always going to sound much more preferable to $4 or whatever. Then, the clever part: you introduce a second currency, that despite being free, it takes many, many times more of it to enact a purchase (and, of course, it takes a ludicrously long time to earn). This gives the paid currency a comparative sense of value and marks it as the smarter choice while further dissociating it from real money. You're not comparing Shard A to real money, you're comparing it to Shard B that has no real world comparison.
TL:DR: There's never a good reason to have multiple nonsense currencies over just listing the price. It's predatory. I'd quite like things to be listed at their real world value and not in fairy money. If Behaviour want to sell skins, that's cool. If they want to sell them at dumb prices, no skin off my nose; Auric Cells just aren't the way to do it.
inb4 this post gets deleted or I get banned or something.
-
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554124#Comment_3554124
The survivor isn't gaining so much distance that they're guaranteed to reach a LoS blocker. He's not significantly affected by MFT outside of loops. If Trickster isn't able to hit a survivor out in the open who's "dodging", then that's on the player for having poor aim. That's not a MFT problem.
While it's true that chases do involve loops, you don't often start a chase at a loop. Trickster has more than enough ammo to zone survivors. Trickster is not heavily affected by MFT.
No-one said they're guaranteed, but they're clearly much more likely to do so in a scenario where they haven't stupidly dead-zoned themselves. And that's what you're working on: that Trickster is just going to catch people in the open to a consistent enough degree that MFT won't affect him, that there's going to be no line of sight blockers anywhere, they're going to be nowhere near a loop or that he's always going to get a down before a loop or LoS-blocker can be reached. You addressed very little of what I said and what you did address amounted to, "Trickster is fine if Survivors are consistently dumb and put themselves in the worst possible scenario."
No perk in the history of the game, regardless of how broken, would seem that bad if you always talked about it being used in its worst possible scenario. DH for distance was fine, for example. In an enclosed room, with things to bump into. If you couldn't catch a Survivor that bumps into things in an enclosed room, that's clearly a skill issue - perk is fine. And this is what you did: instead of focusing on the more likely scenarios where MFT comes into play, you focused on the most unlikely one where it does next to nothing.
-
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554099#Comment_3554099
The only time it affects Huntress and Trickster is at loops, and you can't always guarantee you'll be at a loop. Hag just doesn't care about it. The 20% chase extension assumes the survivor already has a headstart. This doesn't apply to Hag's traps, since if you lunge straight off teleport you get the down.
Trickster slows down to use his power, but unlike Huntress is actually terrible at hitting at increased ranges. When he's throwing knives, the Survivor is gaining distance. MFT increases that distance and makes subsequent knives harder to land, potentially allowing that Survivor to reach a LoS-blocker and avoid a laceration altogether.
Say the Survivor is in a good spot to hit with knives. You use your power, slow down, hit them a few times. MFT gets them out of your effective range quicker and increases the time it takes you to get back into that effective range once you stop using your power. You either have to expend ammo on increasingly riskier shots to secure the down you might have been otherwise able to get relatively easily or you drop your power earlier and get less hits in order to stay at a competitive distance and hope they don't reach cover. He's significantly affected by MFT even outside of loops, unless the Survivor is just holding W and not attempting to dodge to some degree, that is.
The vast majority of chases do involve loops, so it wouldn't even matter if he was fine outside of them, because he's so heavily shut down at a lot of those said same loops.
-
It rewards Killers for getting hooks and encourages them to not camp. It's fine.
-
@CatnipLove said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553880#Comment_3553880
That's what it means? I thought it was something related to Xeno or Demo. The puppy thing threw me off.
Puppy guarding is something dogs do. They basically camp their own food bowl.
-
It's just Raconteur + Terminator.
-
You're right, it wouldn't be a bad idea. It would be substantially worse than that.
-
The farm maps aren't great. Good luck finding things to bounce off.