Rezblaze
Rezblaze
About
- Username
- Rezblaze
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Terratoast said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/851189#Comment_851189
"I want you to spend the next 24 hours playing as any killer lower than High Mid-Tier against 4 man SWF teams, and I want you to tell me with a straight face that this sort of gameplay is healthy for the game."
If I face a lot of SWF teams that just reinforces my argument that SWF is bringing a lot of players.
"If this was the type of gaming experience to be expected, nobody would play this game. The only solace is that experiences in this game are about as random a portion of its mechanics. That's what keeps most people playing."
Strange that many people continue to play the game despite how much you're making SWF to be then.
"Also, I enjoy the False Dilemma you craft from this; the fact that if a game has less players it automatically means its dying. Nothing like devaluing the meaning of the term "dying game" than to spin any loss of any amount of players into a game that's on lifeline."
That's the truth of a multiplayer only online game. I didn't see you claim that Friday the 13th was going great. Multiplayer only online games are greatly harmed by dropping player counts.
"I don't know a single person who plays killer with any sort of seriousness who talks about Survive With Friend groups with no distain in their tone. And its no wonder."
I don't know a single person that would still be playing the game if SWF wasn't available. Like I said, this game wouldn't have even been considered by me or any of my friends had there been no option to queue together.
"You completely ignore game health in favor of "Well it got them a lotta players and money" which is ironically the issue most games in this industry have when approaching their games; bottom line."
Making sure that the game is enjoyable for a lot of players IS for the health of the game.
You completely ignore the health of the game in favor of only appeasing a much smaller subset of it.
There are other methods of bridging the gap that voice-comms give other than straight up alienating people who play with friends. The Kindred change is a good example of that.
"Strange that many people continue to play the game despite how much you're making SWF to be then."
The rest of what you're saying basically conjecture; suggesting that because you don't know anyone who would play the game solo means that you and your friends are the only caste of people in this game that keeps it from dying. It's own form of hubris if you ask me.
And no, party systems isn't game health. Game health is assuring that the game is fair, fun, functional, and replayable. Not all of this criteria needs to be met for a game to be unhealthy. SWF makes games unfun for those who have to face larger teams of them, and it breaks the functionality of the game. Again, ignoring everything else that SWF straight up BREAKS because it gives you the motivation to play.
In truth, the only reason DbD has lasted as long as it did in the market is because it has no real competitors. Other horror games of a similar genre taste fail due to financial trouble or too small of design teams.
DbD may have started off kicking out competition by merit, but its clearly affected its overall health as a game. I know for sure that if another game came out of the spotlight, even with the loads of money I spent on cosmetics on this game, I would jump ship in a heartbeat. That's why I got my eye on the Hide Or Die rework coming up.
Also, you keep acting like I want to completely remove party systems in this game; I don't. What I want, is the game's fundamentals to make going against SWF groups VIABLE without relying on Spirit or Nurse.
I want the issue FIXED. Not removed.
-
@Sean said:
Why would they nerf BL? Nobody asked for this and yet they still do it
Its not a nerf.
It's literally working as intended; its an exhaustion perk. It doesn't work anymore if you're exhausted.
-
@CronaWins said:
"Balanced Landing: No longer grants the stagger reduction while Exhausted. Balanced Landing has the additional functionality to muffle grunts from falling by 100% while not Exhausted."
Why kill the entire functionality of the perk instead of just removing the sprint?
People run Balance Landing for the stagger reduction, not the sprint. The sprint is only an added bonus.
Why can't this perk just have a single function such as perks like Iron Will?
This would still be a nerf to the perk but would still actually be useful.
Perk: Uses the Exhaustion Mechanic
Survs: RIP [Insert Meta Perk Here]
-
No Blood Trail for 3 minutes is strong but only one-time use. I'd rather have it be thirty seconds for multi-use honestly.
Speeding up struggle timer and speeding up while the killer is carrying someone sounds deliberately crafted for SWF groups who want to sandbag. I always hate those perks because it has no use other than to troll the killer via an already broken mechanic the game was fundamentally not balanced for.
Reusing pallets is nice for punishing a killer not destroying pallets, but for most loops, the killer will destroy them if they're too long, or the time it takes to reset is too dangerous. A meme perk for SWFs mostly I think, as they'll try to bodyblock with one person and another tries to recycle pallets.
Killer perks I actually like, but Tactics, like Bloodhound and Predator, really don't mean much for killers who have map awareness already.
-
@Terratoast said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/851024#Comment_851024
"Furthermore, if you and many others have yet to demonstrate in any sense of this game's lifespan that the game would have died without SWF being implemented months after launch. And until you do, then what log do you have to stand on? I've already shown above in my first reply that you don't need a party system from the get-go to have a stronger playerbase. So already, the mere fact of having a party system doesn't keep a game from dying."
So you're taking the stance that no multiplayer is the only way that a game can lose players? That's a strange log to stand on. There are many ways for a game to lose players. Not allowing friends to play together in an obvious multiplayer cooperative game is one of them.
No playing with friends -> far fewer players.
Far fewer players in a multiplayer only game -> dying game.
"Furthermore, if you and many others have yet to demonstrate in any sense of this game's lifespan that the game would have died without SWF being implemented months after launch. And until you do, then what log do you have to stand on? I've already shown above in my first reply that you don't need a party system from the get-go to have a stronger playerbase. So already, the mere fact of having a party system doesn't keep a game from dying."
There is no one aspect of a game that can keep a game from dying. But there are several aspects that can cause a game to die.
Lack of interesting gameplay, lack of replay-ability, performance issues, and so on.
As I stated and have others. I simply would not have ever picked up the game without SWF.
"Lastly, "It's asymmetrical so it's always going to be unbalanced" is just an excuse for those who don't want to think about the intricacies of the game. I don't argue with people who don't want to think. Stop making excuses and start thinking of the implications of mechanics added to games, or just stop arguing, because at this point you're not trying to defend or attack a position, you're just trying to completely devalue the topic altogether."
Stop making excuses that SWF is poor for the game when it has been great for the game. The advantage of communication can just as easily be gained from someone posting their discord link in chat. The topic is devalued from the start because the idea that the game would be better-off without SWF has no value.
I want you to spend the next 24 hours playing as any killer lower than High Mid-Tier against 4 man SWF teams, and I want you to tell me with a straight face that this sort of gameplay is healthy for the game.
If this was the type of gaming experience to be expected, nobody would play this game. The only solace is that experiences in this game are about as random a portion of its mechanics. That's what keeps most people playing.
Also, I enjoy the False Dilemma you craft from this; the fact that if a game has less players it automatically means its dying. Nothing like devaluing the meaning of the term "dying game" than to spin any loss of any amount of players into a game that's on lifeline.
I don't know a single person who plays killer with any sort of seriousness who talks about Survive With Friend groups with no distain in their tone. And its no wonder.
You completely ignore game health in favor of "Well it got them a lotta players and money" which is ironically the issue most games in this industry have when approaching their games; bottom line.
-
@thrawn3054 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/850959#Comment_850959
Without a good sized player base a game dies. See F13 as a great example. So while nobody specifically thinks it, a large player base does matter for a multiplayer game. That doesn't mean swf doesn't cause issues. But it added a bunch of success to this game as well.
F13th had a party system. It still died. That doesn't bode well for your argument.
DbD came out on top despite being released FIRST without the party system, not counting the beta. F13th had it since the beginning, and still did not live longer than DbD.
And you're trying to tell me that party systems are what make and break playerbases in games? Bullcrap.
Either your argument is that games RELY on Party Systems to have strong playerbases, which is contradictory toward what happened between F13th and DbD, or your argument is reduced down where a game is able to compete and outlive other games based on merit alone, which goes against what everyone here is trying to claim.
Which is it? Are Party Systems absolutely 100% necessary as soon as a game releases or it will die months later? Or can a game make some distance based on its merit or comparative quality?
@Terratoast said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/850948#Comment_850948
That's just being elitist. A larger playerbase doesn't inherently make a game more toxic. People would still be complaining about how overpowered perk/killer/ability XYZ was.
It being a point of frustration is irrelevant if it was needed to keep the game alive.
More players increases the longevity of the game. You can't both have an extremely small playerpool and still have enough funding to continue to push out updates to keep people coming back to the game.
Especially for games like this. The smaller the player pool the worse matchmaking gets. The worse matchmaking gets, less people will join and more people will leave.
Multiplayer only games easily die once enough people stop playing and it can't gather enough new faces.
This will never be a completely balanced game. It's a 4v1. SWF is here to stay and the game is better for it. Implementing a nerf to specifically people who queue with friends will drive away people who want to play their games with friends.
I disagree entirely. Large playerbases -inevitably- create toxic playerbases. The amount of toxicity that's created varies, but I've had almost no issues with small communities being friendly, whereas I've had numerous with larger ones. Its just math; the larger your playerbase is, the bigger chance your game has, intentionally or not, attracted less than friendly figures. Depends on a lot of factors, but don't kid yourself; large playerbases are likely going to be more toxic than smaller ones, its just about margin and other factors.
Furthermore, you and many others have yet to demonstrate, in any period of this game's lifespan, that the game would have died without SWF being implemented months after launch. And until you do, then what log do you have to stand on? I've already shown above in my first reply that you don't need a party system from the get-go to have a stronger playerbase. So already, the mere fact of having a party system doesn't keep a game from dying.
Lastly, "It's asymmetrical so it's always going to be unbalanced" is just an excuse for those who don't want to think about the intricacies of the game. I don't argue with people who don't want to think. Stop making excuses and start thinking of the implications of mechanics added to games, or just stop arguing, because at this point you're not trying to defend or attack a position, you're just trying to completely devalue the topic altogether.
-
@KillermainBTWm8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/850959#Comment_850959
Think of it from the devs perspective how is this shooting themselves in the foot again? More players = more $$$ you might not want it but in the end the $$$ is what matters.
Imagine genuinely arguing for corporate greed as a consumer.
You act like, because I don't agree with the decision, I don't know why BHVR made the decision; of course I know why they made the decision. I really don't give a damn
-
@KillermainBTWm8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/850879#Comment_850879
I wouldn't call increasing the player base shooting yourself with a bullet. Most people probably wouldn't be playing DBD if you couldn't play with friends.
I don't know any other community that touts on about "playerbase".
People only care about playerbase when it gets to the point where they are straight up no longer able to play.
But when you're playing your favorite multiplayer, do you honestly care about "playerbase"? Are you actively playing matchings thinking, "Gee, I'm sure glad the playerbase is so vast!". No. Nobody thinks like that. You'll be glad for shorter queue times, that's beyond the immediate effects you'll feel from increased playerbase.
As I said, I'd rather have a smaller community than a toxic one. And Dead By Daylight's community is infamously known for the latter portion.
@Science_Guy said:
He's wrong, anyway. The idea that the community 'forced' SWF into the game is just a myth.The devs always planned to have an SWF feature at some point; which is common sense, because no one could possibly not expect friends to want to play together, or that people wouldn't try to find a way to play together without a dedicated feature.
And to the OP, no, the devs take any community feedback with a grain of salt. As you can see after every patch goes live and this forum generally erupts in a chorus of whining "You didn't listen to us!!!"
You claim things I never said; I didn't say they were forced to implement SWFs. By no means is BHVR innocent victims of this mistake.
But BHVR actively prevented the ability to play with friend groups in the Beta. And during early launch. You couldn't even voice chat in certain sources as the game would outright block certain voice com channels.
If they had planned for SWF groups, then why didn't they include these things in the beta when the testing was going on and they could do something to fix it? Ran out of time? Didn't think it would matter? Either way, nobody in the community bothered to foresee the issue until it was already enabled, and BHVR didn't bother to let us see how it functions earlier before putting it in the full game.
I played the Beta, even attempted for hours to join with a friend in the same match. I remember how many people were lobby dodging to try and get in the same match.
That doesn't make SWFs that much of a good idea. Especially when it wasn't given to the community for balance testing around the game's fundamentals and ESPECIALLY when you don't bother to fix or address (and in many ways, attempt to embrace) the issue at hand.
So no, I'm not wrong; BHVR put it in out of popular request. Because either they were so incompetent they would not be able to see how such a feature would not fit into the fundamental construction of their game type, or because they were more concerned about people playing with their friends then they were about game health.
-
@Terratoast said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/850879#Comment_850879
... It gathered a lot more players?
Without SWF I wouldn't have given this game a second glance nor would have recommended it to any of my friends.
Only in DbD communities will people argue for money over game health.
Its only been a point of frustration since the launch of SWF.
But what do I know; everyone knows that having a quality salad is nothing compared to throwing a bunch of garbage on it just because its more stuff.
If this game was built and designed in a way to make friend groups balanced, we can talk about the benefits that it brought to the table. But they didn't, and its an issue that has yet to be synergized with the game since. The amount of attention and pressure a Killer has to put in Red Ranks and SWF groups is greatly outweighed by the pressure survivors can put with just one player. Killers have to be near impossibly efficient to pull off against full SWF groups.
No, not every group you go up against will be full 4-man SWFs, but that's beside the point; until that issue gets addressed, which it has yet to be, it'll be a point of contention in the community.
IDK about you, but I would much rather have a smaller community than a toxic one.
-
Devs shot themselves with that bullet a while ago when they reversed their decisions to disallow friend groups. All the way during the first few months of release.
SWF was an implementation done out of popular request. And you see how well this game stood that test.
-
@Nicholas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/845875#Comment_845875
In fact in my experience 99% of the time The Killer seems even more determined to tunnel and kill you. Most seem to really go out of their way to start the chase again so it's really just delaying the inevitable.
Well, here's how I see it:
A) Risk finding another survivor because you "don't want to tunnel", thus losing pressure on survivors by not getting anyone downed and having to trog across the map to find anything.
B) Follow the survivor you KNOW is running in a particular direction, is already injured, and you KNOW doesn't have a Second Chance Perk.
The choice doesn't make itself. Most killers will go out of spite, but its also far more practical gameplay wise because you are still maintaining pressure after Decisive, instead of abruptly ending that pressure over some stigma.
-
How many times has BHVR "fixed" something and only made things worse as a result?
-
Decisive Strike gets killers who don't pay attention.
I've seen Otz get absolutely ridiculous Decisive Strikes.
https://youtu.be/lIJjZxJa7iM?t=410:41 - 2:24 is where we should pay attention.
He disengaged, found TWO other targets, hit both, disengaged, then snuck up on the survivors fully healed, and got punished for it.
Just have Decisive proc when you're injured. If you're healed to full, Decisive should not proc anymore.
PS: accidentally voted no.
-
I paid for various skins. Two years they've had aggressive micro transactions for each killer, but now they decide to throw in free stuff?
I feel cheated out of my money for the mere fact of getting it too early.
Never seems to be a middle ground with BHVR; they either monetize or make you grind for hours for one skin, or they just start throwing free stuff at us.
I hope I get something in return because they're erasing potentially thousands of dollars in value for the whole playerbase who purchased various skins. All the money I spent on skins, just disappearing.
-
Can't go wrong with Hex: Haunted Ground.
Corrupt Intervention will force survivors toward you, so you can use that to your advantage.
Save the Best For Last is always a good perk.
And lastly you can use as a safe slot. Play With Your Food, Ruin, Thrilling Tremors, Pop, or a detection perk. Dark Devotion is a good pick as it'll let you creep up on survivors, which as a Clown is a death sentence for most.
-
@HealsBadMan said:
Being bored as I am, I started looking into the leaks and lore of DBD, wanting to figure out some more details on the Ch. 14 Killer (The Spirit's 'relative')- but before I go spouting off a bunch of info, how deep is the lore in this game overall? I don't want to sound like I'm digging too deep and being a dumb :p
I mean, I wouldn't expect a Shakespeare masterpiece. The game isn't really trying to be that. Its just trying to give context to everything we see.
Which in a game like this where its casual and laid back, is fine by me. Just having the context is fine, I don't need to have entire short stories on killers backgrounds or the survivors history before being taken by the Entity.
-
Corrupt Intervention I have almost as a must since I have yet to get good as Hag and unlock Ruin as a teachable.
There's only a few exceptions I don't use it on. Killers like Freddy for one, as I feel like the first bit of early game where is cooldown is charging is an acceptable amount of time to let a perk like Discordance do its thing (And sometimes you can cheese the cooldown by spamming Control before the match starts, by getting it to charge up then only having the minimal cooldown after canceling).
But otherwise, if I'm playing a low-pressure killer, Corrupt Intervention is a god-send.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/833156#Comment_833156
I’m still not convinced that’s a good idea either. It’s imperative to try and find the first survivor ASAP.
Is it really a good idea to spend that time looking for the perfect totem?
And if a killer does do the sensible thing by not ignoring the first opportunity to jump into a chase, what if the killer finds themselves quickly presented with another chase opportunity? (Such as an unsafe save)
This idea could mean there is the very real possibility a killer is still going through important parts of the match Hex-less, even worse if the plan was to use HL or DH and hooks are being made that’s won’t count towards those perks.
Additionally if survivors now how this mechanic works, you’re bound to have 1 person in a SWF start the match by immediately finding and follow the killer to watch which totem gets activated (similar to the problem Trapper can face)
That'd be up to the killer how to spend their time. If they really want ruin in a good, defendable spot, then they'll look for a good spot. If not, they just plop it down at the first totem they spot.
If they want to save a hex perk for late game, they can do that. Placing Ruin when four gens are left would be particularly dirty but it gives you that insurance and the ability to choose your totem.
I don't see how this is any better than crossing your fingers and hoping Ruin isn't found within 10 seconds of a match starting, which happens pretty frequently; a lot of Hex perks don't go far past early game unless you get lucky; luck shouldn't be a factor.
Or better yet, just let the killer see highlights of the totems and he can select one to curse. Just like Freddy. We know that capability is possible.
Either way, the choice of holding onto a park and not placing it right away is up to the killer. Its not a point against the idea; if they killer doesn't want to spend his match looking for that perfect spot for a totem, just place it and start searching, or place it as you're searching.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Stop asking for the risk to be mitigated for some of the most powerful killer perks in the game.
If killers go into a match without a Plan B in case a hex is cleansed within 30 seconds, that’s on them. Too bad.
Bad perk design isn't "too bad".
RNG is never really good in balance design. I've recommended this before: Let us activate a Hex Perk at will on a Dull Totem, which becomes "Active" after we select it. Before that, no curses are active.
Gives Survivors the benefit of forcing the Killer to set up any Hex Perks (and may make it easier to deduce where it is based on early game movement) and gives the Killer the benefit of choosing where his Totem can be placed without relying on bad RNG mechanics and allows for strategy and map consideration to be used.
-
@Carlosylu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/832706#Comment_832706
I think you're getting me wrong here, lol, I'm not saying no to that skin, I'm saying it would look ridiculous, that's all, I'd buy it with the sunglasses actually
Freddy deserves as much.
Let Freddy have fun lol.
-
The idea of an extended game being a nerf to survivors... is the idea.
The idea is to make it so more games end in more satisfying games. Where the rate of survivors escaping and dying is close to the Killer's rate of sacrifice with as little middle ground as possible.
Seven gens while looking for parts won't be an issue, if you put it up in Red Ranks.
I proposed the parts idea before, but instead of it applying to all survivors, it applies based on ranking. The higher rank, the more parts required for one generator.
-
@Carlosylu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/832687#Comment_832687
Strenght, pure brutal inhuman, entity forged strenght, but come on, talking seriously, it is more believable than being scratched by needles putting you into dying state, if NOED was used and you were fully healed even worse...
It doesn't matter how strong you are or how sharp the object is, slashing through clothing with a jagged blade is sure to get caught.
Unless we're talking blunt weaponry, strength isn't much of a factor as much as precision.
Regardless, its a freaking game, let people have fun.
-
@humanbeing1704 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/832651#Comment_832651
saboteur against a trapper can be fun allows you to shut down immediate retraps
Well, for one, any perk that completely negates a killer power isn't fun, its a cake walk.
Two, the chances of getting a trapper, if we do a dice roll, is 1/15.
-
@Carlosylu said:
Please explain to me how would being scratched by needles would put a human into dying state...?
If you can explain how the Trapper's jagged-ass weapon can cut through fabric with ease without getting caught in the cutting by the bundling up of fabrics, then I can entertain this.
-
@EnviouSLAY said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/807102#Comment_807102
multiple things on that list, only able to pick one for the poll.
You know you can type, right?
-
Self-care + Sabotage used to be the meta way back in early DbD.
You want to talk about a perk that's dead? Sabotage.
-
Otzdarva.
I liked him and gravitated toward him because he has a particular set of videos that are both entertaining and informative. And he doesn't do clickbaity bullcrap.
I used to watch Ardetha, as his clickbaity stuff was pretty minimal, but recently he's been doing videos that just haven't been appealing to me.
I hate a lot of DbD videos because most of it boils down to, "SECRET OP BUILD!?!?" or "X IS SO BROKEN!" or worse yet, "WATCH THIS KILLER/SURVIVOR RAGE OVER INFINATE LOOP/CHEESE BUILD!"
Watching people get upset doesn't give me any pleasure, and it genuinely upsets me because it really shows how low the value of entertainment is in this game, where we have to ruin other people's experiences with the game for the sake of entertainment.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
I haven't played against Furtive Chase much as survivor (because it's not that great or popular of a perk) but from the handful of times I have seen it, it's basically like a reverse Monitor & Abuse.
When a killer chases you with M&A, their heartbeat becomes noticeably more intense when the chase starts. You can also tell the killer has it when the chase someone else nearby, you will suddenly hear a heartbeat.
For Furtive it's the opposite. The heartbeat becomes less intense, however you will still hear chase music. The killer will also tend to focus on the obsession, which is generally unusual given that 4 out of the 6 killer obsession perks basically require you to ignore this person (Rancor doesn't require it, but you are encouraged to keep them around if you want a mori).
For nearby survivors, they would hear a heartbeat and then it suddenly disappears. Considering how rare this perk is, most survivors probably won't realize it's because of Furtive and instead will assume the killer moved farther away. So you can use it to get the drop on them. But this only works as long as Furtive is a super uncommon perk to go against. If more killers start to use it, survivors will get used to the effects and it will become less effective in the long run.
IMO it's a niche perk. Good for particular builds but not very effective. You are generally just better off using M&A or even Tinkerer. The specific requirements to get tokens and the fact you lose them if the obsession dies really kind of hurt this perk.
I disagree greatly. The ability to switch your obsession will mean you can use certain obsession perks selectively.
It allows you to down your obsession without risking killing them off the whole match and forcing to DS or make your obsession perks useless.
If you plan it carefully, Furtive Chase is a gamechanger for obsession perks as it allows you to have an obsession the whole match without risking a DS.
While it is 'niche' in that it requires a particular obsession build to be useful, I don't think its a bad or weak perk because of it.
-
For me, when people use Head On, it means they're exhausted now and gives me a better chance to get them.
If someone throws themselves in front of me I'll give them the hit, but otherwise, why pass up the chance to get someone who wanted to get a cheeky stun?
Has nothing to do with being butthurt about being stunned, more so that I know they're exhausted now and can't keep running around forever.
-
TV Freddy for Killer Skins 2020.
-
@EuphoricBliss35 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/820158#Comment_820158
Regressing exit gate sounds scary? Lol
if you’ve lost 5 gens and you haven’t killed anyone, I hate to break it to you, you’re not getting a 4K unless it’s a swf that’s feels bad for you and is going to meme their own death
Also, that’s not “why people DC” - people whom rage DC can’t keep their emotions in check, accept defeat, and move on. That’s not so much a criticism as it is describing what’s happening in that particular moment
”you should never feel like you don’t have control” spoken like a control loving person :)
Its almost like video games are meant to be played and not sat through watching other people do things. Its almost like control is a necessary function for video games to even function properly and to produce fun for the player.
But no, just jump on some ad hominem 'control freak' insult and be on your way. Not like you had anything of value to add anyway.
-
@SkeletalElite said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/820145#Comment_820145
Saying it's outside of your control because they have the exit gate is 99 is like saying you should be able to get piece reset when someone gets checkmate in chess. They've already achieved their goal you were supposed to prevent getting to that point in the first place.
I doubt it would make a big difference anyways. Going to regress an exit gate would means losing whoever is on the hook/being chased 95% of the time and the other 4% of the time it wont matter because the survivors will have the gate 99 but open it before you have the opportunity to regress it. The only reason for a survivor to leave the gate after the gate its 99 is to help their team. If you're going to the gate that means they either A) have no team to help that aren't also going to the gate (since you don't have a hooked, downed, or chased survivor) or B) by going to the gate you have left your only leverage on the survivors (usually a downed or hooked survivor) unguarded and are now going to lose it. Also if you were to leave whoever you have hooked or downed to regress an exit not only do you risk losing the survivor you already had but you also risk not even regressing the gate because another survivor was still waiting at the gate while the save happened.
I know that's not how it plays out now because survivors leave the 99 gate after its 99 since it's safe to do so. If this change were implemented survivors would just adapt by not leaving the gate without a reason to do so, the same way they adapted to just 99ing gates when the end game collapse hits. The first and foremost purpose of the end game collapse was to stop the game from being held hostage, not to be a second chance for you to kill the entire team after you already failed the first time.
By your logic, Pop Goes shouldn't be a perk, because the Survivors already got that amount of progress on a Gen done and that's their objective, so its your fault for letting them get that far.
The rest of what you said is just being dismissive and saying things I never said, like suggesting I thought End Game Collapse was ever meant to give killers a second chance. Or that this idea was somehow meant to be completely meta-changing and because it isn't it somehow invalidates any suggestion I made.
An idea doesn't have to be grand or meta-changing to be considered.
-
@Rydog said:
If we're going for those two choices, then sure, New Nightmare Freddy. I'd settle for an overall Robert Englund-style Freddy.
Also, New Nightmare the worst Freddy movie? What? I have never seen anyone argue this position, and I would almost go as far as to say that it's just about objectively not true, for anyone who has seen, say, Freddy's Dead. New Nightmare is the best one after the original and Dream Warriors!
I dunno, I haven't watched the film. I've only seen the first one years ago.
Whoever told me New Nightmare was the worst, eh.
-
@Zenbe10 said:
A few critiques:
1. The first part of the perk would be incredibly difficult to balance with Unnerving Presence. Imagine a build with Splintering Blows, Distressing, Unnerving Presence, and Sloppy Butcher. Survivors would be unable to heal to full without letting you know where they are, plus it takes forever, plus they’re missing skill-checks. (Look up Unnerving + Overcharge on YouTube. It’s nasty. But that happens ONCE per kicked gen. Now imagine that EVERY skill check, including healing which you need to do to get rid of this insane debuff.) I’m not sure a debuff like this would ever be fair.
2. The third part of this perk is also too much. Rancor requires it to be endgame (and only one survivor) and Hex: Devour Hope requires a lot of work beforehand and is a hex. This has neither of those conditions. Plus, perks that encourage slugging are not exactly common, and that’s for good reason. You want a slugging nurse with Nurse’s Calling to have this? Then you die on the floor and if someone tries to heal you, they get slugged too. This third part would be too good even as its own perk.
3. I like the second part a lot. That alone would be a good perk. That alone would apply a lot of pressure, and would cause people to die on the floor a lot more than you’d think. Plus, it still encourages slugging like what you’re going for. I think if it was to actually be balanced, this perk would only be the second part you’ve written, where whenever the survivor is put into the dying state by your basic attack, the death timer of their dying state is reduced by 20/25/30 seconds. Having it do that PLUS the other two extremely powerful (and abuseable) things you’ve mentioned would be unthinkably broken.
Could be a timer instead; instead of having it until they're healed to full, they have tremendously difficult skillchecks for 60 seconds.
-
@Kees_T said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/820306#Comment_820306
That.. was an survivor joke. But it's an good idea in general, but for me, I rarely do slugging builds since you don't get much BP for that match, but its just for fun, its great, to the killer of course hehehe >:D
Sorry, sarcasm doesn't register through text well.
-
@Kees_T said:
As an survivor main, I find this offensive, now please, DelETe tHIs
How is this offensive? It actively encourages healing to full, and out of four minutes, you'd need to be downed at least 8 times before you'd be killed.
You have to be downed 3 and hooked for all three of those to be sacrificed.
The 30 second timer is added pressure, and assuming you're not left on the ground, it doesn't do much until late game.
-
@GeneralSpudmuffin said:
This is evil, and I love it.
I take pride in making evil perks.
-
@Karaage said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/434/YVEGDMV3QTZ9.png
False Hope
When all is lost, they hold on to the last glimmer of hope... but none may escape Your grasp.
Once Hatch has spawned, gain ability to see Hatch's Aura within 24 metres. Standing still on top ot the Hatch for 2 seconds activates the Perk.
Next time Survivor interacts with the Hatch, the Hatch is closed for 40/50/60 seconds and all Survivors' location is revealed for 5 seconds. Hatch is blocked by The Entity and cannot be opened until timer expires. Hatch automatically opens again when timer expires. This effect can only be activated once per Trial.
While the timer is running, all Survivors gain Exposed Status Effect.
Its a nice troll perk. Something to put in on YouTube Videos. But can't see an application beside the aura reveal. Perk slots are unbelievably valuable, and you can hear the Hatch anyway when you get close enough, so having a hatch aura reveal is... meh.
The blocking of the hatch is nice to trap it for cheeky survivor teams with keys. But again, very niche. I suspect this will be like Blood Warden, where its use is so niche and specific you wouldn't see it ran often.
-
@Karl_Childers said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/818482#Comment_818482
Yet they have the ability to attempt, and occasionally succeed at pulling themselves off that hook. But we are going to go the realistic route when it comes to simply signaling the killer is there? I guess!
While we're at it, why don't we have Mori'd survivors point out the Killer location while spectating?
Better yet, lets have the Survivor's ghost emote at other survivors where the Killer is.
Or, would that be too unrealistic?
Its not like there's perks specifically made to figure out where the killer is or anything.
-
@EuphoricBliss35 said:
You shouldn’t be playing to defend the exits after 5 gens are done. If you are, Remember Me, Blood Warden, NOED, etc. Don’t let 5 gens get done. I don’t mean that to sound like “uh doy git gud.”
This mentality is why people DC.
"Why should I keep playing if the game, at this point, is completely outside my control?"
At no point in any game should the player feel like they have no control or way to control a situation.
Also, its not an argument to say, "You should be playing like this" especially in regards to end-game. When your entire point is to be like "Don't let them win, duh." Then you don't have a point. The concept of a regressing exit gate just sounds too scary.
-
@SkeletalElite said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/819001#Comment_819001
If the gate is 99 its practically open anyways so you may as well just start the collapose
Or...
We can implement this and not have to worry about more things in the game that's outside our control?
-
@SkeletalElite said:
Or just open it yourself if you see it 99
And that's supposed to benefit the killer, how?
The dumbest idea is to invoke an end-game collapse via opening the exit gates.
You're giving them a free out.
-
Did you die?
If you die, you lose items and their addons.
-
@Karl_Childers said:
Absolutely. It seriously makes no sense that the hooked survivor can know the exact whereabouts of the killer, and be able to do or say nothing. It’s stupid. If not an emote (the silly waving arms thing does NOT count), then maybe some sort of thing like Ghostface where if you look directly at the killer within x meters his aura lights up or something. It would be the equivalent of the survivor simply saying “he’s right there!!”
Having a hook halfway through their torso is probably reason enough to not think straight.
People tend not to think or act logically when in agonizing pain, who knew?
-
@Khroalthemadbomber said:
It was stated in the newest bit of lore in the Withering Blight event where The Withered are just husks of beings no longer fit to be Survivors or Killers and are just left behind to rot away until they are inevitable expelled from The Entity's body during The Hallowed Blight. The orange goo is basically digested peoples and excess extreme emotions converted to energy that The Entity didn't fully consume.
So the Entity shits out orange goop?
-
@JetTheWaffleCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/818230#Comment_818230
Those syringe addons would be pretty nice as well. They can be used to have some early game pressure.
I do agree that she needs more Ambush addons. I'd be happy if we removed some of the RBT status effect addons such as utility blades to have some Ambush enhancers of some sort.
Not sure if BHVR needs to remove any addons.
Dunno why there needs to be a limit as to how many addons a killer can have.
-
@JetTheWaffleCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/818147#Comment_818147
It would be really neat, but what would Rule Set 2 do then? I was thinking that it would drastically change how to play Pig and it's like playing a different version of her.
Maybe something with the RBT being on the survivors at the start of the trial and their keys are attached to a certain survivor.
The survivors can't tell which survivor is attached to their trap.
After being hooked twice the Pig can mori the survivor in question and the attached survivor's trap becomes active and they have to search the corpse for the key.
The survivor has a shorter amount of time to get the trap off since they only have to search one thing.
There would have to be something to keep the Pig from staying on the corpse to insure the attached survivor dies as well thought.
This is just a spitball idea that I came up with off the bat.
I've had this idea too.
[Very Rare] Partially Filled Syringe
A syringe a quarter filled with a sedative, enough to put one favored victim asleep in preparation for the game.
- Match selects an obsession.
- Obsession begins the trial with an inactive reverse bear trap on their head.
[Ultra Rare] Filled Syringe
A syringe completely filled with a sedative, enough to put multiple victims asleep in preparation for the game.
- All survivors start the trial with inactive reverse bear traps on their head.
- Slightly increases the reverse bear trap death timer.
-
If they make Rule Set #2 basekit, I think that'd be a strong enough buff for her power.
Ambush is strong, but needs more Addons.
-
Solos Survs don't need to be on-par with SWF groups. SWF groups is a system that completely breaks the mold that the game was constructed for.
In every game, ever, solo play is going to be more difficult than a good team with communication. You'll see this in every game. FPS games, MOBAs, Asymmetrical Horror... pretty much every competitive game is enhanced with communication (not to say that going solo is a death sentence).
Problem is, this game was not constructed for team play. Since the Beta and Early Release, in truth, it completely rejected the idea of cooperative play; it tried to ban the use of Steam Voice, nobody could join in games. That's why perks that grant more information to each other was developed in the first place, because otherwise you'd be blind and naked, so to speak. And that's what the Beta release and Early versions of the game was trying to do and balance around.
Now, since SWFs, BHVR has been trying to ignore/fix the problem since, a problem so glaring that the only real solutions seems to be directly making game experience harder for SWF teams or removing it altogether.
What you're doing, is experiencing the game as it was originally meant to be played, without any nerfs or buffs or any consideration as to what that kind of play would feel like.
Now either join a SWF team, or take Kindered. Stop being shocked that Solo is harder than SWF.