Rydog
Rydog
About
- Username
- Rydog
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,015
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Judgement said:
If they’re to make any perks baseline, it should not be teachables - only non-teachable perks should be made baseline. Not all of the non-teachables should be base either, just some of them.
For the purposes of this discussion and the balance ideas that I am suggesting, that's an arbitrary limitation. Any perk can be redesigned.
Focus more on the big-picture idea that there may be some perks that would result in major QoL upgrades and healthy meta shifts if they were baked into base kits. Try to really consider how that would impact the overall experience, rather than getting caught up in the weeds of what character owns this or that perk.
-
@Jdsgames Hah! OK, well I did ask for counterpoints. Thanks for indulging me. :D
I disagree with your blanket perspective about wall hacks, simply because we're talking about things that are already in the game. Bond is only useful up to a certain distance, and my point is that it would encourage cooperative play among the survivor players, and make them feel less "alone together" moment-to-moment. It's one of the top "must-run" perks for a lot of players anyway, so it's not like it isn't already very prevalent. This is a "false choice" perk for me, since I never see any reason to NOT run it.
@fcc2014 made a good point earlier about the "all survivors see each other" part of Kindred. To clarify, the part I'd like to see implemented for everyone ISN'T that, it's the "Everyone can see the killer when he is within X meters of the hook" bit. This would send a clear message when the killer is camping, and give the survivors the information they need to punish that behavior (while also incentivizing the killer to NOT do it without a good reason).
Whispers and Bitter Murmur would, I would hope, help close the gap in terms of the killer performing their most basic job, which is finding survivors. It's not always easy without detection perks. Bitter Murmur is like BBQ in that it doesn't let you absolutely zero in on people, but it gives you a good indication of which general direction to head in. I don't think this is too much of an issue.
Whispers seems to be controversial, but again I'll say it's a useful radar for knowing when you're in the right ballpark (or when you don't need to check any closer on, say, that gen over to your right). I feel like a lot of the response to it in this thread indicates people don't know how to "read" it effectively, and I'm personally going off of a base understanding that it is a good, consistently useful perk that all killers benefit from (which I am convinced it very much is). Also, let's assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that the audio cue could be changed to something else if it is a big issue for everyone.
For the two BP perks, my personal opinion is that it wouldn't be over-rewarding -- it would just be an easy way to up BP rewards across the board significantly for common player actions, which I think needs to happen anyway, one way or another.
-
Wow, imagine a forum where you can't have private discussions with other users. What a bizarre choice.
-
@KillermainBTWm8 said:
The ones I like are Kindred being baseline to help with solo play as issues of survivors not seeing each other leads to either people not saving the one that is hooked or too many showing up to the hook. I also like BBQ and WGLF being baseline but that's about it. If survivors are going to get Kindred I personally think that bond shouldn't be available because too much aura reading imo. The reason I don't like Bitter murmur and Whispers is because of the viability of stealth, stealth is one of the mechanics that really isn't that viable any more and this would weaken stealth even further.
I'm a stealth player myself, and I think these killer difficulties are way more urgent than the stealth gameplay aspect. Then again, I also believe that if you can't consistently play around these kinds of detection perks, you aren't doing a very good job at being stealthy anyway.
-
@Jdsgames said:
I am against most of these being baseline.
Why?
-
@Crazewtboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/595538#Comment_595538
I do just fine without the annoying voice in my ears. I have never had a problem finding survivors so if this ever does happen it should at least be able to be toggled.
Finding survivors, broadly, is tough for a lot of killers and ends up wasting a lot of time (something that is always against the killer), without the help of detection perks.
-
@Crazewtboy said:
I would hate having whispers built in on my killers. It takes away from being able to hear footsteps, groans of pain, etc. and instead gives me a useless notification that someone is in the area by ######### my ears. It would be good for new killers, but not experienced ones.
To each their own, but I cannot play killer without Whispers. It's a useful radar that helps to narrow down where survivors are (and just as importantly, where they AREN'T). I think it's the best all-purpose killer perk in the game. I don't have an issue with it interfering with sound cues, but it could probably be changed to a visual-only cue that accomplishes the same thing.
-
@fcc2014 Ah yeah, that's a good point about Kindred -- the meaningful part of it is the "Everyone can see the killer when he stays within X meters of the hook" part.
The rest of them would be healthy QoL upgrades all around.
-
Good talk.
-
I have a real problem with facecamping, and I think there should be mechanics that aggressively de-incentivize this behavior.
At the same time, as someone who's played both sides, I also think that a lot of players are way too liberal about how they define "camping," and will then wield that as a cudgel in chat when they lose.
If you know for a fact that there's someone right there under you, and you patrol the hook because that's obviously the right choice, they should be sore at their teammate and not you. And "soft" hook camping when BBQ doesn't reveal anyone, or when the exit gates are opened and Borrowed Time users are likely to dive someone who's hooked near the door -- this is sometimes a smart play because other survivors are in your proximity.
Ultimately, just don't engage these kinds of sore losers in chat. It's not worth your time. Just type "gg" and leave.
-
How could anyone possibly think the old DS was more balanced? Like, there isn't even a reasonable position for you to take.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/595358#Comment_595358
I'm not really a snorer, but if I'm on my back I can snore. And I can confirm this is a real thing LOL.
Haha yep I've done the same thing.
-
Random chance to wake yourself up from snoring!
-
As a survivor, my favorite realms are:
- Coldwind Farm (corn blindness!)
- Yamaoka Estate (bamboo blindness!)
- Haddonfield (I've grown to like it, mostly because it's very survivor-sided once you learn how to navigate it)
My least favorite realms as a survivor are:
- Gideon Meat Plant (the upper and lower areas throw off tracking perks and are just a pain to navigate, and it's got a lot of map-specific claptrap in terms of finding generators and negotiating some of the drops to the lower level)
- Springwood (it's just a bad map that's too cramped and hard to navigate)
-
@Chickenchaser said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/595256#Comment_595256
It's good that you can predict the future so precisely you know what the devs will do, and what my reaction would be to new toxic behavior. You wouldn't have the loto numbers by any chance?
And you explained teabaggings toxic history. Instantly throwing your argument away.
GG
It seems like you are just trying to vent and stomp your feet about how you think the developers should try to police behavior that you can't get over. Not everything can be fixed by a game mechanic (like it's been said here, poor sportsmen will just find some other way to taunt).
You have to remember that it's another human on the other end, and they might be taking out their bad day on you, or they're just out to be a jerk for kicks. You really ought to work on how you react to those kinds of situations. They do not affect your life beyond the present moment of whatever specific match you're playing, and this kind of behavior also doesn't take away your ability to reason out a better attack plan than just CHASE THIS JERK RIGHT NOW.
It is not worth getting as worked up over it as you are in this thread, especially because that is exactly what these stupid players want to see.
-
@Chickenchaser I dunno what to tell you; poor sportsmen will always find a way. Always try to remind yourself that it's not your fault they're acting like jerks, and you cannot control their actions or their attitudes. For my part, unless someone was doing some exceptionally gross facecamping or outright exploiting or something, I will at minimum drop a "gg" in chat regardless of how I performed.
As to the really awful ones who, immediately in endgame chat, start in with all the "GG EZ EZ EZ BABY KILLER UNINSTALL TRASH" stuff... well, remember what my wife tells me: This video game is probably all those people have in life.
-
More importantly, the messy litigation that has been ongoing for the past year and some change, between original Friday the 13th filmmakers Victor Miller and Sean Cunningham, probably means this is a hard "no" for the foreseeable future.
-
Yeah, people are always going to find ways to taunt the other side. Getting tilted by teabagging is exactly what your opponent wants you to do, so that you play worse. Just let it roll off your back, abandon the chase if you're not getting anywhere productive, and try to focus on someone else.
-
Wat
-
It's because it's a name that's easy to get wrong, due to multiple common spellings.
-
Also, anecdotally, no SWF group I've been a part of has ever been as omnipotent and well-organized as the OP is suggesting. It's more like:
"Killer's chasing me, go do gens."
"Is he over there?" "I think so."
"Gen is almost done, go find a door. Wait he's on me, never mind."
"Over here." "Where? I don't see you, I'm not running Bond." "Dammit just a sec." "Is that you?" "Yeah."
"Just lost a Distortion stack, so... BBQ."
"He totally has BBQ, he just beelined toward me." "I didn't lose a Distortion stack though." "Were you too close?" "Maybe." "Well I'll hide in a locker next time to be safe." "I dunno man, I don't think he has BBQ. Maybe he just knows what he's doing." "God dammit I'm down."
Now, like I've said elsewhere, I feel like the game does need to be balanced around comms because people are using it. And some SWF groups are just out to be toxic bullies, which is the big problem. Not every single SWF is the A-Team though.
-
Behaviour has no way of policing your use of other programs that aren't modifying the game files. Attempting to do so would probably violate their platform agreements at best, and get tagged by AV programs as a virus at worst. How people don't understand this, I'll never know.
-
Mindgames in other competitive genres are much the same way -- you're trying to get inside your opponent's head and proactively counter what you think they're going to do.
Like in Street Fighter, dude jumps over a fireball once and gets anti-aired (AA). Next time he might throw a fireball, then walk forward and bait out an AA, and then punish it because his opponent was expecting it based on past behavior. But maybe his opponent suspected THAT, so he didn't AA, and instead countered the guy's punish...
This concept is called Yomi.
Killers such as Spirit are very heavy on it. Both sides are working with imperfect information, and trying to predict their opponent's actions based on past behavior. People in this game just get way more defensive about it because the survivor player is exposed to a lot more risk if the exchange doesn't go in their favor.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Cut genrepairtime in half or at least a third.
You need your head checked.
-
@shmoul said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/593661#Comment_593661
So you want to remove chases from this game and make it a gen rushing sim?
If you can reliably put a full stop to any loops, the skill of the killer and survivor becomes irrelevant, kinda like with the old legion.
No, I'm saying exactly what I said -- since survivors always have the clear advantage as a group in the big picture of a match, killers should routinely have the clear advantage (in their own way, specific to each killer) in individual chase situations, because there must be instances where killers are dominant in no uncertain terms.
Clown is dominant in the here-and-now of chases because he cuts off loops. Hag can basically shut down an entire map quadrant. Spirit happens to be able to catch up to survivors really fast. All three take some savvy in the part of the player.
Meanwhile, the survivors, AS A GROUP, still have an advantage that they can keep pressing by doing gens, which is their main gameplay objective while the killer is busy overpowering the INDIVIDUAL survivor (which killer should have the power to do).
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths, but it seems like people want individual survivors to be able to get an upper hand on the killer. I think the survivors have to be looked at as a group, in terms of gameplay balance.
Just because you died doesn't mean you failed, it probably means you bought the group more time to escape. This is why you can earn emblems and rank up even though you died.
-
I think she just needs 115% move speed on top of her current kit. There need to be killers who just roundly shut down chases and loops, full stop, and force players into altruistic and objective-centric behavior in order to succeed, and not endless loops.
Survivors have a lot of power in the big-picture, us-as-a-group sense, because the clock is always ticking on the killer. Killers who have a lot of advantage in individual, one-on-one chase circumstances need to be the ones that the rest of the game is balanced around.
People get extremely hyper-focused on the balance as it pertains to individual survivor outcomes and escapes, where everything should realistically hinge on the survivors as a group. One or two people might die, but if it enables the others to escape, it's still a success, and those dead people probably wound up pipping, too.
-
-
@BlueFang Yeah man, you nailed it. Just those two things, and they can close the books on this truly perfect design. Case closed.
Looking forward to the immaculate, perfect community and equitable mechanics that these changes will bring about, the last two things DBD will ever need.
Mods, you can go ahead and close this thread and maybe the entire forum, this is a wrap.
-
@ArecBalrin And don't get me wrong, I absolutely share in the sentiment that "Hey, developers, why don't you address [insert problem]? It's making a lot of people upset and/or frustrated, and it would really make everyone happier if you would just chime in and tell us ######### is going on and how you're going to solve it."
I get just as irate as anyone else when I see some garbage mechanics or player behavior that the developer has not sufficiently addressed, or that they are interminably dragging their feet on. But I also know that they aren't always going to share my priorities or my perspective on the matter.
-
Oh, duh. I feel stupid now.
-
@ArecBalrin I do not think the developers would agree that they have a moral responsibility to answer questions. This is the crux of what I'm getting at -- you're trying to apply your worldview on this particular issue to a separate group of people that do not share this perspective, and that you could never reasonably expect to share this perspective, regardless of the grievances that we have with them and their game.
-
Yeah, if I encounter a super-looper early enough in the game and I'm not getting gen rushed out of the gate, I'll stay in the chase a bit and eat a pallet or three, so that they're not an issue later. It's especially nice to get the killer shack pallet out of the way early.
-
The best advice I can give you is to lean on certain perks. Deliverance is one way to deal with a camper at least some of the time if he's not standing literally on top of you, and Decisive Strike and Borrowed Time help to deter tunneling. Once you're on the hook, you're at the mercy of the killer and your teammates. It really sucks that Behaviour doesn't do more to aggressively de-incentivize this kind of behavior.
-
(Also, maybe the question in my courtroom analogy is a little stupid and too direct for the hypothetical that I set up. It could be any question. "Were you at this address, at this time, on this day?" "No." You don't immediately volunteer where you were, you just answer the question as-asked.)
-
@ArecBalrin I am not trying to argue in bad faith, I'm not on anyone's side here. I'm trying to look at it from the perspective of the person being asked the question.
This is a bit of a lopsided analogy, but bear with me: If you were in, like, a courtroom, and a lawyer asked you a direct question on the stand -- say, "Did you steal the thing you are accused of stealing?" the correct answer (and let's assume the truth for the purposes of this pretend analogy) is simply "No." You don't volunteer additional information, because a) You weren't asked for it, and b) You have no idea, based on the question alone, what the inquirer's agenda is.
I don't know what the temperature, so to speak, was like in the room where you were asking your question. Were there a bunch of big problems? Were the developers in hot water for something at the time that this question was being answered? Were they trying to downplay some big, awful issue? It sounds like you're expecting them to read between the lines, but from their perspective, they don't exactly owe us that.
We all have our issues with this game and how the developers go about maintaining and balancing it, as we have discussed in this very thread. They roundly deserve the criticism. I try to mostly be constructive and actionable about my feedback (though I have admittedly posted some things on this forum out of frustration), but I can't expect the developers to really share the player perspective and readily spill every piece of information and data that they have. I think your threshold for bad-faith discussions might be kind of wonky.
-
Yeah, like others have said, know when to abandon a chase. It's a waste of your time to chase someone who is specifically built to loop you and runs the whole map like a champion. Break it off, go after other survivors, and whittle down those pallets.
Later in the match, if you've done OK, the champion looper won't have as many bailouts to get away from you.
-
@ArecBalrin But it's not a wide-open question, it's a really specific question. You asked "As a ratio, how many survivors-to-killers are playing the game right now?" and they gave you, specifically, a ratio of how many survivors-to-killers are playing the game right now. They gave you the answer you were seeking. I can't fault that as a bad-faith exchange.
If someone showed you that question and that answer in a vacuum, with no other context in terms of whatever baggage and issues accompany this game and this developer and this player base, can you honestly tell me that you would conclude it isn't a fair and straightforward answer? What unsaid information were you hoping, specifically, to get out of it?
In the Q&A thread for Thursday's Twitch stream, I asked this: "Would you ever consider removing perk tiers, so that each perk only has one version? With 65 total survivor perks and 60 total killer perks, this would alleviate the most oppressive aspects of the grind, and actually make prestige a tempting decision, while still requiring players to put time into building up characters."
If this question is selected, I am anticipating them 1) answering the question posed in the first sentence, and 2) addressing the big-picture concern that led to my asking the question (which I have made very clear here). Without the context of that second part, I could rightly expect them to simply answer "No."
-
UPDATE: I just played a second Freddy game with snares instead of pallets, and those feel a LOT better to use by a country mile.
What I said about his teleport and the game brightness still stands. I feel like teleport is way more useful as a tactic to scare survivors away from gens as a fakeout. Like, that seems as though it's a way better use than just teleporting. That's not a great place for it to be in.
Sound is also way too echo-y. I know Freddy's in the dream world and all that, but his overall "sound profile" is really jarring. I wish it were more normalized.
And, I dunno if this is a bug or what, but I consistently cannot successfully hit or grab survivors who are going for unhooks. It felt to me like they had a BT effect, on the unhooker. Is this some Freddy-specific peculiarity that I don't know about, or is it a new issue for all killers, introduced in this patch?
-
@ArecBalrin I would call that a fair answer to the question as-asked. They did tell you the ratio, which was specifically what you inquired about. I mean, what context would you reasonably want to go with it? It wouldn't matter if, say, he were drawing from a player base of 30,000 or 300,000 -- the ratio is still 2.6:1.
I understand you probably wanted more data, but I can see how the question as-asked would lead to a straightforward and simple answer.
-
@ArecBalrin What question did you ask them, and how did they answer it?
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Well spirits power completely negates every defense a survivor has, she needs to be nerfed completely.
A survivor. A. Single. One. I brought this up in an earlier reply, but the killer should necessarily have the advantage in an individual chase scenario, because the survivors AS A GROUP have the advantage game-wide because time is always against the killer. The survivors can't always have every advantage at all times.
-
@ArecBalrin I don't want to come across like I'm trying to defend the developers; I'm not, and they do make a lot of really boneheaded mistakes, and often fall on their faces when it comes to addressing the game's real, serious problems. I hope we can at least agree on that.
Although I don't necessarily agree with all of the logic behind the Freddy rework, I think two years is a ridiculously unacceptable time frame to wait for such a huge overhaul. They're clearly bad at prioritizing. I still have to think that, like any sizable game development studio, they weigh development and balance decisions based on data and internal testing. They're not obligated in any way to share their internal data with us, or even to justify their decisions in any way they don't feel appropriate, but the fact that they screw so much up (and don't prioritize well) inevitably leads to a lot of our collective bad faith about the whole process.
I dunno what the answer is. I just want them to fix all the broken stuff about their game, like, yesterday, because three years is already an inappropriate grace period from a player perspective.
-
@ArecBalrin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/593065#Comment_593065
Are you serious? Freddy was the worst killer in the game and he was nerfed within days of being released, because of feedback mainly coming from people who didn't even own the game but played on a free-weekend. This wasn't that long ago. I can list more but if you can't remember Freddy, you won't remember anything else either.
Freddy came out almost two years ago.
Also, balance adjustments are almost certainly based, predominantly, on internal data that we can't see. They don't just make giant changes based entirely on the whims of a few vocal people on a forum.
Game development does not happen the way you think it does.
-
@ArecBalrin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/592950#Comment_592950
Wanting fairness and being against double-standards = entitlement.
I'll wait for your post to get approved. Mine usually do about a week later. I no longer bother correcting spelling and grammar mistakes.
I mean, for you to believe that players can or do have such sway over design decisions, to the degree that you're implying, is unbelievably wrongheaded. Behaviour's designers do not sit in some smoke-filled room, fingers steepled, cackling about how they are going to screw over the killer players in the next patch.
-
LOL, can you imagine the killer's identity being a lobby-wide vote? It would just be nothing but D-tier killers all day every day.
-
I think full-on reworks are a bad, baaaaaaaaaaad idea for this game, given how much players are asked to invest in a single character.
I've already lost Freddy. If they were to make a habit of this, and I felt like I constantly had to fear them hitting the reset button on a character I've spent millions and millions of BP on, I would just stop playing the killer role altogether.
-
God, my comment got thrown into an approval void after I edited it twice. That basically means it's gone forever.
TL;DR: @ArecBalrin you have a rampantly entitled worldview, I assure you that Behavior knows its players are not game designers. The buck stops with them. And, survivor/killer tribalism is so dumb. Get real, most people play both, and would like both to be an enjoyable experience.
-
@ArecBalrin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/592013#Comment_592013
The 'audience'(IE; survivors) actively lobbied for all of the features that have produced the state of the game as it is now. Killers are blamess; we're not listened to.
The players did not design the game or choose how to implement any of its features. If they implemented even half the ideas on these forums, the game with be unplayable. Players are not game designers, and I definitely, definitely assure you that Behaviour knows this. You have a very weird and entitled worldview.
EDIT: Also, it's so weird to me to see this kind of aggressive tribalism. You'd think we were discussing politics, the way that people cling to their 'sides' with regard to survivor and killer. I suspect that data would show us most players play both roles. I know I definitely do, and believe that the game would obviously be better with a more even balance.
-
I really do love this trend of using busted caps to mock stupid meritless arguments.
-
@NMCKE I myself do often try to take actions that I personally feel are equitable and fair when, say, one of the survivors disconnects immediately (I might let them finish a gen, or just kinda mill about and chase without being very aggressive). And when I wind up downing someone right at the open gate, sometimes I'll let them crawl out because I know how awful it feels to get caught right at the finish line.
But you can't EXPECT that kind of behavior from everyone. It's a losing proposition if you try to.
Imagine if the game mechanics awarded survivors an instant gen completion if someone disconnected (and also, say, immediately de-ranked that guy -5 full ranks and/or docked 100k BP). Now THAT would be a way to account for bad behavior within the mechanics themselves, and a good attempt to keep a bad actor from ruining it.