Raconteurminator
Raconteurminator
About
- Username
- Raconteurminator
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,504
- Last Active
Comments
-
@LucaDuca11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3551539#Comment_3551539
webs can be destroyed and take time for the killer to replace. the counterplay is you can just run through them all in like five seconds if they're all in one area but it'll take longer for the killer to place them back
Seems reasonable enough.
-
Well, if there's one thing this board loves, it's giant spider monsters.
What's the counter-play to the Killer just webbing off a 3-gen?
-
Anonymous Mode is necessary in DBD because it's, well, DBD. The reputation the community has for extreme amounts of toxicity and borderline sociopathic behaviour isn't entirely unearned. No-one wants to be stalked from platform to platform or have their friends targeted because of a perceived slight.
-
Why do I get the feeling that you've sent a lot of Killers to Garden of Joy lately and they haven't thanked you for it?
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3550410#Comment_3550410
Wow and this thing costs 4,000BP. Do any of you use it or intentionally buy them in your Bloodwebs?
I'll use them if there's nothing better available, but I'll never intentionally buy them.
-
It's a meat-shield button. Killer comes along while you're healing someone, you use it and run away.
-
It's an anti-face-camp mechanic, of course it won't stop regular camping or tunnelling. It wasn't designed to.
-
First, you have to ask yourself why you're really getting angry. Is it a response to the behaviour of others (e.g. them playing in a way you feel is unfair) or are you getting angry at yourself for failing to do something that you feel you should have been able to do, and just taking it out on them? When you work out why you're angry, then you can work on fixing it. I know it may sound stupid and a little patronising, but I promise it's not meant to.
-
@rvzrvzrvz said:
You guys always say "facecamp is a losing strategy" but now anti-facecamp is a nerf ? you need to choose if it's weak or strong, if anything now you can leave the hook and learn to play the game, pressure somewhere else
the truth it was always too strong for how brainless it is, especially with one shot killers and perks like deadlock, zero skill needed and it punish solo teams very hard because they don't know you're camping and they're always altruistic, good riddance
Friendo, you're the only person talking about anti-facecamp here (and I certainly see no-one in here calling it a nerf). Who are you even responding to?
-
Yes, basekit Unbreakable would completely eliminate slugging from the game. It would also completely eliminate Killer players from the game. If a Killer downed you, it's their choice to pick you up, their choice to leave you for however long, it's their choice to try for the 4K; that's how player agency works. If you want the game to make decisions for the player and force those decisions through, start a petition for Killer bots. Basekit Unbreakable was dropped because it was an abominably terrible idea.
-
@BoneMason333 said:
Thank you, that helps so much. I never heard about the test. Very strange. What's it for? Do you know?
As far as I'm aware, they're looking for ways to stop lobby-dodging. They think Killers seeing high prestige players might influence them to drop from the lobby and screw up the matchmaking. There's also the lesser issue of Survivors dropping lobbies if they see players with much lower prestige than them.
-
It's a feature that they're testing. Some people can see prestige levels, some can't. Pretty sure there's nothing you can do but wait until the test is over.
-
Certain people are jerks, yes, but the solution is to deal with the jerks. It isn't to take a feature away from the people that aren't jerks.
-
@Kaitsja said:
I think we should be rethinking anti-tunnel mechanics. Instead of extending basekit endurance, what if an unhooked survivor moves at 8.0m/s for, say, 5 seconds? This is enough to cover 40 meters of distance, which would naturally discourage the killer from going after that survivor since it guarantees they make it safely to a loop. Have it deactivate in endgame, obviously.
And now that a 12-hook game is all but guaranteed, I wonder how you'd fix all the problems it would create.
-
The no-hook-grab thing is already a, well, thing. And if you think all updates favour the Killer, you're either trolling or you've never read the patch notes ever. There's an anti-face-camp mechanic on the PTB right now, for instance.
-
TL:DR: They essentially said games were fundamentally unimportant and not something to take too seriously, but then applied the concepts of honour and respect to them in an attempt to establish moral superiority over said fundamentally unimportant thing. They also said that Killer players should "grow up," but then went on to call people "toxic," "despicable," and "unskilled garbage killers" who are "desperate and greedy" for playing the aforementioned fundamentally unimportant game in a way they disliked. There were a few bad examples of things, a lot of condescension and numerous bad ideas (read: 4a) with a side order of Them and Us.
-
Killers who over-commit are punished already: they lose. Their punishment doesn't need to include you receiving an extra reward.
-
@CatnipLove said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3538807#Comment_3538807
Comeback mechanics aren't too much of a problem in games. Even competitive games have them. They really only become an issue when they are too strong. X Factor in Vanilla MvC3 would be a good example of poor implementation. Two of your three character die and you get the ability to kill all three of your opponent's characters in under thirty seconds. The pendulum should swing but if it goes too far it'll knock out Grandma.
I think there are certain things that you can only band-aid fix. How do you stop survivors from going AFK when things go bad? How do you stop a killer hard-tunneling someone out at five gens? You can't. If players are in an unsociable mindset there's nothing you can do. The best you can do is have systems in place to limit the burden it puts on the other players.
Thank you for reminding me how horrible X Factor was. X Factor Phoenix is a thing that happened and exists.
But yes, perhaps you're right.
-
I don't think a 'do well, get punished' mechanic would be too popular. It seems like a band-aid fix to artificially elongate games without touching on the problems that cause stomps in the first place.
-
This is the only list in existence where my boy Trickster gets to be in the same tier as Pyramid Head and Artist.
-
Lots of games use some sort of rollback netcode, I'm sure DBD could work with it. I think that's what you're suggesting anyway, a lag-compensation system like FPS games use. I don't know how feasible it would be for Behaviour to add it, but it'd certainly work.
-
@AykDanroyd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3537828#Comment_3537828
Xeno is clearly broken. His tail attack hits even when it misses and many people have mentioned it and even taking advantage of it yet nothing is being done. And putting a filter on a killer would not take access from anything. It would simply block players who don't have fun going against a broken killer (or even if he wasn't broken, a killer they just don't find fun) from getting that killer. Players who choose to use him would just have to play against other survivor players. So anyone mentioning people being denied content they paid for are just not telling the truth. People paid for this game too and those people want to have fun, and FUN is the most important thing. If you kill the fun, there is no game. If a certain killer that someone hates is being imposed on them over & over again, it's not fun. It is in THAT SCENARIO that someone is being denied what they paid for (i.e. a fun time), not the players playing Xeno or other killers that survivor players tend to hate.
My idea would force BHVR to do something about it. You can say the solution is to adjust Xeno, yet it's not and won't be done (if anything he will be adjusted to be worse). Just saying that and offering no alternative like you and everyone else opposed to this idea has failed to do is like being a shill for BHVR. What are your alternatives? Why is it that killers have gotten more miserable to play against?
Knight & Skull Merchant were already OP upon their release and were only made stronger after updates which has caused more abuse by players who play as them. Same with Sadako, who is beyond ridiculous now. Just yesterday I went against a Sadako WHO ONLY GOT 2 DAMN HOOKS and she was able to mori my 3 team mates because of how fast their condemned built up just from her teleporting. 75% of the match was her teleporting and landing a few hits here and there. WHEN IS THIS GOING TO BE FIXED? A killer being rewarded to instantly kill anyone just for teleporting is broken & bullshit. It should never exist in this game. At least with Myers to do that, he needs to use add-ons and do a lot of stalking and even then as a Myers main on the killer side, I'm not too crazy about it especially how easily you can get a 3-4K now with Lethal Pursuer. And this issue with Sadako wasn't even a problem until she was buffed 1-2 months ago, which goes to my point that killers these days only get adjusted to be more impossible to deal with. She was still a very OP killer before the change when you see how fast she is and compare her to Freddy and how much better her teleporting is which isn't restricted by gens that are finished. She was annoying to deal with then, but was tolerable. Now she's completely intolerable. The change they made makes it very frequent that there are not enough TVs & tapes to insert to fight off the building condemned, which should NEVER build up due to a passive action such as teleporting. And it even causes survivors to fight amongst themselves for available TVs. Everything about that change is disgusting and should've never been done. They don't even give survivors unlimited map-wide auras of TVs/VCRs to pick up & insert tapes into after implementing this garbage.
Same with Wesker's hitbox when he does his stupid dash attack where about 50% of the time I side step it and it still lands a hit. His hitbox should be like that of Huntress' hatchets or Deathslinger's gun, maybe very slightly bigger. But he keeps landing hits with them when he shouldn't. And Xeno has the same damn problem (even worse when you see how thin the tail is and how it hits air and still injures/downs survivors). You can say adjust these killers all you want, but it's not being done.
Also, what about players who want to face older killers who are not picked as much anymore? What should they say? As more & more killers are added, the likelihood of those killers showing up in a match are much lower. The smartest thing would've have been to split the game into modules---a Classic module for old style killers (which would have ended with Twins or maybe Trickster) & their survivor counterparts & perks and a Modern/New module that would begin with Trickster or Nemesis & their survivor counterparts and perks (I'd say Trickster/Yun Jin just to keep it an unlicensed original) and have that one be ongoing with new killers & survivors that get released with no mixing of perks, survivors or killers from one module to the other. Then BHVR wouldn't lose any players because fans of the classic DBD they grew to like who don't like that the game has been turning into could stick to that part of the game while modern players & even classic ones who still like what the game is releasing can play the modern module as well. There would be a crossover of course since I'm sure many new players would enjoy dealing with the classic killers, survivors and perks. Bloodpoints & shards would be shared and the rift would continue to have stuff for both sides. But this wasn't done.
Even if a killer filter isn't added, if some preference system is implemented that wouldn't block but drastically reduce the chances of it giving us killers we hate and increase the chances of connecting us to lobbies of killers we enjoy playing against, it would be a big improvement.
I'm open to ideas. One idea would be to offer significant blood points and iridescent shards (shards especially would be enticing) to players who use lesser used killers as incentives. Perhaps better/faster progression in the killer ranks too. In fact there should be a system in place where the easier the killer you play, the longer it takes with the same kills to progress through the ranks than for harder killers with those kill numbers. That would be a balanced approach that many other games have. Anyone who has played Super Puzzle Fighter II for example knows that Akuma has a drop pattern that's a real pain in the ass to deal with. But the downside to him is that it only does 70% normal damage compared to the other characters whose drop patterns are easier to counter. Even though that's a puzzle game, the point still stands that video games tend to balance these things out to make them fair so that only the most powerful attackers/characters don't get chosen. There HAS to be a downside but BHVR is too scared to nerf the OP licensed characters especially that many players play as. They don't understand that even if they nerf them, that fans of those characters will continue to play as them. If this incentive idea would fix some of the problem, I'd be for it, but it still wouldn't address the hitbox issues with Wesker & Xeno, the issues with Sadako, the issues with Knight and Skull Merchant, and many others. But I'd be more than happy to see it as an initial step with the filter idea as a followup depending on whether or not any of these issues will be fixed.
You were given an alternative idea, but you missed it in your whirlwind of needlessly responding to every keyword. The solution to a problem starts with trying to fix that problem, not by creating an entire new system that does nothing but create more problems without actually touching on the initial problem. We haven't even gotten to the Mid-Chapter patch, yet here you are not just proclaiming Xeno will go untouched but that Behaviour may intentionally make it worse to play against for no discernible reason. You're ruling out even the possibility of betterness to make your idea seem more appealing - that is not the foundation of a good idea.
By saying you want to "force" Behaviour to do something about the actual problem, you're essentially admitting your idea is so bad that Behaviour would fix all the problems the game has just to avoid using it for longer than necessary. You don't have an idea - you have a shock collar. And, I mean, honestly, is your counterargument to the denial of content issue really, "People paid for [an entirely subjective experience], and not getting that is denying them what they paid for"? You even put "that scenario" in caps like it was a big OBJECTION moment. It was not.
I don't think you are open to ideas, I think you're open to people agreeing with you, and when that doesn't happen, you just accuse people of shilling. This isn't dichotomous - I can think your idea is bad and that Behaviour needs to improve some things. If you're so desperate to respond to this post (please don't, this conversation is achieving nothing at this point and I've already told you I don't wish to continue it), don't quote it, because then I get a needless ping.
-
@AykDanroyd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3537226#Comment_3537226
Plague is a pain to play against because she is poorly designed for this game in 2 major ways:
1. In a match against her, you are denied healing for the majority of the part. The only time you can heal (which tends to give survivors a lot of bloodpoints and a decent chance at pipping while trying to progress in the ranks) is if she hits you with her weapon or the red vomit and that's assuming you get away which has a very low likelihood. So just for the fact that she denies survivors a major source of points and their ability to progress and more importantly not lose progress shows that she is badly designed. She literally goes against a major survivor objective of the game.
2. Against Plague you are screwed one way or another. If you don't cleanse, you are always at risk of being downed in a single hit once you get sick enough. If you do cleanse, you're activating her power to so serious damage. Skull Merchant has this same problem with her drones (hack them & she knows where you are, don't hack them & either get exposed or good luck doing gens). It would be like exposing yourself to Myers to stalk you (which activates his power) if he had an ability to prevent you from healing unless he was tier 3. With Plague it's worse because she doesn't even need her red vomit active to make everyone 1 hit KO and with it, she's even stronger.
Plague would be much more tolerable if her sickness would slow down gen progress of sick survivors instead of affecting their health. They could also add other effects like causing blindness & the oblivious status effect. Or maybe it could do both where the sickness her vomit causes would have 2 phases. The 1st phase would slow survivors down from gens and the 2nd would give their gen speed back but make them 1 hit KOs as it currently does. It would take somewhere between 2-3 minutes for it to go from Phase 1 to Phase 2. That way survivors would have to decide whether to cleanse early to get gen speed back or take a risk and have slower gen progress so they hold off on activating her power. I would even add in a stipulation that each survivor would be healable 3 times when sick during phase 1 only just to allow healing and proper survivor objectives to be possible. After 3 Phase 1 heals, a survivor would be forced to cleanse if they want to return to a completely healthy state. And just to balance things, the infection time of generators, pallets, lockers, totems, etc can be increased to incentivize survivors to cleanse so that affected gens would be contaminated by her vomit for longer periods of time. That would be a very fair redesign of Plague.
Pinhead is bad for reasons I listed in my last post in this thread. Wesker is ridiculous to deal with as a result of his dashes and the questionable hits of his slam ability. Plus the fact that the spray isn't unlimited is BS. Why do survivors against Wesker get limited spray where if they run out of spray (which has happened to me) they're slowed down the rest of the match and are even prome to getting killed if he brings that add-on? By that same logic, why aren't there a limited amount of times survivors can wake up against Freddy? Why aren't survivors only given a limited amount of heals against Oni so he can have the advantage the rest of the match (much like Wesker does when there's no more spray) without them being able to do anything about it? I have similar issues with the finite vaccine against Nemesis, though that's not as bad since it doesn't slow you down at least. But being out of vaccine does make it that you can't mask the coughing anymore which makes it easier for him to find you. And with zombies on the map that almost every time show up by gens, it's not too hard to get hit by them if you're trying to hurry up after half your team is dead.
It was a rhetorical question, but thank you for proving my point.
@AykDanroyd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3537070#Comment_3537070
This is why my original point of having a filter is the best way to handle it. It keeps players away from a killer they absolutely hate and don't want matches against while letting the killer play against other players. Would that killer be filtered forever? Probably not. Most likely when the frequency of that killer drops the survivor who filters that killer will unblock them and just deal with it like I would even the killers I most hate. But the option should be there because not a damn thing has or is being done to change things and if the queue times have to increase somewhat for BHVR to get the message, then so be it.
You complain about player X bought a killer and can't use them due to the cooldown idea I had, yet everyone who plays this game at minimum paid the money for the base game and the ones who play survivor shouldn't be subject to playing a certain killer almost for an entire week or 2 nonstop. So you're being hypocritical. You're telling someone who wants to play DBD but avoid that killer to avoid playing the very game they paid money for until or unless that killer has a lower frequency of usage. Players should have the ability to at least block 1 killer they don't want to play against.
If you want to complain about queue times, then go and complain about all the players who have disabled crossplay who also contribute to that.
Difference is, the people playing a Killer they bought and enjoy isn't taking away access to your content. Whether you're enjoying that content or not is a separate matter to implementing a system that denies people access to their own content on the whims of others. If you think Xeno is broken (maybe you do, maybe you don't; again, not the point, just an example), the solution is to adjust Xeno. The solution is not to implement a system where people are told they can't use their content (like your cooldown idea), or are punished to a ridiculous degree for trying to use said content (as per your ban list idea).
I very much dislike MFT and a whole host of other perks that appear incredibly often (both on Survivor and Killer side), as well as certain Killers, but I would never dream of denying people access to their own content to any degree. That's not hypocrisy. I never told anyone to do anything, I especially didn't tell people not to play the game. If we want to talk about intellectual dishonesty, let's talk about the nonsense where you just put words into my mouth.
This conversation has clearly reached a conclusion. I'm not so short on words that I need you to magic some up for me.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3537360#Comment_3537360
I totally agree a personal cooldown on perk/Killer use would be silly. So this could be a failure of my reading comprehension, and then that would be on me. I didn't catch the reply content because the forums doesn't include the contents of quoted quotes when you are typing down here in the "leave a comment" box. Just as now I can't see my content you replied to. I skim the forums and put a bunch of replies in the bottom box to read and reply to individually afterward. Combination of user error, (on my part) and a lack of features compared to other forums that include quoted quotes, but mostly my fault.
As far as a personal ban, (as in I would be unable to re-match with a specific player) I would still defend that concept, as that is normal for basic human activities from grade school. If Joey acts like a jerk, everyone stops interacting and engaging with him. It is on Joey to stop being antisocial to the point of scaring people away in order to re-integrate. The level of anti-social behavior someone would have to engage in to be banned by EVERYONE, (when the theoretical personal ban system requires a match played with that individual, and these ban lists being limited to 3-5 people max) would be justified in that person being prevented to play in matches.
Personal ban would probably be very reasonable without a Killer ban to go alongside it.
-
I could honestly see Trapper being portrayed as a more 'sympathetic' villain. It's not like he wants to be there - he had to be tortured into compliance. Trappy-trappy, murder-murder most of the movie, a few flashbacks and brief moments of hesitation here and there, redemption arc at the end where he turns on the Entity and helps the last few Survivors escape at the cost of his own life.
-
Pinhead, technically. If Pinhead could open a way back to Hell (and he does have the Configuration), Leviathan would body the Entity.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3537226#Comment_3537226
- The survey would help tell whether they are in need of adjustment. When people say "I ban Plague because I don't like a mechanic (altruism) deleted from the game", they may introduce a method to 'pre-cleanse' and grab a limited item that allows you to cleanse a teammate. When they see people say "I ban Wesker because I see too much of him", they know that mechanically nothing needs adjusting. But at the same time, if they say "I ban Wesker because he always tunnels me post hook and I am infected and can't do anything. Even if I spray, he tunnels me because he is told my location.", then they might adjust the post-hook infection. Similar with Pinhead, "I ban Pinhead because I am playing soloq and can't communicate with my team properly when I am going for the box, causing 3 of us to go for the box at the same time.", could lead to a chat wheel with simple statements like "I'm going for the Killer's mechanic" or "Killer is busy with me" (implying chase or stealth searching) or "I'll get the rescue".
- Agreed, a perfect way to fix and make better our only queue, ranked queue, is implement Killer bans! I'm glad we agree!
- Then how does Killer bans, which would only appear as a longer queue time, prevent play? It would delay, not prevent. That isn't a strawman if that is addressing the conclusion of your statement. Wait, let me quote it "Yes, let's just stop people using the content they paid for." You literally said they had to hard stop, not merely be delayed, although to be fair you may have meant something different from what you typed, and internet confusion led to even more muddied waters. They can play it, and they are told by the incentive which queues are faster, both with the current Killer/Survivor, and the proposed lesser banned Killers. Does playing against the incentive mean you can't play that role currently? "Making silly choices and driving people away in the thousands" - like leaving Blight and Nurse untouched with no basekit method like bans of ensuring you won't have a bad time? That is the current problem, and bans would fix it. This is a solution to an existing problem. It does seem foolish to ignore solutions other games have found for the same problem, even if you don't care to play those games. To me that seems like refusing to use fertilizer on your garden only because a neighbor does it too, as opposed to a reason like not being able to afford that brand of fertilizer, or they are growing something out of climate and it needs the extra boost that fertilizer offers.
Now quote the next part of what I said, where I said, "Arbitrary limitations." Now take it in the context of what I was responding to. I was responding to someone saying Killer players shouldn't be allowed to play the same Killer every match ("So if you want that [people no longer playing the game], lets keep allowing the players who play killer to play the same damn killer every match" and, "One idea a bunch of us have had is to put cooldowns on perks and even killers"). They weren't talking about not being matched against a Killer they didn't like (i.e. a ban list, still an appallingly bad idea), they were talking about a need to prevent someone playing a Killer too many times in a row/set period of time (i.e. arbitrary limitations on purchased content).
I used the exact quote I was responding to above the sentence you copy/pasted from my post. There was no confusion to be had. You're not arguing in good faith here, are you?
-
@mizark3 said:
This is normally a feature for ranked modes only... however we can't opt out of MMR, so this should definitely be in the game. My usual suggestion is 1 ban per 5 characters released (disabled on the opening week of a new Killer), with a personal ban for 5 players total. You would need to play and finish a match with the person for the personal ban. (That way you can't just ban a big figure and deny them matches.) SWF uses the lobby leader's bans and ignores the rest.
It would likely need an extra Killer incentive for the rarer banned Killers. I'd have a 100% incentive for the bottom (total ban number), and a 50% incentive for the next (total ban number). For example if there would be 5 bans, the bottom 5 get 100%, the bottom 6-10 gets 50%.
Also to counterbalance Killers would get a map ban system. Similar numbers and logic given as Survivors and Killer, but for Killer and map.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3535979#Comment_3535979
No feedback for adjustment - How so? If everyone who uses the optional system (btw the beta wiggle was used by less than 50% of players, people don't check the options that much) bans Nurse, that is clear feedback people don't want to play against Nurse. It doesn't say why but it does give the what. The occasional player surveys can include questions about the top banned Killers, and peoples feedback as to why they are banned.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3535995#Comment_3535995
If you can opt out or twist things in your favor, it isn't skill-based matchmaking - I mean it already isn't skill-based matchmaking, it's kill-based matchmaking. The match where you go in with naked/no perks is at the same rating as all meta perks. The match with a juicy toolbox is rated the same as a brown medkit. The Killer can bring Clown, or they can bring Nurse. That already throws skill out the window.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3537070#Comment_3537070
Yes, let's just stop people using the content they paid for - Where would this disable a person's ability to play AT ALL? Longer queue, sure, but not a limited ban list. If you've played any game like DOTA or Rainbow 6 Siege, you can ban characters as well, does that also 'stop people using the content they paid for', not quite. Delays, maybe, but not a hard prevention. Pre-bans make it much better, because it would only put you in a lobby with someone who isn't going to ban your character mid selection process anyways.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3536643#Comment_3536643
Ruin matchmaking bs you feel entitled to picking your opponents - Killers can currently lobby shop, and that is causing baby Killers to get autofilled against the sweat Killers who didn't want to face 1 P100. This would cause no new problems, and would reduce the amount of lower quality matches.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3535981#Comment_3535981
Killer Players only playing 1 or 2 Killers - Well if some people are to be believed that is currently the issue with Wesker. I know Wesker is picked significantly more often than the average, but luckily I don't think my matches reach the 20% some people have claimed.
New Killer - Yeah it should probably be disabled (like the map repeat prevention when a new map comes out) during the first week of new Killers.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3536680#Comment_3536680
You would need to demonstrate the majority of Killer players is in the top half of the MMR range - Ok top half is 50%, so by default, 50% have to be there! There we go, we've proven the majority of Killers are in the top half! (Ok maybe a percentage point off, but good enough! Sorry I just found this part funny.)
1) There'd also be plenty of people banning the use of Wesker or Pinhead or Plague; does that mean they're broken and need adjusting? What would a survey tell you about them? A lot of people saying they're not fun to play against for a wide variety of non-actionable reasons.
2) Just because it isn't particularly good in its implementation doesn't mean skill-based matchmaking doesn't exist. And the answer to any problems concerning it is to make it better - not defenestrate it and call it a day.
3) Did I say it would disable the ability to play at all? No, no I did not. Don't strawman me. No-one pays for DLC to be told when they can and can't play it. This isn't DOTA, this isn't Rainbow 6 Siege; this is DBD, I don't care at all what different games of different genres do. You don't, and can't, balance an asymmetrical survival game in the same way you balance a MOBA or team shooter. This game doesn't have the player-base to go around making silly choices and driving people away in the thousands.
-
@Emeal said:
YES YES YES YES YES I want the Dinosaur.
Even tho, Dino Crisis would be a better because you know its a action horror dinosaur franchise.
And it's also a Capcom game, so Behaviour getting the license wouldn't be an unreasonable expectation. Selling point for a Jurassic Park DLC, though, would be getting Jeff Goldblum to voice Ian Malcolm. A game with Nic Cage and Jeff Goldblum - meme potential is infinite.
-
@09SHARKBOSS said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3535995#Comment_3535995
they block those 2 killers
They block those 2 Killers and another 2 on top.
-
@AykDanroyd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3536680#Comment_3536680
Well relief comes one way or another in the form of players saying the hell with it and not playing the game anymore which results in the death of the game. So if you want that, lets keep allowing the players who play killer to play the same damn killer every match.
The difference between survivor and killer is that survivors have to put up with an extra layer of crap that killers don't. As killer the only thing one may get tired of are seeing the same perks used over and over again. Survivors not only have to deal with having to go against the same damn killer perks over & over again but also going against the same damn killer over & over again. Killers have powers and each one is different unlike survivors who are all the same other than the vocal screams when you factor out perks which like for killer can be made teachable.
One idea a bunch of us have had is to put cooldowns on perks and even killers. Like once a perk is used, that perk can not be used again for another 6 hours if it's a meta (A tier) perk, 3 hours if it's the B tier down, 1.5 hours for C tier and 0 hours for lower perks. And a similar cooldown can be placed on killers to force players to switch things up so the game doesn't go stale. That's how many other games with "seasons" are set up and DBD should be no exception. It would be much more interesting if players were forced to have a perk rotation. The system would need to be thought out so new players who barely have perks won't be shut out from the game, but they could always play one of the base killers or survivors since the game comes with a bunch.
Also players who play perkless should be rewarded with big incentives. This would especially work if a good amount of iridescent shards get awarded for say, every 10 perkless matches they do. That would change things up a lot since a lot of players would want to use those shards for cosmetics, DLC characters, perks, etc.
I'm not trying to be a wet blanket but SOMETHING must be done. People who trash competing games always throw jabs how games like Friday the 13th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Evil Dead, etc would get stale due to the lack of variety, yet when everyone plays the same killer because that killer is stupidly easy to get kills with, then how is DBD also not getting stale? It's already a game where survivors do only gens and have to get out without anything else different (unlike other games of the genre where certain supplies have to be collected & you could interact with the environment such as drawers & cabinets to find things), so it doesn't have much going for it other than the variety of killers. But when even that is gone then DBD has less going for it than its competitors do, especially when it's completely out of any semblence of balance and solo matches where ALL PLAYERS GET STARTED are a disaster. How is this game supposed to draw in more players when the solo queue, a new player's 1st exposure to the game, is a shitshow for lack of a better term? Someone would have to be a masochist to endure that and come back for more when they are just starting & have no clue how to play and gets the same killer with their broken tail that the developer refuses to fix or killswitch at the moment.
"So if you want that, lets keep allowing the players who play killer to play the same damn killer every match."
Yes, let's just stop people using the content they paid for. I'm sure that won't have an extremely negative effect on the game or Behaviour's reputation. "Y'know that Killer you bought and expected to play? Too bad! Arbitrary limitations, baby!"
My friend, you're not being a wet blanket, you're being the whole laundromat. There's wanting things to be more balanced, then there's wanting to gut everything the opposing players have because you've fallen to blind tribalism and can't see that the changes you propose will actually kill the game. Change takes time, great change takes greater periods of time, so give it time.
There is no Us and Them, there's just us. People, here, trying to play a game best we can. Let's not give in to schoolyard mentality.
-
@Quizzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3536523#Comment_3536523
Because latency is BS. And survivors get tired when they make it to a vault, pallet, yet still get hit on the other side of it. And with this vault nerf, im sure survivors are pretty pissed off that chasing is being more nerfed on them.
Delightfully non sequitur, thank you.
-
@legion228 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3536562#Comment_3536562
lets talk about the killer perks and abilities
it depends on what killer
the straight path is impossible in maps because killers can turn left or right depends where survivor going and then he will get closer to him faster, oni knight clown xeno and master mind artist cenobite doesnt care about it if the killers are good enough
now lets talk about pallets, there alot of anit loop build like spirit fury
+ the save the best for last and xeno perk which make you 5% faster on a hit makes the survivor speed boost almost pointless
the game is fully based on maps sometimes
if the killer good enough to do mind games in loops then its pretty much nothing
and again about straight line is impossible in the game because if killer smart enough he gonna try to make it shorter
addons exists too
Your solution to MFT is a perk that disables Bloodlust?
-
@legion228 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3536555#Comment_3536555
bro im killer main and i dont have any problems with that perk THATS why i defending it.
if you think im play only nurse and blight let me tell you are wrong
i play ghostface trapper huntress hillybilly mastermind knight oni shape
and i dont have ANY problems with it
yes sometimes i being looped for too long and its because im too lazy to mind game
That's a yes to not fully reading things, then.
-
@legion228 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3536534#Comment_3536534
executioner onyro nemesis huntress if having good aim clown spirit cenobite twins trapper (if doing traps right)
cannibal doctor nightmare plague artist dredge:
I already mentioned Spirit. You're so hellbent on defending MFT -- that we know for a fact is getting adjusted -- that I'm not sure you're fully reading responses.
-
@legion228 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3536523#Comment_3536523
because its some times rly saves and and its not helping VS good killer
It won't help you against Nurse, Blight or Spirit, but it will absolutely screw over just about everyone else.
-
I love the argument of, "It's only 3 percent," like 3 percent is insignificant. If 3 percent is insignificant, why are people using it?
-
@AykDanroyd said:
All I know is something has to improve. It's not fair that a killer can lobby shop but survivors who have no control over the killers they're matched up with have no recourse when the killer already sets the pace of the match and decides who dies early and who doesn't. Having to deal with all that plus playing OP killers someone can't beat who may tunnel on top kills any fun. And as a killer player too, I don't even have fun playing such killers since it doesn't provide a challenge and I feel guilty slaughtering everyone because I know how it is on the other side.
At the very least the depip and ban time for DC'ing (as a survivor at least) should be eliminated since they added the bots. Or else remove the bots and lets go back to the old system since it makes no sense to have the bots plus depip and ban time. Right now the majority of the game, i.e. the survivor side, is being forced into playing killers they may not want to play. And instead of fixing those killers, we're told to take it or stop playing. If there's something not wrong there, then I really can't bother explaining it anymore.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying something isn't wrong and in need of fixing, because there certainly is and it would be silly of me to suggest otherwise. This is just an issue that I feel needs a scalpel and not a chainsaw to fix. Behaviour is already working on the lobby-shopping issue and is currently testing something out. Sometimes large problems need to change one step at a time, because anything else would invite chaos.
-
@AykDanroyd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3535995#Comment_3535995
There is no skill based matchmaking. That's a lie. If that existed, survivors who are new at this game would not be paired with survivors who are veterans, which happens to me a majority of the time. It maybe used to be like that, but there is a reason why queue times are less now and that's because there's no more skill based matchmaking. It's also why they decided to take out the ranks from the player lobbies which used to be shown because it would be that much more transparent that skill based matchmaking is a farce if they left those in.
Skill-based matchmaking exists, but it's heavily influenced by a number of things. Such as people throwing the game by dying on the first hook, causing a loss and tanking everyone else's MMR. This would also give the Killer MMR they might not deserve, messing up their future matchmaking. Lobby-shopping also increases the likelihood of mismatched backfills.
The current system prioritises speed over accuracy, your system would be far slower and have zero accuracy.
-
@AykDanroyd said:
Sorry I don't buy it. If there are no problems with the status quo then nobody would use it. And if they use it and want to wait, then what problem is that to you? As long as the killer(s) filtered out are shown under the survivors in the lobby (so that it's transparent to fellow survivors) if you are in one with people you know, you can choose to leave that lobby if you'd rather not wait. And if there are as many people playing the game as they would like us to think, it should have a minimal effect. During the days the queue times are small anyway.
What you're saying would only happen if it ever comes to a time where killer players are all only using 1 or 2 killers, and that would be a problem with the game, nothing else. At that point people will stop playing the game because every match will be more or less the same and might as well play another game that also only has a handful of killers to play against.
Or if a new killer that almost everyone is using for a while is being filtered because survivors hate or have gotten sick of playing against that killer, it would be up to each individual survivor player to decide what they would rather do, wait a lot longer to play against other killers or say screw it and play against that killer anyway (i.e. not using the filter). So it's a freedom of choice and I'm all for that as everyone should be. What's better shorter match times or getting into a match where someone DC's almost immediately or kills themself on 1st hook which screws everything up for other players?
There would be four players, each with a blackball. That's four Killers they can block - why would it only be a problem if people played 1 or 2 Killers?
Freedom of choice doesn't apply to skill-based matchmaking. If you can opt out of it or twist things in your favour, it isn't skill-based matchmaking.
-
It seems like this is a really convoluted mechanism to destroy matchmaking and increase queue times drastically. Four players filtering out a Killer and a player each: when do you want a game? Christmas? SWFs would simply enter into a match with one of the top four Killers blacklisted each to all but guarantee a win/super-happy-bully-time. A player beat them anyway? Well, they can go on the blacklist as well.
And no, it would provide zero feedback on which Killers need adjusting.
-
Yes, clearly what this community needs is to remove the last bit of politeness it has.
-
@FrenchBagels said:
Boom. Majority of issues solved and survivors can start running three unique perks with the exception of MFT.
This solves various problems we currently face:
- Slugging for the 4K
- Camping Tricksters
- Camping Bubbas
- Camping anything
- Indirectly anything a Skullmerchant player does
- The annoying Knock Out build that still exists for an ungodly reason not known by the mortal coil
Finally, solo queue is saved and now the goldfish Meg pre-dropping shack pallet a mile away from the Killer can actually contribute to delaying a hook state. Not like it helps SWF anyway, they already run Unbreakable and designate the p100 Ada on their team to be the Reassurance mule.
Ever since the 90 second gen mess we got a hot minute ago, short hook states are dreadful and only help enable camping. About time we do something about it. Why basekit Unbreakable was never implemented is quite the biggest shame. Truly the shamiest of shames out there. Shame.
-
@Melinko said:
Eh, there is a simple solution. If every single survivor that is camped/tunnel and all their teammates report the killer that does it for say "griefing" that killer's account will end up being reported so often that the devs probably take notice and probably give a 24 hour timeout to start. It continues, might be a little longer. Again this would take the entire community to get together and start doing but it would certainly end the camp and tunnel days of the game and then nothing has to change from a development side.
I think if camping and tunneling was the exception not the rule, people would be less bothered by it. However, at this point in the game it is shocking when there isn't a tunnel or a camp. Hell, I saw a Xeno face camp to preserve a 3 k because the xeno can apparently fully block the hook. It is becoming a problem.
This is a great idea! For people speed-running their own account getting banned. Camping and tunnelling have repeatedly been stated to not be reportable - it even says so in-game.
-
You'd need to hit 80% of your shots to get an item that allows you to spend time making a mediocre clone that will get shanked almost immediately. I'm not sure you really need two ways of countering clones, so maybe start there. I do like the concept, though.
-
I should be paying attention to the perk ideas, but HE HAS A LITTLE BOW.
-
@Rapteriurz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3533929#Comment_3533929
Yeah, I know, made a mistake while typing. Still doesn't answer my concerns.
Kinda does. They're just faster than you, and if you don't break line-of-sight, they'll also get Bloodlust.
-
Survivor is base 4.0 m/s.
-
I agree with everything except the custom emotes. It's just a bad idea for numerous reasons.
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3533717#Comment_3533717
Easy to fix: just make it so survivors can't place the gens by entrances and exits.
And what about being able to block off parts of a corridor or structure to create god loops? Being able to move around a chunk of unbreakable scenery has too many variables and too many opportunities to break the game. Imagine trying to balance this on Lery's? Generators wouldn't necessarily need to be dragged across a doorway to break a map.