Rydog
Rydog
About
- Username
- Rydog
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,015
- Last Active
Comments
-
@ClogWench said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/562909#Comment_562909
He thinks 3 gens get immediately done in the first minute of the game every time. Doesn't know how to apply pressure.
I have my issues with this Freddy rework, but where are all you people finding these matches where survivors instantly repair 3 gens in the first minute? I've been up against some efficient survivor groups, but I have never seen this happen, not that quickly.
-
Yes, using auras to find people was great.
-
If killer rank score was determined chiefly by hooks/kills, and survivor rank score was determined chiefly by gen repairs and escapes, the whole game would make a lot more intuitive sense to everyone. You need a frigging spreadsheet to explain the pipping system to someone right now, and it IS positively ridiculous that a killer could conceivably get 4k and still just safety pip. It does not make intuitive sense.
-
@Speshul_Kitten said:
@George_Soros You are absolutely right. I feel the exact same way. I’ve put in 3000+ hours to get most my characters maxed out in prestige and perks and yet “reduced grind” doesn’t seem fair to us. Kinda like the players who were able to get Legacy for grinding so hard.
It's not an accomplishment. It's a video game. It should be at least reasonably convenient for players, which it absolutely is not right now. It was more reasonable when the game launched with 21 teachable perks, but now there are 125.
I have exalted every reputation in World of Warcraft, which took a long time. But I also wouldn't protest if Blizzard overhauled the whole reputation system, because a lot of it is a stupid pointless grind. Just because I made the choice to put up with a bunch of annoyance doesn't mean it should stay that way.
-
@gantes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/560400#Comment_560400
Tell me how a power that's designed EXCLUSIVELY to make the game longer with little to no skill expression or interactiveness is good for the game.
If this is the bar, then any number of things would need to be removed or reworked -- Hex: Ruin, Overcharge, Corrupt Intervention, Thrilling Tremors, Deerstalker, Doctor in general, Pig in general, slugging in general. Most of those mechanics have some form of counterplay, as does Freddy's sleep state (fail a skill check or get woken up by a teammate).
The bigger issue is that -- by design -- it is always in the killer's best interests to draw out the game, because time is never on their side.
-
Having the option for comms would be nice, and would provide for a built-in option to narrow the gap for solo survivors while also just laying bare for everyone where the game realistically stands.
And if you don't want to use or hear voice chat, I imagine you would be able to turn it off. I used to do this all the time in Overwatch when people were being awful, and it worked out just fine.
Barring this, some sort of in-match text chat between survivors would be helpful, too.
-
I have never chosen targets this way as a killer, and have never thought to consider whether this was affecting my survival rate on the other side. Now I want to play a game with Claudette's default outfit, to see if anything changes. :D
-
@FredKrueger said:
I like the current Freddy now and main him quite often. What I don't like tho is how defenseless he is at endgame and how easily survivors can wake up. If the gates get powered, whoever is awake is escaping, plain and simple. I'm excited that there changing that, but I'm afraid he's gonna get the legion/GF treatment of a power that has a cooldown and survivors can break him out or some dumb crap. Freddy is my favorite character of all time, so I hope he finally gets the right re-work, but I seriously have my doubts
Yeah, anything that isn't stealth and can't read auras globally is not going to be an improvement. I like the idea of the new design's snare traps and teleporting to gens, but he needs to be able to see auras of survivors who are asleep (and outside of his terror radius), just like he can now.
-
Yeah, we're in dire need of something that alleviates the perk grind. Having to grind out tons of webs on one character is a little silly, especially considering the randomness of it all AND how perk-reliant the game is. I don't know how a new player ever has a good experience playing killer, like, at all.
-
@gantes said:
The truth is, his design is garbage and they're not gonna let a licensed character with an objectively garbage design.
People have been begging (and rightfully so) for this rework for ages now. Now we're getting it.
The only people defending Freddy's current iteration either struggle way too much with tracking or are extremely afraid of change.
None of these arguments hold water, because he's been in the game for almost two years. There can never be a defensible argument around design intent, because there has been no urgency. They should just leave the original power in the game, and use the new power for a new killer, so that nothing has to be lost.
-
Can the skeleton killer have a perk called "The Bones Are Their Money"?
-
Does editing messages several times throw them into an approval queue or something? Just lost my last post.
-
@Peanits said:
@Rydog Yes, we have tried pausing/slowing the timer when the killer is near the hook. This was actually tested way back in one of the first PTBs. The issue is that people will abuse this and run the killer around the hook, making them play defensively to protect their kill while the remaining survivors are free to do generators. Of course, you could just unpause the timer if there's another survivor nearby, but this would also give the killer additional information; now you would know when someone is in the area or not, which would hard counter stealthy saves (encouraging people to just sprint straight in instead).
@Peanits I'm suggesting completely stopping the hook timer 100%, as in, it literally will not progress until the killer leaves the hook. Maybe don't show the killer the survivor's hook progress bar either, to keep them from weaponizing it (kind of like how Legion can't see bleed progress, same principle). It wouldn't change the fact that the killer has to make a decision about leaving the hook or not; it would just make the choice more clear. And if someone's close by and trying to be a hero, they're still risking getting downed.
I'd love to see a scorched earth approach to non-tactical camping. Implement the above, plus give the survivors a permanent stacking speed bonus to repairs for every X seconds the killer has accrued from standing at hooks.
In other words, disincentivize the behavior in every way possible, so that the killer is forced to be confident that some other altruistic survivor is lurking about before they decide to stick around. As-is, it feels like you guys are weirdly defensive about a form of obvious bad faith behavior that has no upside, outside of certain tactical edge cases (which could still absolutely remain in place without punishing the killer).
-
@Peanits I understand why camping and tunneling are valid strategies in those cases; I want to scream every time someone unhooks me with the killer right on top of us both, because that usually just leads to the game being over immediately for at least one person.
Punishing players through the emblem system is weird. It's a punishment for sure, but just by nature of the game's structure, some players don't even look at or care about rank, and consider the kill to be their only victory condition regardless of other mechanics. I went up against a killer twice a few nights ago who sat and facecamped every person that he hooked, regardless of what else was going on (gens getting popped while he camped, etc.). I tried to confront him diplomatically about it in chat, telling him that he lost emblems for being near the hook, and gens getting popped in the meantime, etc. His response was "Yes, but I got the kill. I don't care about rank, it's just whatever. And you get BP from playing regardless."
So, yes, you ARE punishing unsportsmanlike players via emblem penalties. It's just that the game is structured in a way that doesn't make it inconvenient or offer any tangible setbacks for the players who decide to straight-up ignore it. You're really just punishing the player who is getting camped and now cannot play, because the other team (the killer) is acting in bad faith regardless of the "punishment" he is receiving.
If there's no reason for a killer to stick around the hook (i.e. champion hook-diving heroes lurking around the corner), the punishment should be absolutely crippling. Give the survivors a stacking repair speed bonus for the rest of the match, or start auto-progressing all other gens on the map or something once the killer hits a certain camping threshold. Punish them in a tangible way that swings the match drastically out of their favor, if they choose to take this route for no good reason. All it's accomplishing is completely ruining the match for at least one player (who now cannot participate because of the other team's unsportsmanlike behavior).
Again, if people are hook-diving, or trying to be really aggressive about saving their friend, it's obviously a good strategy to patrol that hook. When this has happened to me, my ire is absolutely reserved for my fellow way-too-ballsy survivor, NOT the killer who is making the smart play by sticking to my hook. I've been on both sides of that coin plenty of times.
And like I said in my last post, some killer players are just going to camp regardless, because they're free to make that choice. It comes with the territory, and I suspect it always will, regardless of what you do (if anything) to address it. But I do think there should be substantial recognizable-in-the-moment penalties for a player who decides to play this way, because unless there's a valid reason to do it, they're not playing in good faith.
EDIT: Or maybe, I dunno, don't progress the sacrifice bar as long as the killer is near the hook, with no other players nearby? Have you ever tried that? What do you think it would do to the game dynamic?
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/558737#Comment_558737
I think we need to make a distinction between what is and isn't happening with Freddy. He's not being removed from the game and though I understand what you mean by that a lot of others won't if they don't read the thread properly. What they are doing is reworking his power. Currently, they've stated that Freddy will still be invisible at long range and begin to flicker in and out of view as he gets closer to a survivor till he is completely visible at close range. Survivors will now fall asleep passively over time and will need to be woken up by other survivors who aren't asleep or use a clock at a static location to wake themselves up. Freddy will be able to place Dream Snares down that survivors can be caught in while they are asleep. They are also considering giving him a teleport that target's gens. He gains universal striking and grabbing options.
What Freddy is losing is decreased action speeds on all actions. He's no longer in tangible and ultimately separated from the game. He will no longer have to do an action that puts someone asleep. Aura reading may also be gone, but I don't remember them giving a concrete statement about that.
The character IS the power. If they change the power completely, then the old character is now gone. If new Freddy does not have stealth and global aura-reading -- the capabilities that his effective game plan revolves around -- then yes, the have removed that character and replaced him with something else.
Again, I'm saying that it's fine to implement this new design, just leave the old power in as well, maybe put the new power on a new killer. Why does the old one need to be removed?
-
(Also, on the subject of Freddy's universal option issues... I mean, players who can't get past this just won't play him anyway. Why remove him from the game as an option for players who understand, and are willing to put up with his weaknesses?)
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/558514#Comment_558514
I acknowledged that Freddy has a useful gimmick in terms of strength. That still doesn't make up for the fact that the killer loses momentum in situations where waiting for that transition eliminates the possibility of universal techniques. Current Freddy doesn't have the ability to swing through palettes on a moment's notice or use quick strikes to interrupt Survivor actions. He can grab out of lockers, but can't grab off gens or unhook attempts.
Making the game slower is cool, but the same results can be achieved with other killers on top of having those universal utility options. You playing him and staying in red rank consistently with him means you know how to play the killer role well in general. You could take that skill and a few extra hours learning any other killer and get the same results with the right builds. That said, pull back and look at Freddy from a design and balance perspective.
Do new players to the game understand through context clues what is happening to them when they face Freddy? The devs' internal data seems to suggest the answer is no. Now, everyone has to take time to learn the game, but because Freddy is such an outlier in terms of play lower level players can't use the universal context clues they've learned from dealing with other killers. That means you created a 'Beginner's Trap". You want to avoid those as much as possible. On the other end of the spectrum you have a killer who has a power that adding aggravation to the game on both sides. Survivors whose learned to be optimal tend to dislike this that arbitrarily make them sub optimally.
Freddy just shoots a laser out of his hand and just makes you sleep. There isn't any counterplay on that interaction and the result is your just worse at doing everything. That doesn't feel particularly engaging. From the killer side you have a killer who can make some quasi interesting mind games. Yet, at the heart of his design he is an m1 killer with a power that doesn't have long term usage in the chase. You get aura reading, but at high ranks that overall is less useful. Freddy also wastes time waiting for people to fall asleep before he can harm them. During that transition state they can still pop a gen and get adrenaline resetting your momentum in a crucial moment. That is unneeded frustration placed on the player. Why would you want that?
There are an overwhelming number of things that a new player will not understand immediately. Not to say that this is a healthy standard at all, but it's a pretty universal problem in this genre, and it shouldn't be used as a cudgel to squash interesting character designs, which the current Freddy most certainly is, whether he is weak or not.
Plenty of characters would reasonably fall into the "newbie trap" bucket. I remember taking a particularly long time to figure out exactly ######### was going on with Doctor when I was new, Nurse and Spirit both "cheat" the normal rules in confusing ways, and Myers has basically no terror radius (which a new player is trained to use as their first warning sign). I'm not defending Freddy in terms of complexity; there's a lot of stuff going on with him for sure, but once you understand him, you're good to go -- as is the case with any killer.
You say: "His current power takes universal options off the table for at lest 7 seconds. That by design isn't what they wanted to have him be." He was added to the game 20 months ago, so I don't think that's really a justifiable argument in terms of design intent; any urgency on this front left the building well over a year ago. But now, they're removing a character from the game -- one that players have spent substantial time and in-game resources on -- and replacing it with a different character that, in all likelihood, will not appeal to a substantial number of current Freddy players.
Freddy is appealing because he has strong and global aura-reading abilities, and very useful stealth (but these come at an action cost). At the very least, the new Freddy should retain these aspects. Either that, or -- at worst -- players should get the option to refund the BP they've spent on this character who is suddenly not the character they've been playing. 😛
-
@[Deleted User] said:
So few have taken the time to truly learn his immense stalling potential. Freddy quite literally makes gen repair as difficult as possible. You can go against the toughest team of survivors, both sides drawing the game out 20+ minutes, and can have prevented the survivors from repairing more than 1 or 2 generators before getting a 4k.
And yet we see so many forum posts complaining about gen rush. The ignorance astonishes me.
I run him with Bitter Murmur (since gens will inevitably get popped), BBQ & Chili (for obvious tracking capability), and Nurse's Calling (ditto -- and it's doubly useful because sleeping survivors usually sit and heal after they wake themselves up).
Fourth perk is Monitor & Abuse, which is like a magic trick when combined with his aura-reading, because you can basically end chases by just not engaging, then surprising them as soon as they think you're gone. It synergizes really well with Nurse's Calling, too.
I will prioritize putting people to sleep (ideally in groups) over hitting survivors. If I find someone early, I will usually sleep them, hit them once, and then leave them alone about 99% of the time, because I've effectively taken them off the map in terms of contribution while they figure out how to deal with the sleep state. So I go off somewhere else, then come back to them later. By the time 2-3 gens have popped, I've snowballed pretty well.
Also, most people don't understand the most key thing about Freddy, which is sweeping around with M2 held down if you're not in a chase. You catch so many survivors that way.
Man, I'm gonna miss him. :(
-
@KillermainBTWm8 said:
You get an upvote! Yea I would like if they would keep current Freddy as well I believe that Freddy will come out a worse killer from this rework. Freddy is actually currently better than most think surprisingly if you master this killer you can do pretty well with him. I would at least like an option to swap to new/old freddy although I know the likelihood of that happening.
Whether the new Freddy is better or worse, I bet we're still losing what I hold most dear about him, which is his unparalleled ability to track survivors via auras, while effectively staying stealthed. This is the thing that draws me toward him the most, and it's a really powerful tool to balance out his significant downsides. There will be no killer like this in the game, once he's gone. So, that really bums me out. Freddy is really unique, and a lot of players like him as-is, even if he isn't among the "best" killers.
-
1) Bugs: I mean, eh. This game is janky. Weird visual glitches (Ghostface's camera not being in his hand when he uses his mori and so forth) are just part of what I've come to accept. I can't recall a point where it's ever been game-breaking, so I sort of just see it as a "whatever" level issue.
2) Toxicity: This is a hard thing to fix, and it's always going to be a battle in any competitive game. The extremely adversarial nature of this genre means that you're always going to have people who get extremely tilted and/or develop very awful habits just as a byproduct of the game playing out more or less as-intended. I really wish we could be shown evidence of reports being taken seriously, and I really think the policy against naming-and-shaming awful people is ridiculous, since they usually do things to deserve it.
3) Balance: This is also hard. It would be great if the developers could achieve perfect balance, but that's been a problem in every competitive game going back to at least Street Fighter II. 😛 This is one of those things where I think there's a lot of entitlement on forums and Reddit communities etc., and I definitely discourage devs from balancing according to loudmouthed community committee sentiment.
4) De-ranking: I really think there should be a threshold that you hit every 5 ranks or so (15, 10, 5), and then you cannot de-rank past that until the season reset occurs.
5) Matchmaking: Yeah, this is trash. You shouldn't be able to get matched with/against people who fall outside of a certain rank threshold from you. The de-ranking idea I mentioned above would help here.
6) Camping: Some players are just going to do this, because they have the freedom to make that choice. And they do it even with BP or pip penalties, because securing a kill is all they care about. I would definitely love to see more brutal penalties occur for this type of behavior, whether it is the loss of several ranks at the end of a match, or even a stacking bonus to generator repair speed or something like that, the longer they stay near a hook.
7) Disconnects: Agreed. I think bans should be aggressive and extraordinarily unfavorable to players who have a history of disconnecting, just ban them for a full month right off the bat and send a message. Related: Matchmaking should not allow killer players with bad Internet to host matches, because thus just kills the game for everyone.
-
Ruin is easy to play around. Either you hit great skill checks consistently, or you just start tapping the gen. It's a marginal inconvenience at most.
What sucks about it is all the survivors who immediately freak out and stop working on gens because they don't know how to handle it, like somebody who stops knowing how to drive as soon as it starts sprinkling. 😄
-
I've gotten way more jump scares as a killer from, like, survivors dropping a surprise pallet on my head than I have from stuff like seeing a Myers standing right behind me. 😃
-
@iTz_KilLaZ_x said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/557861#Comment_557861
Anecdotal evidence is useless. There is an objective measure to what makes a good killer in this game. You saying you see good doctors at red ranks and main Freddy at red ranks means nothing. Again, against good survivors, you'll never win with those killers.
I generally agree with your statement -- anecdotal evidence is useless -- with regard to most things, because empirical evidence is going to tell the real story. But, like, what empirical, unimpeachable evidence do we really have about... anything in this game?
Broadly speaking, everything about this game lends itself to the anecdotal. There are no tournaments or high-level standards a la fighting games or whatever, because DBD isn't really made to be that kind of game. We can't look at an aggregated match-up chart and make data-driven conclusions. There are a limitless number of variables in every single match -- more than a dozen different character choices on each side, 125 different perks, a grand total of 20 (mystery) perks in play during any given match, procedural generation across more than a dozen different maps, items, add-ons, offerings. It's a roulette every time you queue up for a new match.
There's no real standard for what constitutes a success or a failure, either; everyone has their own goalposts. Some players look at pips (regardless of escaping or killing), some players consider it a loss unless they escape or kill everyone, some players are just in it for Bloodpoints. There's no sharply defined measure of victory or defeat that everyone embraces. If I only killed a couple of people as Freddy, but I got a pip, is that a victory? Who knows?
We have tons of anecdotal evidence that tells us Nurse, Hillbilly, and Spirit are roughly the killers that perform the best, in skilled hands. We also have plenty of anecdotal evidence from killer mains who perform very well at red ranks with "bad" killers such as Wraith, Freddy, Trapper, etc. Our most empirical developer-provided statistics come from the May 3, 2019 data sheets (https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/61114/data-sheets-community-requests) -- and according to those, Hag, Hillbilly, and Trapper have the highest kill rates.
So how do we even come to any non-anecdotal conclusions here?
-
I have had great success mindgaming survivors at pallets, after they run without bothering to break my stealth. You can pull so many shenanigans by just running around a corner and ducking. I know the fiction is secondary and all, but it really does feel like something the Scream killer would do to trick someone. :D
I will say that the one thing I think is dumb -- and it feels very unintended -- is that hooked survivors can break your stealth. This really ought to not be a thing.
-
I would argue that 16 seconds is a lot of time to stop working on gens and give the killer time to close distance to where he knows you just were. That's the Sophie's Choice I was talking about -- either you do that, or you stay on the gen and take an even bigger personal risk in the name of completing objectives.
And, yeah, I may be jumping the gun by saying OMG MAYBE NURSE/HILLBILLY LEVEL OF GOOD. It's not like I'm some master player who can just make that call on a whim, but Ghostface makes a great first impression. And even if he's not some S-tier killer, I still dig him because he's exactly the kind of killer experience that I'm looking for.
-
@Bongbingbing said:
Mclean has said multiple times that he think the Grind is good for the game. He brings up the fact that when people were compensated with millions of blood points they stopped playing the game soon after.
Personally I disagree and think that a Grind shouldn't be the thing keeping your players playing the game, the actual game should do that on it's own. The Grind is insane and I really feel for newer players, I hope one day it gets addressed.
He's wrong. Players put up with those kinds of things even if they don't like them; it's a Stockholm Syndrome type of thing. If players are jumping ship as soon as the grind ends, it means there is a much deeper problem with your game.
Some progression is good. I don't mind leveling up a character, improving them, unlocking more stuff for them. But the process is super, super long even to get a single killer into decent shape, because it involves having to level up multiple killers (for BBQ, Nurse's Calling, Ruin, etc. etc.), and it also affords you very little control over what perks you're offered at each level. I think it would be a lot better if we could just buy the perks we want, instead of being subjected to total randomness.
All told, I think even as-is, the Bloodweb is still a useful tool for offering up players a random assortment of items, add-ons, and offerings -- these are things that players will constantly need and desire, so it is good motivation to keep spending BP on Bloodwebs, even if your character is "finished" perk-wise. It's specifically the perk economy that is the big problem; I think it would make players a lot happier if they could just have an easier path to a range of competitive perk choices. It doesn't make sense that I can play the game for 600 hours and still not have, say, BBQ & Chili rank 3 on every single killer.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
Hey, a post that someone actually put some time and thought into. How novel.
1- Bloodweb. Yeah, it is a problem. I don't hate the idea of getting rid of the perk rank system. They have steadily been putting the power of perks into rank 1 so it isn't so hard to get decent perks to play with. For example, if you use NOED rank 1 vs NOED rank 3, there isn't a huge difference in benefit. But the grind to get all your perks unlocked and rank 3 is massive and gets worse with every chapter.
There are some arguments to be made against this idea though. It doesn't really seem fair to the players that put in the time to max out all their perks when a newer player could get there with literally 1/3 of the effort. Also, does every player need all their perks unlocked and at max rank? That tends to lead to even more meta perks being used. At least now there is some variety in perks that players run.
Here are some ideas that I've pitched in the past that I would like to see that would help with the grind problem. I would like to strip the bloodpoint gain ability off of BBQ and WGLF and add them to the base game. I would make it so survivors gain 20% bonus BP per gen completed, killers would keep the same BBQ mechanic (25% bonus per unique survivor hooked). WGLF would just get a new ability altogether. What this would do is increase all players bloodpoints earned and free up players to use more variety of perks.
I would revamp the prestige system so that players get their teachable perks at whatever prestige rank they are at and can keep one perk they've unlocked per prestige rank. IE if I got Hillbilly to prestige 3 I would have Tinkerer, Lightborn, and Enduring at rank 3. I would also get to choose 3 perks I've already unlocked to keep from being reset.
I would also address the issue of the way that survivors gain bloodpoints. Unlike the killer that only has one objective and therefore gains bloodpoints evenly, the survivor has several objectives and methods of earning bloodpoints. If a survivor is constantly being chased by the killer the entire game, they would quickly cap out the 8000 bloodpoints they can potentially earn in the chase category. But since they never had an opportunity to work gens or rescue other survivors they would suffer in the objective or altruism category. What I would like to see happen is for bloodpoints earned past the 8000 category cap go into a general pool of bloodpoints at a 50% earn rate. This general pool would be applied to the other categories, but never allow the survivor to earn more than a total of 32,000 in a match.
I would also like to see rank matter as it applies to earning bloodpoints. The way I would do this is make it so for each pip earned in the red ranks, the player earns 10,000 bonus bloodpoints. This would help with the bloodpoint grind and help motivate players to work hard and stay at a rank they belong. IE discourage de-ranking for easier opponents.
2- The Emblem System. Yeah, this is undoubtedly a problem. I've had so many games that I've gotten 3 or even 4 kills and failed to gain a pip that I want to scream sometimes. I vastly preferred the old victory cube system. It just made more fundamental sense. But I will say this much for the emblem system. It accomplishes its primary mission of making it harder to rank up. When you get to the red ranks now, you know that you are in for challenging opponents. The real question is if that is actually a good thing. I honestly have more fun when survivors aren't constantly doing the optimal thing. Efficient looping and gen rushing gets really old. My personal opinion is that the game is more fun when mistakes are made. But I think good arguments could be made either way.
3- Disconnects. Yeah, this is obviously a problem. It's always been a problem. At the very least they made it so matches are cancelled if someone disconnects during the loading phase. That's at least a step in the right direction.
4- Survive With Friends. Personally, I don't think this is nearly the issue that many on the forums thinks it is. SWF forces killers to be better at their job. Statistically speaking, SWF isn't that big of a deal either. Around 5% of games played are with a full SWF group. Around 10% are 3 man groups. 4 man SWF have their personal survivability increase from approximately 40% to 50%. 2 man SWF survivability is like a 1% increase. That is still well within an acceptable range.
Here is my advice to killers playing against SWF. Assume that the survivors are working with near perfect information. Use that against them. Once you hook someone, you know good and well that as soon as they see you walk away that they are calling for a rescue. Once you get outside terror radius from the hooked survivor turn around and head back. You'll almost always catch them in the process of rescuing. SWF are notoriously altruistic too. If you start bullying one of them, they will almost invariably attempt to save their buddy. It's usually pretty easy to play "musical hooks" with SWF. You can almost always predict what generators they will be working on in the mid to late game too.
5- New Player Experience. This is a point that I will have to disagree about. There are a lot of things to learn about this game. But learning all those things is also the most fun part of the experience IMO. The joy I used to get from hitting survivors... now it's become all so routine.
"It doesn't really seem fair to the players that put in the time to max out all their perks when a newer player could get there with literally 1/3 of the effort" is a bad excuse to not fix a problem. I put in the effort to for example, exalt every reputation meter in World of Warcraft -- but I am still very aware that the reputation system is kind of broken, and I would not be personally offended if they overhauled it completely. It's just a game. This may be a hard Band-Aid to rip off, but it needs to come off for the long-term benefit of the game.
And, bad onboarding just drives people away, especially if their first impression of the game is aggressively negative -- which tends to be the case with this genre.
-
@GuyNamedPubert said:
Nothing is wrong with SWF, it not even broken. They made it so you can’t see killer’s perks when you die and how much info they really going to tell? I hate when people complain about it. Just learn to play.
It's not that it's broken, per se, as a mode. It's that the game isn't balanced around the assumption that this is how people will play (otherwise it would have built-in voice comms, or at the very least some text chat for the survivors -- which also might be a good idea).
No one here who has played SWF can claim that they HAVEN'T been in a situation where the voice comms provided useful information that they could have in no way known otherwise, unless they have the keenest observation skills and the most fortuitous luck that a human being can have.
Let me put it another way: What do you think would happen if there were a visual marker in every pre-game lobby that identified which players were grouped up? Do you think it would be a good idea to add this information? Would it result in dodged queues? If you think it would, don't you think this constitutes evidence of a problem?
Voice comms would just allow the developers to admit what everyone already knows, which is that players lean on this for coordination, so you might as well give it to everyone.
-
@mOoKiEizbakkgorl said:
Let 'em know.
You're being vote downed cuz you suggested Voice Communications.
The thing about voice comms is: It probably isn't everyone's favorite solution -- it isn't mine! But what other option is there?
The reality of video games is, people will find a way around these kinds of restrictions. You cannot keep them from using Discord, or Steam chat, or PS4 party chat or whatever. You just can't do it, therefore it becomes an unintended advantage. You know SWF groups are using voice comms, I know it, the devs know it. It may not be part of the game's vision, but it is a toxic thing that has spoiled the original intentions.
What else would you do? You can't just take away SWF, because of course people want to play with their friends. You can't start awarding killer bonuses and survivor penalties, because that screws solo players who wind up in a 3-player SWF. You can't split queues, because then SWF would be a ghost town -- what killer would opt into it? The genie is out of the bottle; the best solution is to just acknowledge the reality of the situation, and try to adapt the game around it.
-
So you're the one who started this whole problem with Sin.
-
Yes, I play on PC. My Steam ID is the same as my username here.
-
Also, again, the idea and the math that I describe in my previous post is just a Band-Aid fix. It's still a poor system that is confusing and viciously unfriendly to new players.
Ideally, I'd like to see a system where we earn currency and are just allowed to buy the stuff we want for a given character -- perks, items, add-ons, offerings, whatever. To keep people from just unlocking everything too quickly, maybe offer a player a personal lottery of 10 random purchasable items per day, or something (with no repeating perks -- and with no rank 1-2 perks either, GET THOSE OUT OF HERE). This would also be a great way to introduce a common pool of items, add-ons, and offerings that any survivor can equip (I think it's stupid that the game doesn't do this now).
-
@HavelmomDaS1 said:
They keep saying that they know about the issue. But they haven't even presented some ideas, so probably they haven't even in mind to do changes soon.
All I wish is: the rework is worth for future aswell even after adding more and more chapters + a compensation for those who went through this grind before the rework. I'm having exclusive cosmetics in mind, but I'm open for different stuff with pretty much the equal value
Yeah, just saying "We know" is worthless without action. This is one of the most serious issues with the game, and it's only going to keep getting worse as they put it off, because they're going to keep adding more characters at 3 perks a pop.
Let's say that I want to get every perk on a single survivor (and we'll remove the Shrine from consideration for now, let's assume I unlock all perks via Bloodwebs and leveling).
I would need to get 17 survivors to level 40, which is approximately 1.1 million BP apiece if I'm doing it efficiently, or a grand total of about 29 million BP. At this point, my main survivor -- at level 40 -- has a personal inventory of 40 perk ranks, out of a grand total of 195 (65 survivor perks x 3 ranks each).
So, that being the case, I now have 155 Bloodwebs to get through in order to grab everything, and that's another 8.7 million BP (assuming my average spend is about 56,000 BP per web).
That's for ONE survivor, and that assumes you don't want to prestige (which I think is a foolish waste of time, but that's another discussion). It's even worse when you get to killers, because I'm assuming you want to play more than one, and doing so at a reasonable level requires perks (you're insane if you think otherwise).
Here's how my math would change if, suddenly, rank 1-2 perks were to vanish. My level 40 main once again has a personal inventory of 40 perks, and the remaining 25 perks would take about 1.4 million BP (again, assuming my average spend is about 56,000 BP per web at this point). That's about 30.5 million Bloodpoints worth of commitment for a single character. It would still be a sizable grind, but a lot more reasonable in terms of the time investment, for someone who wants a wide array of characters that they can play with a reasonable number of options. It would even make prestiging a more tempting option!
I dunno how they roll it out, how they message it, how they "reward" legacy players. Maybe they just give everyone a big BP reward or something, I dunno. That's super peripheral to the problem itself, though, and should not be an excuse for not solving it.
-
Bloodweb mechanic is super-inscrutable and grindy and was clearly designed from the perspective of an engineer and not an end-user. It is super super player-unfriendly, and I don't understand -- of all the things in this game -- how it has existed in this way for 3 full years.
Back when the game launched, there were 4 survivors and 3 killers, for a grand total of 21 teachable perks. The game now has 17 survivors and 16 killers, for a grand total of 99 teachable perks. This is ridiculous. How the developers do not see and agree that this is ridiculous, I don't know. Maybe they haven't had any focus testers or consultants tell them that this is obviously nonsense.
My Band-Aid fix, short of a full redesign: Just remove rank 1-2 perks. We don't need them anymore. There are too many perks now. Also, maybe consider bumping the level thresholds down significantly for reaching the teachable perks. Handle your stuff please, devs.
(Also: Hi! This is my first post on these forums, after lurking here for a long time, and playing the game for even longer.)