Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Seanzu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3298710#Comment_3298710
They can hook me, they aren't being denied anything, I'm always going for achievements in matches, why aren't the killer being nice and letting me do them instead of tunneling me out?
Because the survivor in the locker has been checkmated. Not throwing matches to allow others to get achievements is not the same thing as already having lost and spitefully denying them.
-
@Mat_Sella said:
Their ego will not allow them to die with grace, so theyd rather have you die with them so nobody wins on the survivor side.
They may believe that they are more worthy, even if they're just selfish rats scrounging around looking for food.
If im in the situation I just sit on a gen until the killer finds and downs me, I dont have it in me to put up a fight with how easy slugging for the 4k truly is if theres more than one gen left to complete
How exactly is locker jockeying for 4+ minutes not selfish? TBH when there are only two left I try to hold the killer's attention and have a long chase, try to fill up my boldness, and hope at least 1 gen pops during that time. If its been a few minutes or I've gone through a good number of pallets and zero gen progress is made, I don't see any issue with that person getting ratted out. If they're on death hook or something thats one thing, but more often than not its the ones who don't even have a single hook state. They've already been teaming with the killer by refusing to participate at that point and I'm not going to purposely avoid them, so if they're where the last pallets are, tough luck.
I'd rather us both die than reward someone for refusing to play and hoping I die quickly at that point. The hatch is a pity mechanic as it is, it should at least be earned not randomly granted to the ones who deserve it least.
-
@Predated said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3297242#Comment_3297242
The issue with the shared responsibility argument is that its not really. There isnt any communications, so there is a lot survivors cannot do being blind in the game without it being basically a guess. In SWF, shared responsibility is by far the biggest argument you can make for preventing a tunnel. In soloq, not really the case. In DBD, you'd be surprised how many people are unwilling to tank a hookstate, even though they havent been hooked at all, just to grant some more time for someone who has been tunneled. You need basekit comms for the shared responsibility argument to make full sense.
Hence, the gap between solo-swf being a lot more important. Personally, I dont really see a huge issue with giving aura reading on teammates as a basekit, the other option would be giving something similar to killer instinct and HUD info, which is basically equal info. The only issue I see with it right now, is that it makes a LOT of perks obsolete or a lot less functional(Better Together/Situational Awareness, Empathy, Empathic Connection, Aftercare, Bond, Kindred(kinda), No One Left Behind(kinda), the 2 key addons). All of these are perks that arent used by SWF, because they basically have the same info already. Giving them aura readings, you can see where they are, what they are doing, and guess whether or not they are being chased. The main benefit I can see for SWF is that they can optimize the time needed in meeting up, but overall, that can be mitigated by giving killers Fire-Up as basekit.(also, Blindness magically becomes a lot stronger as survivors start to rely on that aura reading more than gamesense in the long run)
AKA, you can close the gap between SWF and SoloQ relatively easily without really affecting the killerrates. And its a lot easier to buff killers when the gap between soloq and SWF is much smaller.
Besides, there is 1 easy argument to make why its basically impossible to buff killers right now(other than Fire-Up basekit): Nurse exists.
You don't seem to understand the difference between guesses and reads/estimations. There is a tremendous amount of information you can discern secondhand through other information, and its honestly one of the biggest strengths of perks like kindred, empathy, windows, and even alert. That very same metadata is part of what gives SWFs their strength, they are able to use deductive reasoning to fill in the blanks by having some of the others filled in. The argument of shared agency is that you need to be willing to accept things that are beyond your personal control, which is something that is always the case in a team dynamic in a game. Anyone who plays a support class in any game that has them is very familiar with this concept, and that you can only be a part of a team rather than try to control the actions of others. Your job is to adapt to the actions of the people around you to the best of your ability, to mitigate the damage they take/cause while boosting the damage they can cause/giving them opportunity and advantage. If you go into team based compositions wanting to force your agency onto your teammates, you will never be satisfied with anything less than teammates that are better than you as a player.
You want an issue to giving solos fill on SWF tier info? Stealth killers need to all be entirely reworked. Stealth gameplay is a concept that is already disproportionately affected by communication by design, so it becomes entirely obsolete with that level of information. You have not even considered it with your comments and instead focus on how it would make survivor perks less effective, which is a pretty biased stance that shows you aren't considering the actual implications of your suggestions. Basekit Fire-Up is nowhere near as impactful as entire killers needing to have their entire concepts reworked.
Also the classic Nurse Whataboutism. Just like how nerfs can be nuanced to affect the extremes of SWFs, buffs can be nuanced to not give disproportionate value to nurse. Don't assume its impossible simply because you can't comprehend it, as even most of the proposed nerfs that reasonable people have usually revolve around addressing her unintentional disproportionate value in circumstances.
-
@Predated said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3297207#Comment_3297207
"Ironically the best anti-tunnel measure is to be good at looping and wasting the killer's time, as it forces them to either disengage and look for a weaker link or punishes them disproportionately for their sunk cost investment."
To quote certain killer mains: "1 small survivor mistake can cost the game, 1 big killer mistake can still be salvaged". Mainly focussed on tunneling. You can be a god at looping, and make 1 small mistake early on and you've lost the game. The killer can be horrible at looping, waste an entire minute tunneling a survivor, and still turn the game around.
As for killers closing the gap with SWF, we cant yet, because of Nurse(Hag and Spirit, to an extent too). There is plenty of things you can do to close the gap between SWF and most killers, but things that dont also buff Nurse and that list of things is pretty much non-existent. Buffing m1 perks and basekit m1 capabilities is a huge asset for weaker killers, but you cant do that unless Nurse, Spirit and Hag get altered. Decreasing stun times would be amazing for m1 killers, yet, Nurse would be a slaughter house with Hubris. Giving killers the ability to walk faster while carrying a survivor makes bodyblocking harder for survivors, but it would buff Nurse with Starstruck. Giving killers the ability to vault faster, well, you have a problem with Hag.
Besides, the gap between SWF and soloQ has only been increasing over the years, and has been an issue since 2019. The gap between killers hasnt been as big. The gap of Myers facing a god tier SWF is merely a bump in the road compared to the gap that the grand canyon between soloq survivors and a god tier Nurse.
Normally I am all in favor of dealing with both sides equally, but since the last "dealing with both sides equally" gave killers a 10% reduction in everything chase related, reducing overall average chase from 40 seconds to 32 seconds, while all generators were increased by 10 seconds flat(which also buffed any % based slowdown like Gift of Pain and Thana, on top of the buff those 2 perks also recieved), while all survivors got to combat the camping and tunnel issues is a 10 second basekit BT(and then basically nerfing all other anti tunnel perks, when the whole idea was that perks were not needed to patch issues in the vanilla game), I'd say a patch focussed on closing survivor gaps is a lot more neccessary than also making sure Myers and Trapper can keep up with the minor buff that SWF will have due to those changes.
And personally, killers in general barely need a buff at this point in time(the only thing I want basekit is Fire-Up, having increased breaking, vaulting and pick up speed the more gens are done would fit killers in general a lot). Its mainly lower tier killers getting a basekit addon: Myers getting Jewelry(I wouldnt add more because the devs dont intend to rework Tombstone Piece), Trapper sort off getting the darkened traps, but instead making them slowly invisible, wraith getting some of the shadowdance bonus, Pig getting Amanda's Secret basekit(basically the same treatment that Wesker and Nemesis have), Freddy simply needs more tokens, Onryo needs the bloody finger nails and Clown basically needs to have Starling Feather basekit(with the addition that pinky finger needs to be limited to only 1 bottle). I can have some ideas for Doc, Legion, Ghostface and Trickster too, but honestly, assuming Fire-Up would be basekit, they dont really need much as their main issue later in the game is windows.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree with the vast majority of what you just said, including your reasoning. Killers making mistakes early can and does absolutely cost them disproportionately, especially due to how the power dynamic works in the game. There is no point to having a strong lategame if the game ends before you have a chance to even achieve it, and/or if your opponents continue to progress faster than you are able to achieve momentum. Its the entire concept behind snowballing in general, and why "carry" types in genres like MOBAs have exceptionally worse performance if they have to catch up than they do if they get an early advantage.
-
@Raptorrotas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3297207#Comment_3297207
I like the argumentation about the shared responsibility. Its funny how everyone is ignoring everything a tunneled/camped out person did before their demise. Like if the game only started with 3 survivors, which isnt what happens when someone gets tunneled out.
The "something" as compensation for solo-swf-gap closing" mentality sadly is strong in our community because nobody knows or can agree to what that something can or should be.
Theres also the issue SWF(strategy, mentality) + Comms(3rd party tool) being untouchable regarding nerfs. Thus we can only buff solo upwards, while many people actively dont want to fairly/equitably apply that logic to the killer side too.
You can nerf the potential of SWFs, you simply need to target how and what advantages they have over others, including casual SWFs. The potential is what needs to be addressed more than the average use, better sanity checks in place to prevent extreme synergies with the meta data and coordination involved. It would be bad to nerf people goofing around with friends as collateral in nerfing sweat squads, so the approach would have to be nuanced to mitigate the extreme. Its why I'm personally not a fan of the lopsided buff ideology, because many of the issues we see get created by people adapting to dealing with nerfs and in turn creating new issues out of necessity. It becomes an endless cycle since it is nearly impossible to be impartial in such an approach, as your considerations will always be weighted in one direction or another.
That means that it would of course pair with barring the potential of killers vs solo compared to SWF, and giving much more nuanced buffs to solos rather than giving them what SWFs can have. There is already a large amount of information that your average solo refuses to use and demands to have basekit, even without taking advantage of when it can be given to them via perks. The disadvantages imposed by killers that disproportionately affect solos does not have to be focused solely on things like spoonfeeding information, it can just as easily be more subtle and targeted. Pinhead's box is a good example, as it is something that has a disproportionate affect on solos vs SWF: You could easily make a subtle change like having its aura change when a survivor is within a certain range of it, removing some of the guesswork in coordinating if someone is going for it or if everyone is hoping someone else will get it (it already has information for when someone has picked it up and/or is solving it, but that information is too late to make preemptive action.) Hooks can have similar subtle changes to allow information like if someone is nearby the hook, which could even then be used to determine if the killer is camping due to the duration/delay of said changes. It doesn't need to be as blatant as hud icons spelling out every single thing that is happening in the game around us, but people want easy more than they want fair.
Really the issue is that a lot of these ideas (and especially their implementations) tend to be both focused on one side or the other, and extremely ham fisted. There is no "chess mentality" in the types of changes we end up with, there is no forethought into the echo effects before they are introduced.
-
@Predated said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3296894#Comment_3296894
Things that are needed to give solo survivors that are not on comms that capability:
- a way to find out where teammates are, basekit.
- a way to find out what survivors are doing, basekit.
- a way to find out where survivors are going, basekit.
- a way to find out where the killer is if another survivor spots them or a teammate is being tunneled, basekit.
- a way to find out whether or not the killer is camping or not, basekit.
In the case of SWF on comms, you're 100% correct. Yet, most players arent 4 man swf, and among them, a huge portion also isnt on comms.
As for punishing the killer, its not really, its adding a risk in the early game. There is little to no risk for the killer to tunnel at 4-5 gens remaining, especially if the killer has mobility, yet the reward is cutting down survivor generator potential from 1 popping every 90 seconds, to 1 popping every 180 seconds if the killer doesnt go for hardcore generator regression after a kill. Thats doubling the game length required for survivors for 1 early kill, while survivors have to deal with less resources to face the same issues.
That should be a scenario creatable with risk. Its not punishing the killers, killers have more than plenty of options to create a similar situation without tunneling, its just reducing their options by 1 for the duration of the first 2 or 3 generators. Meaning if 2 or 3 gens popped, you can still tunnel someone out, or you can still tunnel someone out by tanking a 3 second stun prior to that. It is just a means of deterrence and adding a risk.
The other option is buffing survivors once 1 survivor dies early on due to tunneling.
The risk is that gens can (and often are) done in the time it takes to tunnel one person out. It's a chicken and egg scenario which you keep trying to only focus on one instead of both. Ironically the best anti-tunnel measure is to be good at looping and wasting the killer's time, as it forces them to either disengage and look for a weaker link or punishes them disproportionately for their sunk cost investment. Time To Down is a built in counter measure in itself, the problem is people are unwilling to take shared responsibility for their shared agency with their teammates, which is in itself a double edged sword. They can be extremely (in)efficient on gens, just like they can be extremely (in)efficient in chase.
You've listed a bunch of things that survivors need because SWFs can exploit that information, and have not offered a single tangible thing that killers need to bring them up to the level of the SWFs that you want solos to merge with. Even just adding time to gens does not provide a realistic degree of benefit, as gen times themselves have far too large of a variation in either direction due to perks/items/etc. Lopsided adjustments like that with a "we'll fix it later" mentality is extremely unhealthy for a pvp environment, you need to take the core issue and focus on resolution for both sides evenly in order to address the opposing sides of arms race scenarios.
-
@Sava18 said:
The biggest reason I never played billy much before maining blight is he feels clunky and has clunky animations. I might be alone in the but I could never get passed it. Although I never picked my killers off of power level.
His animations/camera actually used to be a lot more accurate, they were changed a bit before his rework and never really brought back to where they were before. That paired with his tinnitus inducing chainsaw rev are a big part of how absolutely disorienting he can be to play now.
-
@OmniSkeptic said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3296897#Comment_3296897
That’s not the problem. Getting the majority of the gens done is meaningless. Getting ALL of the gens is the only thing worth anything if there is more than one survivor. And this becomes virtually impossible when there are only two survivors remaining because a killer is never going to struggle patrolling 3 generators against 2 survivors. Now 5 possible generators, where 2 are more important than the others and generally spawn separate from each other, is far more reasonable for 2 survivors to do.
being outmanned is certainly part of the dynamic shift, and it can get to an unwinnable degree before the match is over. The tug of war in the middle of the two power extremes is the number of remaining gens itself, which is why there is so much importance to how many gens are finished vs how many survivors are dead. If there is only one gen left and there is a wide distribution of gens, it is considerably more winnable for 2-3 survivors than having to complete 3 with no progress. This is why survivors start so strong, and why they can complete 2-3 gens in the first chase in many cases, the early game extreme is designed to prevent or minimize the late game opposite extreme. Its also why many killers feel the need to tunnel one out asap, to put a hard cap on that "burst window" of efficiency potential.
Both extremes suck. Unfortunately they would need to be normalized simultaneously, as focusing on one or the other would make the opposing one not have a counterbalance for the opposing side. It's likely a big part of why the devs scrapped an "early game collapse" idea, they could have possibly been unwilling or unable to create a matching normalization for the last survivors that achieved parity in its effect on the dynamic.
As an aside, even 2 survivors left doesn't have to mean that the killer will assuredly get one of them. Its possible to both buy enough time and escape from a killer in that scenario, but only if you're objectively looking at possibilities: If you want to assume its impossible because the killer is nurse or blight or noed or all the pallets are gone or whatever worst case scenario you can think of, you also have to acknowledge that either (or both) of the remaining survivors could be skilled enough to do it, the resources around the map may not have been used up, adrenaline and/or hope can be in play, etc. This game has almost no constants in it, so cherry picking for smoke testing is different than cherry picking to invalidate others.
-
@Crowman said:
Survivors are perfectly capable of getting most of the gens done before the first survivors dies.
This is what I don't understand. I'm all for normalizing the extremes of the power dynamic in the game, but that means both of them. A lot of killers run deadlock specifically because it feels like the only viable defense against early game efficiency. Aside from, well, tunneling people out asap to put a hard cap on it and reduce the damage done.
-
@OmniSkeptic said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3296804#Comment_3296804
Killers do not need a catch up mechanic. They already grow stronger the longer the game goes on.
The repair suggestion is a less radical solution, but it also doesn’t really solve the core problems. The last survivor can’t ever reasonably do the gens and open the exit gates. The last two survivors aren’t going to have more of a chance to do that either because of a 9% repair speed buff imo, there’s just too few generators where the killer can control and concentrate their attention. That said, it’s certainly a lot easier to implement.
Giving survivors a catchup mechanic kinda negates that, especially if their mechanic is essentially skiping the entire concept of how killers get stronger.
-
Why would you come up with a hypothetical scenario involving 3 people working on 1 gen at the start of the match and not have it finish before the first hook?
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3294087#Comment_3294087
But people generally want no competition and as soon as something requires some effort people want nerfs. A great example is Scourage pain, people still want it nerfed when all they have to do is let go before the hook (as soon as you see the aura) not difficult but want it to be nerfed.
I just dont want things nerfed or things buffed because people dont understand how to actually do/use said thing.
I'm all for encouraging skillful stuff and more fun strategies etc. But people dont seem to understand if you nerf killers gen defense for example killer will tunnel/camp more.
I truly believe SBMM is a bigger problem than people seem to realise, I see so often people blame perks, killers etc. When they cant see their own or their teams mistakes and that's an issue because the balance isnt that bad but it can look worse due to a bad SBMM matching people incorrectly.
I cant tell you how many games iv lost because of my teams actions, whether that's someone giving up, not doing gens, doing silly plays/memes etc. But I cant blame the killer for in those games even if they run 4x slowdowns
I give the same example as it's so spot on, if versed the same player using the same killer and build on exactly the same map twice, one team he got 2 hooks through the time we did 5 gens yet on the other game he got a 4k with lots of hooks and we did about 2gens. This is purely because of bad matchmaking putting people in games they shouldn't of been in. Cant say it's due to the killer but sadly alot do
I fully understand the fact that nerfing things with no alternative leads to worse behavior, you're either incorrectly attributing arguments or not actually understanding what I'm saying. It has absolutely nothing to do with lopsided balance adjustments or targeting specific "unfun" strategies or anything like that, it has to do with normalizing extremes evenly.
Anyone who has ever seen fighting game balance patches understands this concept. Metas in fighting games happen for two reasons: A character is very strong overall, or they are give disproportionate output for minimal input. If a character has one tool that negates a vast majority of other characters inately, they will pretty much always be top tier. Elena was a perfect example in USF4, Krohnen in KoF 15, etc. People who can play better will still use them because they are consistent and have much more room for mistakes, but that doesn't mean the other characters ranked below them are necessarily worse: They are only underrated due to the simplicity of their superior alternative. This is why those types of characters get normalized, to bring them in line with the rest of the cast in regards to their effort vs reward ratio.
Fighting games also give another great example in recent years, auto combos and simplified input methods. They are purposely designed to be inefficient but easy to use, to allow casual/new players to have a foundation to start with, or stick with and be mediocre but servicible if they refuse to improve. The ones that do improve will still roll them almost every single time, but they are less useless in the game than they would be otherwise, so they stick with it longer. Meanwhile these types of mechanics offer absolutely no advantage or even incentive to good players.
How this would apply to DBD would be by normalizing the power dynamic in the game, and making better play both more incentivized and easier understood. Making loops more recognizable is one of the ways this could be improved, instead the devs went the oposite direction and made pallets blend more and added a ton of junk and crap tiles to the generation system. Solo queue players cry constantly for more information, and while I think a lot of what they ask for is a bit much, its certainly something that could be improved in terms of recognizing and understand things like tile generation and deadzones. Limiting extremes on many elements of the game like gen speeds, time to down, excessive snowball pressure (for either side) and the power dynamic would be another step, along with rewarding fair play more than efficient play (incentivizing hooks over kills, encouraging survivors to not hunker down on gens and ignore the game around them, etc) would be the next step to help discourage lowest common denominator play from either side.
Its not something as simple as "the meta shakeup" they tried, it would take a lot of work undoing the layers of bandaids they've been throwing on top of a festering wound in the game design. But as it stands the game is balanced by averages, the low level play is dictated by intuitive design while the high level play is dictated by advantage stacking. You can address both without needing to abandon one or the other. Its easy to blame things like matchmaking but giving worse players more room for forgiveness without punishing or giving indirect buffs to skilled players is the way to make those dead weight teammates able to pull their own weight a bit better. Even the devs didn't understand or intend looping until the community itself showed them how they could exploit collision box differences to buy time in chases, these things aren't exactly self evident.
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293854#Comment_3293854
I dont agree on low level play, not saying it has to be high level but we should balance for people that definitely have an understanding about stuff in the game from loops, perks and killer powers etc.
If you balance for people that dont even know how to use or go against X then when people do know how it creates massive imbalances.
Very few games balance for the top however many games balance for people that can play and understand characters etc. And that even goes for games where they all have abilities and more often than not when something becomes imbalanced its because they have made a character strong and easy to play.
Mario kart is designed to be for children or a family game so that cant really be included, DBD while it does have them isnt made to be a kids game, a kart racer similar but not designed completely for kids would be crash team racing as while it's not hard it does give the ability for those that can play well to massively beat their opponents (due to sacred fire, ultimate sacred fire which if unfamiliar with is perfect boosting round the maps without making mistakes)
Just saying you cant balance for bad survivors, because itd mess up when anyone knows how to play in the slightest. I also dont get why people can say balance for bad survivors but ignore bad killers, seems unfair... plenty of bad killers that cant use their power but doesnt mean they are made far easier to use
You're not quite getting what I mean, balancing for bad players doesn't mean making the game a casual party game (which was why I put that closing note on the post) it means balancing in a way that is intuitive for the inexperienced. Part of why killer does so much better at low level than survivor is because their objective and effective strategies are very simple and straightforward: chase people, down them, get them on a hook, then return to said hook if youre not in another chase when they get saved. Obviously this changes as the opposition improves, but right off the bat, its very effective.
With survivors many want to play immersive right off the bat, and that doesnt always go away with experience. Its objectively inefficient and ignores the power dynamic that occurs in any given match, so they are actively sandbagging themselves and their team by doing so. The smart play is to utilize your time as efficiently as you can, as it takes advantage of the numbers game. Therefore the strongest way to play is the least intuitive one, it doesn't lend itself to natural discovery.
Balancing for low level play would be addressing that natural response. It wouldn't mean removing all the skill from the game, but rather encouraging players to naturally gravitate toward efficient play, while making efficient play ebb and flow with the dynamics of the match, almost like a form of rubber banding if you will. As it is the dynamic is very harsh, where survivor start extremely strong (if they can take advantage of it) while killers have the inverse: They start generally weak and get stronger as people die and pallets get used up, but become much stronger. The other part of said suggestion is to address that dynamic so that it is less dramatic in either direction, so that a good start for either side doesn't determine a disproportionate portion of the rest of the match.
When people hear balancing for low level or casual, they always tend to assume it means removing skill from the game, but the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. The game just needs to do a better job nudging people in the right direction, while limiting how far agency denial can go.
Also to add to this, it means to specifically avoid things that can be taken advantage of in the process. Things that require skill don't need to be lumped into that category, and in fact specifically shouldn't but rather things that don't take skill need to be reeled in. This includes camping, tunneling, god pallets/loops, gen rushing, etc. The only things that should ideally be overtly strong in a game balanced for low level play should be things that are difficult to achieve/acquire, as they allow a skill ceiling for growth.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293841#Comment_3293841
Not to split hairs, but the average player in anything is going to be average.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3293854#Comment_3293854
It's very tricky. 4 years ago? Maybe. But I think DbD is now a bit 'middle aged' to be heavily focused on balance for new players.
It's already a lot more newbie friendly than it was even a year ago.
My point was more about the outliers causing a disproportionate shift in how people play the game vs how it is intended to be played. The focus on gen speed (in either direction,) second chances, agency denial and synergies beyond expected balance make very clear meta focuses, and the advantageous nature starting survivor sided and shifting to killer sided over the course of the match only compounds those issues. Planning is just as much about what you expect from your opponent as it is what you plan to do, since said outliers can completely nullify a large portion of your agency before a match even starts. Basically if you don't assume the worst right off the bat, you will rarely have a chance to adapt over the course of a game if you encounter it.
-
Ideally the game should be designed for low level play, while avoiding anything that high level play can exploit.
Imagine a game like Mario Party as an example. The skill floor and ceiling are relatively close in the game, due to the rng factor having a strong potential to both rubber band and split the gap very easily. It has a lot of the outcome be separate from the individual skill requirement, and doesn't pick favorites. If someone were able to manipulate the RNG by picking a specific person and ending rounds on specific tiles, the party nature of the game would fall apart and people would be fighting over being able to stack such advantages.
DBD has a lot of issues that exist outside of the expected core gameplay loop, and can be taken advantage of on demand. The issue then becomes advantage stacking on both sides fighting an arms race to secure their position at the start of a match, and/or before it even starts. Tunneling is an answer to gen rushing is an answer to camping is an answer to god loops is an answer to 3 genning is an answer to...
The game just can't decide who it wants to appeal to, and tries to get everyone at once. This isn't even inherently a bad thing, until people know how to skew the odds in their favor, and then use that against the other side who isn't doing the same. The game really should have two separate queues to deal with this (with a ranked queue allowing everything and a casual one that forbids exploitation and limits synergies.) BHVR doesn't want to split their user base regardless of so many lopsided experiences for either side.
There's no way of knowing if the population would be able to sustain such a shift, so they instead try to balance around averages and hope it works out for as many people as possible. The problem is, people learn. Bad players can get better, and often do so by learning how to exploit the advantages that top players take advantage of, which creates a weird amalgamation of skill and strategy where it feels like everyone gets robbed in at least a few matches per session.
I don't know if there's a fix without completely overhauling the way a lot of the game works, but narrowing the win condition to kills and escapes was one of the worst ways they could have handled it, especially with how many challenges require purposely sandbagging yourself (and teammates on survivor side) in the process.
(also just in case anyone takes it away from this comparison, no, I don't want the game to become as skill-less as a game like mario party, that was mostly just an example on game design for comparison's sake)
-
@versacefeng said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292388#Comment_3292388
Please stop going back and forth. You continuing on with an argument you already lost hurts my brain.
I havent gone back and forth on a single thing, while your comment is both pointless and needlessly argumentative.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292376#Comment_3292376
I don't need to 'understand' a player that went after me on steam and admitted to not caring about holding the game hostage.
Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with any of what I explained, and you didn't even bring it up until well after I started discussing the strategy or mentality behind how 3 gens happen. Stop trying to conflate arguments, if they did things like that its not something I would remotely condone.
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292372#Comment_3292372
Yeah.. it's so bizarre to defend a situation so badly and try to 'explain' the situation to someone who was in the game, and trying so weirdly to get me to post a video as a 'gotcha' moment lol..
I can't defend a situation I didn't experience, nor can corroborate. Learning how your opponent thinks is a very important aspect of strategy, and I was honestly trying to be helpful. Your defensiveness is one thing, but I'd really appreciate not taking it out on me, and my comments about posting a video weren't intended as a "gotcha" moment any more than they were to actually give context and corroboration to your complaints.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292370#Comment_3292370
We didn't refuse to commit. We were trying to do two gens to pressure the killer a bit more, and he would only enter the area, and at most send his guards after us to run us away from the area.
I already said we tried to do the gen, even injured and he refused to do the chase. Im tired of repeating myself tbh.
You wanted the killer to knowingly leave the 3 gen to get a down at the cost of sacrificing the last gen, but were unwilling to hunker down on the last gen at the cost of sacrificing your hook states. I'm simply trying to help you understand that they have as little logical reason to acquiesce to your demand as you did to theirs. Thats what stalemates are.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292362#Comment_3292362
Considering that I reported the user, if their report system works, they should be able to take my report seriously and review the game themselves, but that doesn't change the fact of whether I would post the video or not - and would be more effort than I am willing to give, to blur out the name so that I can prove some random on the forums wrong.
Do you hold other users that complain about survivors to the same standard?
If you didn't record it, the report was pointless. Their report system being horrible and archaic is a separate matter, but thats why I was saying you need to record it when that happens. They need evidence to corroborate your claims.
Also no, I just happened to see your topic and tried to clear up a potential misunderstanding. I apologize for trying to potentially help you understand your opponent, especially when a large amount of frustrations for both sides in this game come from lack of understanding on what the other side is doing/thinking.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292353#Comment_3292353
Misunderstanding? I was in a game for 50 minutes!! because the killer refused to chase people that were injured WITHIN the area of the 3-gen. We had to physically stand in the area and not run for him to kill us and get us out of the game.
We weren't in a deadzone for hooks, and the basement was right there too if he wanted to go for hooks.
You would have gotten out of the game a lot faster if you didn't refuse to commit to a gen. It was a stalemate, where neither side budged for an apparently absurd amount of time. You talked about going off and doing snowman high fives with other survivors, which says you were just as uncommitted as they were. I've also tried explaining multiple times that you are refusing to understand the time commitment involved in even short chases, and that nobody on the forums is going to have any evidence to judge how much time they would have had to do so without sacrificing their pressure. This repetition is pointless.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292353#Comment_3292353
It gives attention to the Devs and is feedback on my experience.
I don't need to be catching people out and trying to 'make an example' of others for it though.
If you want to get the devs attention, record it. Biased (as in your side of the story, not about killer vs survivor) perspectives don't tell them anything other than the fact you are upset with how the match played out. They have zero information on what actually happened, and cannot corroborate or deny any of your claims as to what happened. That type of feedback is actually extremely frustrating to developers because its irrelevant in all senses other than "the game made me upset."
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292340#Comment_3292340
I dont record my games with the intention of 'trying to catch people out', that's ######### and terrible. I benefit nothing from posting about my experiences because they already happened, and all i can ask is for future killers to be more sympathetic.
I've not talked down on anyone just trying to defend strategically, or using regression perks. I'm trying to condemn people that hold the game hostage, and in this case - the game lasted 50 minutes and the guy continued to stalk my profile afterwards for some reason. I have a clip of end chat where the killer was being an ass and admitting that he didnt care for holding the game hostage but I'm not going to post it either because im not looking to name or shame.
Likewise nothing is benefited from a salt topic about losing to a 3 gen, yet here we are. I tried explaining the reasoning behind why legitimate 3 gen scenarios play out and how this situation related to them, but you just want to complain, so there's nothing to learn.
Edit: My point this entire time has been that your personal retelling of events doesn't give us enough information to say whether they were refusing to play like you claim, and I tried explaining why your perspective might have not understood what was going through their mind if it was legitimate play. All this stuff you keep adding about them stalking your profile or whatever is not information that anyone else is going to have. My only intent was to try to help you understand why you might be misunderstanding what the killer is attempting to do with their play.
-
@MisterMister said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292280#Comment_3292280
The part you said about “survivors three genned themselves” isn’t accurate. Just today I played a solo Q against a spirit running call of brine, eruption, overcharge, and nowhere to hide on an autohaven map. She found the 3 Gen at the start of game, and didn’t leave the area. 1 Gen was finished at the other end of the map, but me and the other survivors rigorously tried breaking the 3 Gen with 4 gens left. She would not budge. The game lasted for 50 minutes until people just started giving up and moving at her wearing snowmen, of course she downed and killed them, still having 4 gens left. The combo is busted.
They said 2 were on death hook, and apparently 1 was already dead, when the killer changed strategies as soon as the 3 gen was all that was left. I'm not talking about your spirit game, and I fully acknowledge that there are killers that will start the game fully intended to never leave their 3 gen (especially trap killers like Trapper or Hag.) I don't understand why people keep purposely mis-attributing that to my argument.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292320#Comment_3292320
This is such a weird way of defending bannable behavior, it’s not even funny. You say it’s the killers job to kill as many as possible but refuse to accept that a killer just sitting in one area of the map and not chasing anyone isn’t actively participating in normal gameplay. This does happen, and it’s happening fairly often in public games now that a certain meta has emerged.
And how can two survivors in a 3 gen “pile on” to a generator when the killer is there? Your arguments are so disingenuous for the sake of it.
It wouldn’t take 90 seconds to get someone out in this scenario. And even if it did, I would much rather get the 3k and move on to the next game with some ggs in end game chat than be such a miserable sweat lord holding the game hostage because there’s a sliver chance of someone escaping. The horror!
I never said not chasing anyone, i specifically said not chasing them away from the 3 gen. Thats the entire point of a 3 gen, to maintain pressure in that area of the map while looking for an opening to get a down that continues said pressure without sacrificing it. Not chasing someone to the opposite end of the map isn't refusing to chase anyone, but nuance has no place on these forums.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292336#Comment_3292336
Oh, you can believe me that this totally happens. In the two examples in my post, this was the case:
Wraith on Haddonfield-->1 Survivor dead, 3 Survivors alive with 2 on Death Hook. Still refused to chase anyone further than a few meters away.
Pinhead on RPD-->Started camping his 3-Gen right at the start, did not do anything else than kicking the 3 Gens and the occasional chase.
You cannot really say that either of them is just defending Gens. While in both cases the Killers planned the 3-Gen from the start (which the Wraith was also doing, but I did not notice it right away. On RPD I noticed it because I always check the Main Hall due to the majority of games spawning two Gens in it), even if the Killer is changing their strategy to protect a 3-Gen, if they are still not trying to progress the game, they are holding it hostage.
I don't doubt that people hold the game hostage, I'm saying the account provided sounds more like they were salty the killer didn't let them win than actually holding the game hostage. Like I mentioned, I'm familiar with the memes that content creators are doing to hold game hostage in 3 gens, I'm saying this doesnt sound like that.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292320#Comment_3292320
I already said that 1 was dead, two were dead on hook (whilst injured at times).
Idk how many times i have to say this. It would literally take one swing to take one of them down, and he refused to do that.
If you run in a straight line, it takes an average of about 40 seconds to get two hits. The time to down, as well as the first hit, are obviously going to be variable depending on the distance from the start of the chase. Once again, without this data, it is impossible to judge whether they were refusing to commit due to "refusing to participate" or whether they judged that the time to catch up, secure the hit, hope there's no dead hard to extend it further, pick them up, walk them to a hook, and get back to the 3 gen is a reasonable amount of time to not sacrifice the gens in the process. All we have to go off of is your loaded retelling of events. If you want vindication, at least post a video of the match, your perspective wouldn't tell the whole story, but it would be better than having to rely on your claims.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292320#Comment_3292320
You must be 3 meters tall with the amount of stretching you are doing.
Defending a hostage situation (which is clearly happening if the Killer is refusing to progress the game if the Survivors are trying to do so) is pretty concerning.
I'm not defending a hostage situation, I'm doubting the retelling of events and trying to explain what can be causing their misunderstanding of them. They claimed that two people were on death hook and that the killer suddenly changed strategies entirely when it got down to the 3 gen scenario, which tells me they weren't actively camping it from the start and adapted their strategy. This doesn't sound like one of those pinhead standing on the box memes or anything like that. Save your concern.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292307#Comment_3292307
? The killer's objective is to kill. He had two people on death hook, one person already dead. I hadnt been hooked whatsoever during the game. He had multiple opportunities to kill the other two players and refused to engage in a chase, especially when he had the gens under control from his regression perks. It was almost impossible to get one gen past 50%.
It got to the point that we could completely disengage from doing the gens to do a secondary objective with absolutely no threat because the killer wasn't interested in engaging, but to protect the 3-gen as a Knight.
The killer's objective is to kill as many as possible, not to kill one to knowingly let the other 3 escape. You say it was impossible to get one gen past 50%, but ignore the fact that the base time for that other 50% is 45 seconds, which would be reduced even further with multiple people piling on said gen since all 4 were alive still (which would leave 3 to commit while the killer commits to the chase/down/hook/return trip) You're severely underestimating how much time waste is involved in the act of getting a person out, even in that scenario.
You keep claiming they refused to commit to a chase, yet you yourself refused to commit to a gen, even though you apparently hadn't been hooked whatsoever. You're asking the killer to throw to "participate in gameplay" while being unwilling to do so yourself.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292280#Comment_3292280
Except that wasnt what was happening whatsoever, and you have ignored what I said just to perpetrate your own beliefs/agenda. We had two survivors that were dead on hook, injured, doing the gens and the killer would refuse to do a 10 second chase, with zero gen pressure from us from constant gen regression.
I said the problem wasn't gen regression builds, it's not protecting the 3-gen, but refusing to completely participate in gameplay especially in the event of getting 2 death hooks.
I wasn't in your match, so I have no idea how much truth you are stretching with your summary of events. I spoke in a very general sense because thats all I have to go off of, the majority of the time not leaving the 3 gen area is the smart play, with the exception being if they are able to get the down and hook both close to the area and in a very quick manner. You say 10 second chases, but you need to then add the time it takes to pick them up and transport them to a hook/return to the 3gen to check each gen, and a gen could easily be done in that amount of time. The more survivors that are alive, the faster they can get a single gen done to break the siege. It becomes a constant chain of judgement calls, and by nature people are generally going to be more cautious when on the backfoot (just like how somoene on death hook will generally play less risky, knowing they are close to being eliminated for a single mistake.)
You aren't really grasping that anyone who didn't witness the match itself might think you're exagerating on one or more of the elements you claim, including "refusing to completely participate in gameplay." Having two people on death hook and commiting to either of them would be trading 1 kill for losing the match, so its understandable that they would be looking for an opening that wouldn't cost them more than they gain. Without being there, none of us are going to be able to objectively appraise their intent.
The little bias quip was cute, though. Agenda indeed.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3292268#Comment_3292268
Yes, we stopped trying to get the gens, and did the snowmen objectives, and the killer didnt leave the area whatsoever. He'd injure the two dead on hook ppl and wouldn't just down them to secure the kills.
Why would the killer leave the area? Thats how you lose 3 gens, and they have zero pressure reason to do so. Chasing someone to the opposite end of the map is giving up their pressure they have, and the survivors 3 genned themselves instead of forcing one of those gens when the killer was apparently playing normally before that point.
The blame is just as much with rushing outer gens as it is with the killer maintaining pressure to capitalize on that mistake. You can make arguments about the shared agency of survivors and "it was the other survivors who caused the 3 gen" but at the end of the day, there is absolutely zero reason for a killer to chase anyone further away from that position unless they are confident they will get the down and be able to bring them back to a hook near said 3 gen. Asking them to leave that area for long enough to do a gen is asking them to throw the match.
-
@Remedicist said:
Maybe. Maybe not. I usually can't tell.
Bingo. You have no way of knowing what you're up against when playing, let alone choosing your loadout. There is very little opportunity to reactively adjust if starting the match less sweaty, as the killer role is designed specifically to start at a disadvantage and build pressure through downs/kills. It is much more intuitive to start sweaty and gain an advantage asap than it is to start more lax and hope your opponents are doing the same, since the latter will outright lose matches due to the game's design.
If you don't assume the worst, by the time you realize its the case, its already too late. Thats a big part of why so many killers stack as many advantages as they can right off the bat, they have to assume survivors are doing the same. It creates an endless cycle of "whoever relaxes first, loses" for both sides.
-
To be honest, the new layout is minimalist trash, and I'm having a hard time wording that any more nicely. I'm sure a lot of it was due to limitations from "upgrading" the forum framework, and I've seen a lot of other sites make the same change in the last year.
Alternating and well partitioned posts, intractable elements (user names, flag/quote/voteup, etc) not being microscopic, a layout that actually looks like a forum and not a blog/twitter, the old layout was far more serviceable than this one. Probably just not going to bother anymore until the readability is improved.
-
A week? Rookie numbers.
(I think I've only gotten a handful in the past year)
-
@Grigerbest said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3287301#Comment_3287301
I've seen people just gone completely crazy about limited skins... I've no idea why.
Direction of what? Like you never seen limited skins before?
Personally I've no problems with that. If I really like a skin, I'll buy that instantly, or within a month. (Just like developers gave a month time)
If I don't like a new skin, I'll not buy it anyway, so why would I care about "this skin is limited", if I'm not gonna use it, or like it...?
This is why I don't understand this "outrage".
Literally every online game that I played has a limited time skins or exclusives.
It has been explained multiple times, but the outrage is due to the predatory marketing tactics being known to prey on a particularly vulnerable demographic, paired with the fact that they werent in place for 6 years and were not only applied now, but done so retroactively to affect items that were available at all times.
Ask yourself: Why would any company remove potential sales for digital items with absolutely zero overhead once already created? They don't need to worry about the pixels used to make the skins running out or anything. Its very specifically done to exploit those who they deem "whales".
-
Practice KYF with bots, watch some high level play of different killers to get ideas for applications for their abilities, and get comfortable with everything mechanically.
You may still run into other roadblocks, but now that we have the ability to practice in KYF mode with bots, building up muscle memory and cursory tactics is considerably easier and goes a long way to being more comfortable in the role.
-
@DragonMasterDarren said:
I never really understood why people decide to scream about corporations attempting to nickel and dime their customers, considering that corporations pretty much do not care about what people think about them until people start showing up at their offices with picket signs
You want them to stop doing scummy stuff? Stop giving them money, hell, boycott their game altogether if you are that committed, wasting your breath by screaming at a company that does something you don't like is about as effective as screaming into the ether
Because these types of tactics are designed to very specifically take more money from the people vulnerable to them, specifically to make up for lacking sales elsewhere. You not buying it is still part of the plan, its the ones who can't help themselves buying your share for you.
Why else would you not just keep the items available at all times, and allow more purchases to be made? Its counterproductive in every way except to squeeze certain people for as much as possible to make up for any other lost sales.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285294#Comment_3285294
And this is completely irrelevant in Solo Q.
I could drop every pallet in the map and have a 5 minute chase. 2 gens will pop. Is that my fault? Yes. I queue'd up without a 4-man.
I only play solo and have had plenty of success with it as well. Its not guaranteed but what in this game is? Isn't that half the point?
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285274#Comment_3285274
This isn't 2017. If you get looped for 5 gens, that's on you.
You cannot run forever unless there is a HUGE mismatch of skill.
That's just bullshit.
The entire time the killer is in chase with 1 person, the other 3 people are only limited by their circumstances. If all 3 are up, that 1 person can throw every pallet at every loop and still have a chance of lasting more than 180 seconds. Remember that needing to break a pallet or landing a hit both reset bloodlust, so proper cadences of god pallets can prevent the killer from maintaining (or even achieving) T3 bloodlust the entire chase. Being able to rationalize if a chase is going to be a time sink early is extremely important to prioritization, which is why its always best to focus on weaker loopers (and recognize them as such as early as possible, of course)
not only that, but the point of actions isn't always to escape, sometimes its just to undo or minimize the killer's pressure. If someone on a fresh hook goes down to prevent someone on death hook from being removed from the game, its generally considered a net positive for the survivors, even if they get hooked instead. The whole comp corner meme is specifically because it makes it take longer for the killer to walk to the hook (not to have a better chance of wiggling free, but to give teammates more time to do anything from gens to saboing.)
Basically the important part is to last long enough to do more damage to the killer's momentum than he does to the survivors by eventually catching you. Its the best defense against LCD strats, since they rely on efficiency to make them work time-wise.
-
@Eelanos said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3283886#Comment_3283886
This is a weird take.
Imagine in a game people complain because one side has an atomic bomb that the other side has to counter with only 4 sticks. The side with the atomic bomb always manages to either wipe the other team or at the very least kill one of the 4 in the enemy team each time they press the "Atomic bomb" button.
When the side with the atomic bomb inevitably wins, the other side will obviously will complain. Yet your take is "lmao don't fall for it, you're giving a terrible impression of yourself."
The counterplay to the atomic bomb is several degrees more difficult to pull off than pressing the button to release the bomb. The people trying to counter it aren't making themselves look ridiculous when only the most skilled players get to actually counter it.
Your take only works if the tactic is easy to counter, like getting poked with a needle and dying when your team all have guns. That's when the other side is looking ridiculous for complaining.
If survivors complain for dying to a trapper's trap, I'd understand your take, but things like getting slugged, tunneled out or face camped require ridiculous amounts of coordination and team play from one side, and just the choice to do it from the other. I don't think the recieving end looks that bad when they could easily be average survivors vs a low tier killer and still be unable to coordinate against it.
The weirder take is that you compared LCD tactics like camping/tunneling to having a nuke vs 4 sticks.
-
@FlameGNG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285141#Comment_3285141
yea well atleast your own ping i mean that or remove dc penalty because there is no way in hell they can expect you to play with 200ms i men the bubba got a chainsaw hit on me like 6 meters away... Its unplayable for both sides and it happens like once every 100 game so
So take note of his ping and play in the future, like you would with latency in any other game. It absolutely sucks, but as long as the ping is consistent you can adapt and do things like predrop appropriately, just always assume they're closer than they appear, and play more predicatively than reactive. Not the perfect response or reaction, but its the best one we can do individually.
Again, I agree with you, but they're unlikely to change their mind due to that reason, so the best I can offer is a way to minimize its impact.
-
@SpaghettiYOLO said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3283564#Comment_3283564
Nothing special... they're all literally holiday themed or winter themed wear. The PJs have always been released during the winter. The bundled up cosmetics weren't released in the middle of summer. The sweaters, Christmas themed cosmetics, holiday colored cosmetics were all released during the HOLIDAYS. You're not missing out on anything if you can't get them all this year. They will return DURING the holidays next year.
On a separate note, the only people I've run into wearing holiday stuff during spring/summer/fall have always went out of their way to try and troll or be toxic in a game. If you weren't buying these skins during those seasons before, why do you suddenly care now? And if you did buy some of these during those seasons before, how many times did you actually wear them? Enough to be this upset this? I highly doubt that.
I know I won't be able to buy every single one this year. And I don't care because I'll have the chance next year when I know I'd want to wear them.
I've been seeing a surprising number of posts defending this kind of practice, while not really grasping what is actually happening with it. FOMO causes an irrational shift in prioritization by directly manipulating the availability of a purchase. This shift is something that your average person is able to maintain a rational perspective regarding, such as "i don't need it that much" or "I can wait for another chance later." The people it is designed to affect, are those with any form of impaired impulse control, or poor budgeting skills. There have been notorious GDC lectures outlining very specifically how to take advantage of these people and try to get as much money as possible out of them, with FOMO being one of the key methods. It is a known business practice that very specifically targets a vulnerable demographic.
Lets say you are faced with this situation, and have other more important obligations and are unable to make the purchase. A typical mind will think "oh well" and go without, but an affected person will start trying to readjust their budget to make it work, they may borrow money or even forgo financial obligations altogether as the need to commit to the purchase or lose out on it entirely outweighs their otherwise rational budgeting and prioritization. Its actually part of gambling addictions as well, as "the next bet can be the win that offsets all my losses" even after going into debt. It is a very real and well documented psychological effect.
The worst part is that, again, it has very minimal impact on most people. For many its not about losing the ability to purchase something like an ingame cosmetic, and they may not even see that as financially reasonable as it is. The problem is that it so very specifically preys on those who are vulnerable to the tactic, who are treated as whales (individuals who spend more than the average consumer, to make up for a lack of sales elsewhere) in the process.
Its an absolute shame how much this kind of practice is not only accepted, but even defended in the industry. There can literally be people bypassing anything from holiday gifts for loved ones to financial responsibilities such as paying their bills just to sell a few more ugly sweater model meshes and textures.
-
I agree that all players should have their ping to the server visible, it would be far more useful information than things like prestige level.
That said, im sure they dont want to do it due to the fact it will rightfully lead to lobby shopping.
-
@daniel_owenz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285113#Comment_3285113
Yeah the point is if we're all inside the gate area and the knight is at the door and he initiates a "chase" then you're dead. Most people on this forum misinterpret the problem frequently don't they lol, I'm communicating it in Englsih, the language we all speak, in multiple different ways and with examples but somehow they still miss the point. shows you what kind of people we have in this world in terms of intelligence and common sense.
So why didn't you just leave before he activated a chase? There is a pretty long delay for when he places down his sword, summons the orb, the guard spawns, and the chase starts. You had plenty of time to be cautious and just leave.
Your complaint entirely hinges on you being unable to deal with being bamboozled. This is the wrong game for that.
-
@daniel_owenz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285101#Comment_3285101
Exactly, it's dumb that the only way you can learn about it is to get ######### by it first. Those kind of abilities need to GO GO GO. I don't support wesker or pinhead having such abilities at all if it blocks the gate when the survivors already won basically.
Thats... how learning a game works? You don't suddenly know how to juke powers by playing the tutorial, and your complaint of needing to see how they work first applies to almost everything in the game. That type of surprise and awareness are purposely designed to reduce the formulaic nature of the game.
-
It sounds like the entire point of this topic is that the killer had a mechanic you didn't know about, and it killed you. Same as when people sit injured in the exit gates and get surprised by wesker or pinhead being able to block the exit, same as people used to do when they tried to leave with an active reverse bear trap. The logical response is to be surprised, find out what happened, then learn from it and not get caught again.
And here we are.
Edit: The irony is the insane amount of information and counterplay the knight's kit provides at all times. There are almost no surprises with this killer, except the fact he's allowed to actually give you a buff by accident.
-
@Superbeasto1974 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285060#Comment_3285060
And placing the sole blame at the foot of the company dulls any sense of urgency for individuals to seek the help they need. How is that any better?
Thats not even remotely what was conveyed, nor implied? Highlighting a poor business decision and its manipulative nature is literally just saying "you shouldn't use this business practice, here is why." Literally nothing in anything I have said has any implication that anyone who the issue applies to should not be working on said issue, nor seeking help when necessary. You're doing an awful job of trying to project that onto me, when my entire stance has specifically been that it is a manipulative practice that should be avoided, something you apparently feel is zero issue:
Stop being disingenuous.
-
@Superbeasto1974 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285037#Comment_3285037
I think you're trying to vilify me, but you're doing a terrible job of it. I said they need therapy more than skins, as in mental health should take priority. I literally place value of mental health over profit in my sentence structure. I ask you again, how is that dehumanizing?
Because you're saying that the practice is fine, despite it being documented as problematic and manipulative to the point that even Forbes articles acknowledge it, and shifting the blame onto the vulnerable person instead of the company knowingly and even retroactively applying it after people have been investing in the game for years.
This is known as victim blaming, you are blaming the people with any form of impulse control vulnerability that these changes are literally designed to take advantage of rather than the company putting forth said practices.
I'm not vilifying you, your stance is. I'm just trying to help you understand what you're actually saying in the event that you don't actually mean it, and are just ignorant to the direction your stance carries.
-
@Superbeasto1974 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285017#Comment_3285017
Do tell me how suggesting people seek to better their mental well-being is dehumanizing. This should be interesting.
Telling people that their vulnerability is less important than the profits of a company is, but thats not the message you are trying to convey and you truly and honestly care about these people's well being, don't you. It wasn't even remotely a responsibility and blame shift disguised as well meaning concern, right?
-
@Superbeasto1974 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3284948#Comment_3284948
It sounds to me that people susceptible to FOMO need therapy more than they need new skins...
And many of them do get therapy, but your dehumanizing approach to people who others are trying to advocate for has been noted.
-
@Emeal said:
They will be back next year.
Thats not how FOMO works. Or rather, I guess it would be more accurate to say thats how it does.
FOMO preys on people who are vulnerable to impulse spending, using the concept of regret as kindling to get them to spend. Its a very manipulative marketing tactic that takes advantage of people who have a hard time controlling their spending/budgeting, encouraging them to make purchases (that they would otherwise be able to rationalize away from) which is why it is so often looked down upon. This is also why its such a popular tactic in various F2P games and MMOs, its both scummy and unfortunately effective, and its effect grows with investment.
Having limited time availability followed by continuous availability is one thing, but this form of recurrent seasonal limited time availability or whatever is being done here, while also retroactively making previous permanently available items limited time only for absolutely zero logistical reason other than to force said FOMO manipulation is an extremely consumer hostile approach.