Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@C3Tooth said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3283892#Comment_3283892
The fact that you can not run him for 5 Gens then escaping tells alot about your low skill.
No seriously, someone here complains about how good a survivor that chase them for 4-5 Gen then die to their camping and still telling that survivor to get good
You can do everything right and still lose, thats a big part of the nature in this game, and applies to both sides evenly.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3283866#Comment_3283866
Camping and/or tunneling isn’t outplaying survivors.
It is by definition if they don't beat it. Outplaying doesn't necessarily have to mean outskilled, it means playing in a way that secures victory. It's up to the survivors to outskill the unskilled play, much like a killer needs to outskill gen rushing in order to outplay it.
-
@Villain_on_pc said:
Remember when you would queue into a match not knowing what you were going to play against? It created this fun environment of unexpected scenarios/playstyles. The current meta and the release of these terribly designed killers that limit options and encourage players to pre drop and hold W has created this situation were almost every game feels identical. Every survivor pre drops and holds W now even against very loopable killers. Now before you call me a salty killer main first of all most my hours are dumped into surv but I just don't understand, what happened to looping? It feels like everyone is constantly going for the "OpTiMaL sTrAtEgY" and this includes killers. Camping and tunneling has gotten increasingly more popular which has further encouraged survivors to adopt this boring hold W and pre drop playstyle. Every killer game feels like I go against the same 2 or 3 playstyles while playing against killers is more 50/50 whether they play boring or not it seems. A lot of anti-options killers: Slinger, nemy, artist, pyramid head, dredge, knight being the worst offender etc. need some changes to make the gameplay more engaging and not the same "leave the loop and die away from your team" playstyle every single time. For a dev team that regularly recognizes that their playerbase is mostly made of survivor they sure enjoy putting killers in the game that make survivor feel miserable and optionless and I just don't understand.
The game is "solved." The meta continues to be stacking as many advantages for yourself as possible, both before and during the match, which leads to an arms race of efficiency and agency denial. The game's balance basically relies on the lack of game knowledge players have in any given match, which means that they will also pre-emptively put efficiency over variety as a preemptive adjustment to their opponent inevitably doing the same. Its the final result of balancing around averages, and the lack of time to adapt strategy mid match basically necessitates it.
-
Yes, if only because certain perks/addons/entire powers are disproportionately affected by communication, so I would avoid those when possible. I'm also not a fan of lobby shopping, so if i played multiple games in a row with them I'd probably just bail back over to survivor.
-
When in a chase, the survivor has more control over the routing of the chase than the killer does. The killer can do things like zone or mindgame to try to take that agency away (especially with anti-loop powers,) but for the most part the survivor is plotting the course. This is how a lot of perks like Lithe and Balanced Landing are intended to be used, you lead the chase in a way that you use the perk at just the right time to extend the chase unexpectedly (and is also one of the strengths of Windows of Opportunity, being able to accurately route said resources efficiently.) Sprint Burst has this to a degree as well, but you have to be able to manage your exhaustion in the over 90% range to be able to stop running momentarily at a loop to do so. In the end, Dead Hard is the only one that doesn't require routing to be used mid chase effectively, though even then, doing so and using it to mindgame a pallet or window improves its effectiveness considerably.
-
@versacefeng said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3282629#Comment_3282629
It's more about knowing who you're up against rather than what. People right down the names of previous players they played against just to grief them, which IS reportable.
While I certainly sympathize with console players not having the same options to overcome that particular issue, I don't think it outweighs the strategic necessity of being able to see at least items and cosmetics. The names/profiles accessibility and lack of anonymous mode full support is due to requirements from the respective platforms iirc, so all that can be done really is to be ready to record and report i guess (which is another bad situation in itself.) I feel bad not having a better solution because there certainly are a good handful of console only issues with the game as it is.
Edit: on the bright side, its just as possible for someone to recognize you positively from a previous game, and either be extra altruistic or merciful due to it. Empty positivity, but its equally possible at least.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Were they really buffed though?
Honestly all I'm seeing now is largely a bunch of survivors running around with torches assuming because of this magical buff they'll now finally be able to blind the killer & to the surprise of no one they almost always still fail.
Annoying as a survivor teammate & highly amusing as a killer!
Of course it is a buff to a few but for the most part if they blind you odds are they already would have before anyway.
It was a positive skill floor improvement, so it is a buff. You're absolutely correct in that its not as big as people on both sides have been reacting to though.
-
@WorthlessBeing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3282588#Comment_3282588
I doubt deciding to be a pity child and hide in a locker not to survive but purely out of spite to deny an achievement is even close to the definition of "smart"
Its smart when you are one of the first 3 and do it to prevent being removed from the game instantly, but yeah spitefully denying the achievement and forcing a stalemate is being a bit vindictive.
-
@Tizzle said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3282462#Comment_3282462
Mandy has already stated killing yourself on a hook is not against the rules.
Disconnecting is already punished.
Repeatedly going afk for whatever reason is against the rules.
To be fair, one of the biggest reasons why hook suicides aren't against the rules is specifically because the game can't tell the difference (said inability to differentiate has been mentioned in the past.) In almost all ways it fits within breaking the rule to a T, it just carries too high of a risk of false positives. That paired with the extremely high frequency basically make it impossible to enforce.
That entire situation is only an issue because of the lack of parity: Killers can't leave matches early, but survivors can. Both should be able to leave early in a way that avoids the penalty, or neither should. One side being able to circumvent it devalues the penalty considerably.
this is all getting a bit off topic from the pinhead issue, though.
-
@Mockingjay_S451 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3282472#Comment_3282472
Neon skins? Really? I love the Stockholm Nea skin and wear it when I play her. I am actually trash at the game (only been playing a short while). I hope killers don’t think my Neon Nea at P4 is a some kind of chad.
I guess you didn't read the nuance in what I posted, but specifically seeing 4 neon skins and 4 flashlights is different from 1 odd person doing so. It also doesn't even necessarily mean its going to be a problematic match, but it is certainly an early warning sign that it can be. As a solo main I always make sure to take these things into account when looking at my teammates, If they all have items I'll usually go barehanded, if they all have bright cosmetics i'll switch to a more normal or even darker one. It's just a matter of knowing what types of presumptions the other side is going to make off of what they see, and trying to assuage said paranoia.
-
@Mockingjay_S451 said:
I do know it is 4v1, I play the game (although I play solo queue and that is at best 2v1 usually). But that doesn’t help me understand why the killer should be able to see who is in the lobby.
As others have mentioned, items make a big change in the match right from the start, and up to 4 can be brought in at the same time. Being outnumbered in a game that revolves around time management means you need to be able to adjust your strategy and resources to compensate, and in all honesty how much impact can be determined in the first few minutes of the match compounds the issue even further.
If you see 4 toolboxes, you know its either a sabo squad, or the first 3 gens are going to go extremely quickly. If you see 4 medkits, you know that you will either need to adjust your loadout for something like franklins, or you will need to commit to almost every down as they will just heal and undo your progress. You used to be able to switch killers entirely, which was apparently removed for MMR tracking reasons.
As it stands now, it fits logically with the build preset option they added: You can keep a main build and two reactionary ones based on the items you see, or assumptions made based off of cosmetics (4 neon color skins with 4 flashlights usually, but not always, makes it easy to assume a specific type of match.)
The reason people bring up the 1v4 dynamic in relation to it is because of the fact that the killer can only be doing one thing at a time, and even when in chase has to deal with the other 3 players simultaneously. Survivors can similarly see what each other are carrying for the same reason. Being able to see who the killer is beforehand would be far too relatively impactful to carry parity, so this is the result.
-
The adjustment was made due to the delay making it more difficult to readjust timing. It was still possible (by readjusting its position on the killer to be off of the target zone then back on) but that was a bit cumbersome of a workaround so they just loosened the timing requirement a bit to compensate.
It's not "survivors need nice things" and it wasn't a whiplash for the removal of locker blinds.
-
@hex_uwu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3281565#Comment_3281565
"It has the exact same counterplay as Eruption, AND it has no regression. You go do a different gen while yours is blocked, you work on it again when it's unblocked." Just curious, how is 'go do a different gen' the 'exact' counterplay to Eruption?
@jajay119 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3281818#Comment_3281818
Especially when the whole issue with Eruption is that you CANNOT do another gen.
The problem people have with Eruption is that it is uncounterable and too oppressive. If it blocked any gens being actively worked on with regression for x amount of time then fine - but let people go and work on others. Or if they went to keep the incapacitated effect then it needs to be fairer to counter.
Its not necessarily a prevention oriented counterplay, but the idea is that you rotate gens while unable to work on them, so that by the time you reach the next one you will either be able (or the effect will be just about over.) Its not a counterplay in the "prevent impact" sense but more the "damage control" way. Basically similar to perks like deadlock.
I understand a lot of people are unhappy with that degree of counterplay, and its certainly frustrating, but it does exist and can even prevent teams from 3 genning themselves unintentionally.
-
Hatch standoffs may be gone, but they live on in S
piritShape -
@INoLuv said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277376#Comment_3277376
True, hatch escape is lazy and there are survivors that gloat about it, pity escape should be removed
The entire crux of the hatch argument comes down to lamenting shared agency: People often want the hatch because "my team was so bad I never had a chance," when its intention was to prevent infinite hide and seek scenarios. I think something needs to fit for the former more than the latter, and even though we have things like the EGC now to facilitate that the hatch can still have a place. It needs to challenge the former mentality in the process though, it needs to be earned rather than granted.
There are any number of ways you could do that, like the key spawning idea, or even something like having it be visible to either the killer or survivor if they've pipped by that point. You could brainstorm plenty of ideas to be able to salvage the mechanic and address both its uses and grievances, but almost anything would be an improvement over the half assed updates its gotten to get to its current state.
...Now I need to hope I didn't just monkey paw and even worse hatch mechanic into existence. D:
-
@feechima said:
Ruin fell out of favor because there are better alternatives.
DH did not fall out of favor because there are no better alternatives.
You don't think yeeting itself out of existence if it lasts long enough to see one kill had anything to do with that? I get the idea behind the change as a way to discourage tunneling, but its still a hex perk. It doesn't have any guaranteed value whatsoever, and its limitation discourages undying as an insurance perk for it.
-
@hiken said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3281222#Comment_3281222
Not even close of being stronger than before. the EEEEEEEE for distance was a thing and that had 0,00000 counterplay.
It also didn't give an on hit burst before, which can make it situationally stronger.
it had both skill floor and skill ceiling adjustment. Whether that makes it stronger or weaker is a bit subjective.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277752#Comment_3277752
what about them?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277755#Comment_3277755
I say according to that definition cause people on these forum have pretty vague definitions, so I honestly dont know what definition the next person is dealing with. Been talking to people who say even the slightest bug is cause for delay.
No I dont assume my experience is the only one, Why would I?
It seems as tho me mentioning that has set you off, it was not my intention. If we work from the mindset that my game working isnt valid for the game being ready to release, then when someone always have a graphical issue with each new patch so that would mean that all releases of this game would NOT be fit for release, which I think is just ridiculous.
The patch working on my PC is a valid experience too you know.
Of course your experience is valid. The killer working correctly for you is certainly something that can happen, and i have no reason to doubt you havent experienced issues with him. That said, many people have experienced and reported severe bugs, including things to his power breaking and being unusable for the rest of the match. Testing these types of things is a two step method involving sanity and smoke testing: Sanity testing is "does the bug happen", while smoke testing is "is the bug important and/or impact minimal enough that it can still be pushed live in its current state." The big issue is that many feel the severity/importance of one or more of the bugs exceeds the acceptability of the smoke test.
Plenty of people misuse terms like that (and hyperbolize in turn) but I was being much more literal: I feel the knight is currently in a state that should not have hit live servers.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277767#Comment_3277767
Yes, but not every program is built upon C++ and the bigger a program is, the more complicated it becomes even with C++. My point overall is that most gamers that throw out that insult have no idea what they are talking about. The fact that you obviously do, then I think you of all people should understand where I am coming from. I mean, we don't even really know that BHVR doesn't have flow control and checks. Maybe they do, but even those aren't always perfect. Which, makes throwing the "spaghetti code" term at them even more of an issue IMO.
This one was built in blueprints, and converted to C++. It supports variables without requiring serialization, therefore it is able to streamline its code natively if the appropriate time and effort is allocated. I understand that spaghetti code doesn't mean that code is inherently bad, just that it is inefficient and prone to dependency related issues the more it is built upon before being cleaned up. Also they definitely use flow control because thats the foundation of everything down to if/than statements, my point was that when problems cause dependancy spirals like many of the ones in this game can, code being unorganized is often the reason for both said issues cause as well as the time and effort required to fix said issue. Its still a negative thing, but like I agreed, it doesn't mean the game is coded in crayon or something.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277758#Comment_3277758
Then dont spent an entire paragraph telling me how biased i am, telling me to reflect if you dont want an argumentative post. You write of how neutral you want to be while at the same provoking and downgrading the ones you are writing.
I wasnt provoking or downgrading anything, you are just literally refusing to view things from a different perspective. I did truly want you to reflect on it, because its something that a lot of people do without realzing, and getting defensive and argumentative only makes things worse. Please stop this pointless arguing and either return to the topic, or stop pinging my posts, I have no intention of continuing this argument.
-
When you make a change on line 12,456,774,778,999 it can have an effect on line 22,565,335,666 which have nothing to do with each other and why did this change affect.That is spaghetti code, yes. The name itself comes from the fact that dependencies are twisted together in a very unorganized fashion, and the more you build on them without cleaning them up, the worse the entanglement becomes. I agree that most people who use the term don't really understand what they're conveying with it, but it is something that is generally best to be avoided by streamlining and maintaining code, especially if you are going to be building on it further.
Also, not "all" code is like that, its the entire point of concepts like handlers. Instead of chaining together a series of dependancies, you can use flow control to create appropriate checks to call information from other sources, especially in a language like C++ which does not require serialization first.
-
@Yatol said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277727#Comment_3277727
never heard of that one but i was thinking more of the lines of perma breakdown
Clown recently had a bug where his yellow gas was able to permanently haste him. He was correctly killswitched while they worked on fixing the bug, which is why people have been frustrated that the bugs with the new map are considered not important enough. Especially since many people have been taking advantage of them and burning offerings for it nonstop.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277697#Comment_3277697
Now to say "bad move" is downgrade.
No matter how much you want to stay away from the facts, if the game reached EGC that's because the killer made some mistakes, or couldn't kill the survivors in time. You don't stumble upon EGC by accident, that means the survivors must have played (a little or mostly) better than the killer or the killer could not capitalize on their mistakes, or the killer made most mistakes.
The point of my original comment to another user was that EGC is earned by the survivors, when the killer gets to be in EGC by default. Yet, Endgame killers perks ARE stronger that endgame survivor perks, even if survivors are more likely to not get value of them because they can die earlier.
I am calling you biased because you are. You are very killer sided biased, as i am survivor sided. but even if you have no quarrel in calling me biased or weak or pitiful you cant take your own bias and call it deflection.
Dozens of your post advocating for killers and none for survivors, but you have no bias.
Defend broken overtuned perks like Eruption which clearly screw soloQ players , but you have no bias.
You can feel as superior as you want, telling others to reflect on their actions, but you are as biased as any killer can get.
Nothing about anything I post is about trying to feel superior, its about trying to avoid argumentative posts like this one. I tried.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277744#Comment_3277744
Sorry, what part of english makes that sentence mean Im saying everyone else is lying? Seriously I aint got a clue why you think that=?
Considering I never said "the definition of" and your extremely vague comment says "according to that definition," you yourself kinda opened the floor for miscommunication. I'm stating that you saying it works for you in response to a posit that the killer was not ready for release is saying that anyone who disagrees with him being ready for release due to firsthand experiencing gamebreaking bugs (like his power literally getting stuck, unintentional speed boosts, and every other bug that fails a smoke test) must be making it up in order for you to disagree with that perspective. Unless you are assuming your experience is the only one?
-
@MeltingPenguins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277701#Comment_3277701
Alright. Though the problem I'm seeing with this is the potential with swfs having one or two people disconnect on purpose then and take the penalty.
Especially with perks now like potential energy this could go very wrong
Thats exactly why the longer they keep throwing bandaid fixes on top of pieces of much bigger problems, the harder fixing core issues gets. This game has needed a health project for years, it outgrew its scope back in like 2019 or so.
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277724#Comment_3277724
Bypassing core gameplay mechanics is not whataboutism. The have been in the game in the past and survivors bypassing gens so all escape via hatch has been a real scenario.
Hook states aren't the end all for killers, gens are for survivors because they cannot escape any other way. Those mechanics exist in the game. if people are being nice not to use them, it's not because they cannot be strong, it's because people are putting silly limits and rules for themselves.
EGC has also not always been in the game. I don't think anyone of us is arguing with whatever the other one is saying. You're explaining or trying to explain to me why things have to be the way they are atm and I'm saying that they don't have because they haven't been in the past and won't be in the future.
The game at one point was designed for the game to be over when not even all 5 gens were powered. What are you even on? You have 10 times my post count, you've been here longer than me. You know that better than I do. Whether that was a good design choice is a different thing for you because you said you are not talking about fairness or unfairness.
Slugging is a mechanic that bypasses the other means for the killer to get to his objective done, so naturally I am asking, why aren't we talking about that? If more than one survivor escaped via hatch would we not put a timer on that and claim survivor objective can be done in less than 180 secs since they can bypass most gens?
I was arguing with someone else and you wanted to prove to me why it's important for the EGC to exist because survivor objectives can take as little as 180 seconds, so another phase should (?) exist. Why, probably for killer's benefit not? Why is it whataboutism if I mention that killers can down survivors and end the game without technically ending the game? Just because it is a risky play doesn't invalidate it, survivors don't have such a mechanic as basekit. Is it hard to quantify? Absolutely, but it is there. Hooking survivors isn't the only way win the game for killer, therefore achieving his objective. Doing gens for survivors though is mandatory if they wish to get a win as a team. And if reworked Mori ever made it to the game, my point would become even stronger because the game would end when the last survivor goes down, so the killers objective at that point could take as little as 45 seconds. It would only render it riskier because the game would actually give survivors a way to combat killer bypassing the hook mechanic. Hooks are more counterable for survivors than slugging especially if we go with the perkless scenario.
I'd like to believe somewhere higher in the post you could understand my point, because we view this from a significant different lens and are not arguing for the same things at all or even agree things should be the way they are or that they have a right to be this way.
You do not understand the concept of the comparison at all. And you're right, we are absolutely looking at this from a different lens, so if you're unwilling to understand the comparison method I was using, there isn't much point in continuing.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277741#Comment_3277741
Where did I claim that? I think no such thing, so it would be weird thing to claim things I dont even believe. What sentence made you think that?
The one I was responding to, of course:
Flat out disagree, what you call not ready for release has been working almost flawlessly for me, so it does not fit that definition for sure.Since you were quoting multiple posts, my only other conclusion would be that it was attributed to the wrong post in the chain.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277274#Comment_3277274
Flat out disagree, what you call not ready for release has been working almost flawlessly for me, so it does not fit that definition for sure.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277276#Comment_3277276
The PTB is only for fixing glaring issues, its not for fixing bugs, that's for first hotfix patch. Why? well because we have consoles whose companies need to run through it first. Its called Submission weeks, we been told before by devs that PTB is to get a head start on issues for release and head start on bugs for hotfix 1.
to sum up if you think PTB is for fixing all the bugs before release, you are mistaken.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277311#Comment_3277311
Well depending of how easy it is to replicate, it could be easier to get mega data from the community on it. We don't have any numbers on how many games were affected of the power break, so what do we know? Nothing for sure except it happens. If we cant show that its hard to demonstrate it would be delay worthy.
"it works for me" is not how bugfixing (or even finding) works. You are currently claiming that every single person who has had a moderate to severe bug with this killer must be lying. The entire point about bugs is that they are unintended behaviour, which means that if their cause is not triggered, you would never know there is a flaw in the code. Its also the entire reason why larger sample sets are preferrable in the first place, a point you originally posited. Im sure it worked perfectly fine for them as well, which is why it would have passed a smoke test.
-
@Yatol said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3274522#Comment_3274522
Thats not what they mean by game breaking, if the game can be ended then it pass.
Kinda like clown's perma-haste, right?
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277687#Comment_3277687
The objective of the killer taking that long can be bypassed by slugging. Survivors have no perks so they cannot pick themselves up.
Slugging currently takes 4 minutes but if you slug all 4 in the first minute the game is won, the time in this case for the killer to complete his objective is artificially inflated. He can now watch TV. He doesn't even need to hook them, hooking them is simply a mechanic to hasten their death to complete his objective in a safer way (by adding pressure), but slugging if it's possible is the most definitive win.
if anything it seems to me it is the equivalent of survivors being able to spawn hatch before completing all gens and getting to their main objective (escaping) without having to do it through exit gens that require gens. Basically it bypassed a core mechanic that was counterable more easily by the killer.
Survivors don't have any such thing currently. So when you take into account slugging, it might seem like you need 4 mins or so to win but in reality, if the killer downs survivors one after the other the game can be over in less than a minute (and that is something we've seen happen by you know which killer, although admittedly they usually have perks to help them). Would you be willing to address this part of killer's gameplay or do you wanna limit the conversation to only hooks as the killers objective?
Did you read the post where i posited multiple times that they do not have a direct comparison point, I have been removing all external factors from said comparisons due to attempting to establish a baseline, and that I was giving a generous estimation with the math? Gens can take 10 minutes and the killer can instadown 4 people in a row. The point of the comparison was specifically to avoid the whataboutism caused by the absolutely chaotic nature of the game.
The point, as always, was that the game was never designed for everything to be over when the gens are powered. If it were, gens would take a lot longer and endgame perks for either side would not exist. There's a reason the EGC doesn't even start until the hatch is closed or a door is open, the game is still not concluded. I don't understand why you're trying to force this into a partisan issue about woe is survivors, unless you're arguing with someone else at my post.
-
@Sava18 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277300#Comment_3277300
I mean there are tons of things they could change at high level that wouldn't affect low level play. I always use this example but in league they balance low skill champs around low to mid mmr while high skill champs are usually balanced around mid to high mmr. They can nerf nurse and blight but they would also need to nerf some of the extremely strong things on survivor side such as stacked med-kits and hyper focus builds. Because a nerf to the most stacked of med-kits won't affect someone who just needs to heal themselves because they don't know how to find teammates or their teammates wont heal them. There are lots of other things like this as well.
Truly I feel like if survivor mmr functioned perfectly( I know that's impossible) then the game could be balanced way way better. There is way too much inefficiency all the way up until top 5% mmr survivor's who are probably a 3-4 man swf anyway. If a better mmr system and indicators are in the game I think it will be in a much more balanceable spot.
Oh of course, I absolutely agree that balancing for high and low levels does not have to be mututally exclusive, and there is plenty of work to do on both fronts. My point was more that if there is something that is bad for killers at high level but good for survivors at low level, It will generally be deprioritized vs something that is bad for survivors at low level and good for killers at high level. Low level survivor players tend to be the largest driving force in many of their balance decisions, which is entirely understandable due to the nature of learning the game paired with the obvious 4:1 ratio of players. The biggest problems in high level play tend to be due to advantage stacking having a disproportionate effect, which will only ever be touched if it specifically doesn't affect low level play. Thats why I mention things like the locker blind fix as a step in the right direction in that regard, they're acknowledging its not a mutually exclusive issue between the two overall groupings, and fixed it to address the issue.
All in all, the game just needs better sanity checks. Things should not stack and synergize anwyeher near as much as they do, especially as selectively as they enforce breaking up said synergies.
-
@MeltingPenguins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277679#Comment_3277679
I'd say it makes sense. Though correct me if I got this wrong:
You mean to have perks like Prove Thyself or Overzealous or botany increase their bonus if someone dcs?
The efficiency shift would be basekit: 4 survivors would be less efficient than they are now, while 3 would be more efficient than they curently are, with that effect increasing at 2 and 1. Perks that rely on other players specifically would be unaffected and not gain their bonus when people are missing, as the prorated value should be set to a level that makes them redundant and/or obsolete, especially when concerning action speeds.
Clarification edit: This means that a perk like Prove thyself would be primarily for when there are still 4 survivors left, as the bonus given when 1 dies would likely be roughly equal to its bonus provided. Allowing things like that to stack would have to require a lot of testing to see if it would(n't) be reasonable.
I just prefer resolutions that attack problems as close to their cause as possible, while giving equal consideration to both sides. Even with my recommendation it would be very easy for someone to purposely skew the idea to favor one side or the other, but the intention is to honestly strike a middle ground as best as possible to affect the subsequent issues on both sides. I get called biased for this all the time btw :)
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277660#Comment_3277660
Many killers can curbstomp effortlesty the survivor team.
The whole gen regressing meta has as sole purpose to avoid reaching EGC.
With this in mind, It is not outcome bias to assume that a killer who reach endgame without closing the hatch has made some bad moves.
I am not complaining about NOED, but you disregard the fact that NOED has given easy endgame kills to many killer for years. and the disparity of the strength of effects like NOED and No way out, against Hope and Adrenaline are remarkable. That's why EGC rewards killer more heavily even if it is a state that the survivors worked to get.
You are telling me biased like you are not extremely killer biased yourself.
Yes many killers can do well. That is a completely pointless comment, and has absolutely nothing to do with me refuting your comments that a killer must have done poorly for the endgame to be reached.
The whole gen regressing meta has as sole purpose to avoid reaching EGC.Yes, that is how preventing your opponent's objective works.
With this in mind, It is not outcome bias to assume that a killer who reach endgame without closing the hatch has made some bad moves.now its been downgraded to "bad moves." You seem to have zero interest in how many mistakes any of the 4 survivors have made up to that point, which can still be plentiful and still have the same outcome. Making assumptions of the events that lead to a result and basing said assumptions on the outcome is, in fact, outcome bias.
I am not complaining about NOED, but you disregard the fact that NOED has given easy endgame kills to many killer for yearsWhere have I done that? I am actually very strongly against outcome bias, which is exactly what that statement is. Noed absolutely can and has given people free kills they should not have gotten, and I have never stated otherwise. This is known as conflating arguments.
I am not killer biased at all, it was a nice attempt at deflection though. I almost exclusively play solo queue survivor, I stopped bothering to even do killer dailies a while back. My issues with balance in the game are always centered around game design, and there's even another topic where someone made a very good point about how that relates to bias in perspective with the game. Please stop being argumentative and stick to the points presented. I was very reluctant to mention anything about the bias you present and regret doing so, but it's honestly becoming impossible not to. I'd appreciate if you didn't try to deflect it in response, but rather took a moment to reflect on it.
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277617#Comment_3277617
It has to do with what i originally posted though, concerning fairness and unfairness. The person I replied to was complaing about hatch robbing killers of deserved 4k. And I replied on the side of survivors and you replied to me about gen speeds. We were already having a different sort of conversation there.
As for gen timers I don't get what 90 x 2 means. I understand how you came up with 180 seconds though.
Killers objective also takes too little. If a killers objective is to sacrifice all survivors then we can assume they all start under a hook and he only has to hit them twice and hook and then hook them right? Let's say it takes 3 seconds to attack and recover, then you need 3 more seconds for second attack. So that is a total of 6 seconds. Time to pick up a survivor is 3 seconds and time to hook him is 1.5. So that's in total like 10.5 seconds x 4 = 42 seconds to hit and hook all survivors. How much time till they are all sacrificed. Well, each hook stage is 60 seconds right?
Once all are hooked and reach stage two they are all automatically sacrificed. That is dependent on the time the last survivor was hooked, which is at 42 seconds. Add to that 60 seconds and all survivors are killed at 102.
Survivors doing their objective as optimally as possible without taking into account anything realistic (like killer chasing them or them looking for gens or killer interrupting them and kicking gens) still takes a lot longer than it takes the killer to sacrifice all of them as second stage is skipped entirely once all are on hooks.
Survivors have no always had to to experience that part of the game when hatch could be used by all of them and spawned earlier. Removing that has made the game inherently easier for killers as now survivors are forced to play out the whole game even when they are at an extremely disadvantaged position. I am not advocating for the game to return to that state, merely mentioning that things existing at the moment does not mean they always have existed or that they always will, or the circumstances around them won't change.
up to 4 gens can be done at once, which means that 90 seconds can be anywhere from 1-4 gens being completed. The expected variable is for 1 person to be in chase, while 3 are working on gens: This gives the gens two "waves" of 90 seconds they can be completed in.
Killers objective also takes too little. If a killers objective is to sacrifice all survivors then we can assume they all start under a hook and he only has to hit them twice and hook and then hook them right?Going to ignore the rest about TTD and such because I very specifically omitted all factors for both sides that can affect the duration of the objective, so lets keep it relative when making that kind of comparison. Hook timers are 60 seconds per stage, which means a single kill requires 120 as base. Since the killer is only one person, it is impossible to give this a set cadence like the survivors, they can only be doing one thing at a time. This then requires estimation, so we can try being forgiving and use 1 hook state as the "simultaneous action" limitation: We will assume for comparison purpose it takes 60 seconds per kill despite knowing it can very easily be more or less. That said, you are looking at 240 seconds for all 4 to be killed, which is longer than the 180 compared to. Understandably this is an extremely unstable comparison, but the very nature of the fact it is incomparable without piling on multiple factors is part of the issue. It is impossible to measure the objective of the killer, especially in comparison.
That said, I once again posit that my point was very specifically about the endgame being part of the game proper, due to how the objectives are balanced. Both rely heavily on the factors that surround them, which is why I often state that the game is "balanced on averages." I'm not even going to touch comments about wanting the old hatch back, especially as someone who refused to take part in standoffs and regularly jumped to my death instead of plopping down and opening netflix.
-
@MeltingPenguins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277651#Comment_3277651
I misread, my apologies. See edited post
No worries, mistakes happen.
Tried to requote the updated post, but it wouldn't update with the edit, so just assume this is responding to that:
Your synopsis of the consequences of each option aren't necessarily wrong, but the options don't need to be limited to those. The crux of the problem is that an overwhelming number of players refuse to play out matches that they do not want to, and due to the 4v1 nature of the game (both in terms of shared agency and raw population) it is generally going to be more common on the survivor side. The issue then becomes each 1 ragequit having a massive impact on the potential of the remaining 1-3, which is why the problem expands in scope from there. For every one person that ragequits, they are basically forcing a loss on the other 3 people. This is also part of why survivor RQs are more of a problem than killer ones, since those force 4 wins by comparison (even though they're still obviously an issue in terms of being able to have adequate games.)
All of that said, the proper solution in my eyes is to address the efficiency cap of survivors at any given point in the game, something that I feel I end up bringing often due to how many issues it affects. I was just discussing it in another topic, so in trying to copy over my explanation:
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277433#Comment_3277433
compared to how it goes now, that would be the case. losing less strength means that their impact would be stronger on an individual level than it is now, kind of like the effect of the perks that amplify things based on number of dead teammates.
The idea is that if its supposed to be 1 : (.25) x4 in terms of impact, it would kind of shift like 1 : (.33) x 3, 1 : (.5) x2, etc. This of course only works if the entire scale of survivor numbers is properly balanced, so it would require baseline adjustments for how strong the normalized survivor strength is to the point where neither side is in clear advantage, so the baseline would be somewhere around where 3 survivors alive currently is (or more specifically somewhere around 3.25.)
But in the end, the idea is that the game would theoretically, at all points in time, avoid having efficiency cap related advantage in either direction.
In regards to how it would affect DCs, it would both reduce their impact on the overall match, while still giving the victims of the DC a chance at having a fair match from then on. This in turn will lessen the cascading nature of DCs, especially sinc ethe frustration of a game ruined by a DC is often internalized and makes that player less patient in subsequent matches (and thus, more likely to quit themselves.)
DC penalties are necessary, but they can also have more creative ways to approach them as well. Many gaves have a "quitter hell" aspect to their matchmaking where people who have a higher frequency of quitting have a higher liklihood of getting each other as teammates. I don't know how well a system like that would work with this game, but having measures in place like the one i mentioned would help cover the obvious flaws of a system like that in a game like this. Hope that makes sense.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277621#Comment_3277621
Outcome bias? what
I always said that the fact that the hatch exists (and should exist) is to give incentive to the remaining survivors to keep playing the game even in clear uneven odds.
The killers are given an incentive in EGC as i said before where many endgame perks on the killer side are clearly very strong (NOED, No Way out, even terminus to some degree). Yet you are adamant in differenciating these two situations.
Saying that the killer did bad because the gens were powered is outcome bias, which is what I was addressing. You also in the same breath had no issue complaining about NOED being able to say that kills in egc don't mean that the killer played well. You're being selective with your reasoning, even in this post complaining about EGC perks killer has while ignoring things like adrenaline and hope having the same conditions. I am adamant in trying to get you to stop being biased for five seconds.
-
@MeltingPenguins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277584#Comment_3277584
increasing the dc penalty would only make things worse, as you know. But if you prefer the worse outcome, be my guest
Can you please quote where I said, or even implied, it should be increased? All I stated is that removing it is both a terrible idea, and has had multiple tests verify that hypothesis.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277619#Comment_3277619
God, how many times have i talked about this...
The problem with eruption is not exclusively of being uncounterable, or that it affects soloQ. The real issue with eruption is that it has an extremely punishing effect on top of being uncounterable. And it has low cooldown. And it can be applied to multiple gens. On a single non-hex perk that already synergises too well with another two very strong meta perks, Brine and Overcharge.
When i say that it is a counter, it is because the effect is too crippling to just tank it every single game.
Even if i want to carry, I dont overstimate myself that i can outplay every killer i face for several minutes. There is an average time set for a chase when it comes to balancing, and you cant expect every single survivor to overperform because you cant admit that a certain perk is overpowered.
Then continue to get bodied by a decent perk.
Even if i want to carry, I dont overstimate myself that i can outplay every killer i face for several minutes.You're not supposed to expect to be able to do it every single time, but you're expected to try to whenever you have to. The mentality is the important part, and a big part of why I can handle dealing with the perk better (apparently.)
Edit: remember your comment was that nobody in solo queue could disagree with you that it was a problem. I'm not saying you're not allowed to have issues with it, but you're not allowed to speak for everyone while doing so.
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277623#Comment_3277623
You really like to have the last word... I dont know why I even bother sometimes...
You just ranted a bunch of stuff at me, so I was more confused than anything honestly. Nothing to do with getting the last word, wouldn't have even responded to this if not to try to clear that up because it was honestly confusing.
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277597#Comment_3277597
I dont think is a bug fix, in the patch notes dont say anything about the change being intended so it has to be treated as either a bug or a shadow buff and while we can all especulate if its intended or not we already have a judge for this issue and its the developers, if they revert the change then it was a bug, if they leave it then it was a fix/buff and they just forgot to put it on the patch notes.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277596#Comment_3277596
Ok, semantics, my bad, now does it really matter if you got exhausted or not? When the Killer was the host DH didnt work, many times you pressed E and still ended up dead because the Killer validated the hit and ignored the Survivor input, sometimes you barely moved from your spot, this was a problem with Killers with higher latency and it was very common to face them.
DH wasnt a problem before network improvements on dedicated servers and then it became a big problem after hit validation, I suppose we can dig very old pages on this forum and check what people were complaining about during those days but most were about Adrenaline, infinite loops, Self Care, Haddonfield and DS, the perk wasnt a problem for 5 years or even 3.
Now does it really matter very specific aspects of how the perk behaved on the argument "Two wrongs dont make one right" and "DH wasnt a problem for such amount of time"? Because at this point its just thread derail with whataboutism focused on a boogeyman perk, defending a change because the other side had something you disliked is not a very good argument, Survivor mains can escalate into "well then when they nerf facecamping and petty slugging what are we getting then? Machineguns to shot at the Killer?" which is as absurd.
When did I ever argue any of that? I was simply correcting mistakes. Also the difference was that exhausted on the floor meant you weren't able to use the perk again if you were flashlight/pallet saved or otherwise picked up, so it was an important distinction.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277589#Comment_3277589
so? what you said does not change the fact that killers get awarded with the disable of second chance perks even if they play bad all game. And perks like NOED can easily get them an easy kill in EGC.
So if we were to be truly fair and dont allow for comeback mechanics like hatch to exist, then killers shouldnt receive any benefit in EGC.
And nothing you have said has equated to killers playing bad the entire game and still getting to the EGC. The killer can be playing just fine but the gens got done in record time due to just mandatory time wasters like safe pallets, time to transport to hooks, etc. This is why the rate of completion at baseline is so important to consider, the killer doesn't have to play bad for 5 gens to get done in less than 5 minutes. You're relying on outcome bias to try to force your point.
I have already also stated that I would much prefer that the hatch be a system that is earned, rather than randomly rewarded. This way the survivor has a fair second chance at it that depends on their skill and ability.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277599#Comment_3277599
My point was that it is oppressive, and it is too strong.
What you said before of " i'll look for another gen" cannot be always be applied. The true problem with eruption comes the fewer the gens are, where the killer can kick several gens and fully commit to a chase knowing that eruption alone gains him a lot of time.
Which again, comes from the fact that it actually gets value. You think its oppressive because it actually works and doesn't have a free built in counterplay like most killer perks, especially ones like DMS and Pain Resonance. When you say you want to be able to know when people are going to go down to trigger it, you want to be able to let go of the gen and not get zapped, then go right back on it and force the killer to wait another 30 seconds while you finish literally a third of the gen (at base) before it can be used again.
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277592#Comment_3277592
I can take the aggro, yes. then? am i supposed to be able to run every killer for several minutes so that one overtuned killer perk cant activate?
You are if you want to carry in solo queue at all, regardless of "overtuned perks." Likewise the killer is expected to constantly have extremely short chases in order to keep up with the baseline rate of doing gens, especially since up to 3 are generally being worked on at the same time. You should never be relying on your teammates any more than you have to, and the higher your mmr the better your chances of having teammates who don't need to rely on you in turn.
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277519#Comment_3277519
You probably know this better than me but EGC has not always been part of the game, and hatch mechanics have been different. If killers feel they are robbed because of hatch how is it any different than me feeling I'm robbed if I don't get to escape or get a 4E when the majority of the match the killer has been outplayed by the survivors, meaning he is outskilled. The survivors earned it from my point of view and maybe if no one has been sacrificed at that point, then exiting gates should be made easier for survivors as opposed to having to deal with more stuff. Is it radical? Yes, am E really a supporter of it, maybe not really. I'm simply throwing ideas because end game can be a turning point for survivors when all the while they've been doing good. It like been punished for doing well 90% of the game for doing one mistake (if you wanna go with NOED) and same with killers feeling they deserve 4k if they down the majority of survivors before all gens are done. Both are feelings of entitlement really.
Many games have comeback mechanics truth be told cause you don't want your game to be decided at a certain point. For killers it's possible to come back from a bad game by bringing certain perks in the end-game. For survivors doing bad, we all know the infamous slug for the 4k when 2 are left. So when 2 are left there are not really any comeback mechanics that can level the field really and as we know Hatch is a consolation prize at best. SO a killer who has taken out 2 weak links but not bothered with the 2 others who might be strong may as well have won the game, he really just bypassed going against the more difficult ones but currently we're ok with that. Those 2 survivors will have to sweat their balls off if they want to tie, there are no mechanics that actually help them come back from that.
In other games you do have come back mechanics, or the games have evolved to allow them, I'm of course referring to PvP games as well.
If we take League as an example (I have no idea if you have ever played) if I'm doing superwell, I get a bounty on my head. That means I am worth more so if I make a mistake and die, then the team can receive resources directly form me (as in gold). That can also be made even worse if I die to a certain character who benefits immensely from that gold (like a carry) and now they've somewhat begun leveling the field again since more gold means more items to buff your powers.
One good comeback mechanic for survivors when killer is snowballing would be either to get gen-speed or the infamous basekit unbreakable. I personally would be for it if it became available when 2 survivors were left. As it is now, the killer can just slug and go look for the other or wait for them to make an appearance trying to heal their downed teammate, so the pressure falls hugely on the shoulders of the survivors. With basekit unbreakable killer has to weigh in if he wants to risk a 4k by slugging if he feels extremely confident or get a guaranteed 3k and find the last one before hatch or instead focus on closing hatch. Currently slugging for the 4k is pretty much superior to the other one and anyone who wishes to 4k should always do it, there are hardly any drawbacks and a small risk of someone bringing Unbreakable. In its current state a killer taking out two survivors early is a guaranteed win. There should be a possibility for the killer to still tie (he's not even losing lol) or else we could make a case for a teammate dying at 5 gens and dooming everyone (I wonder how high the killrate is when a survivor is removed at 5 or 4 gens permanently).
Thing is come back mechanics can be there to stop snowballing and for survivors that is a lot harder than for killer. Like I mentioned killer can still influence end-game and even if he has not done great there are perks that can really turn killer games around because they can apply to all survivors (NOED makes everyone exposed, No way Out blocks everyone from opening a gate), survivors don't have perks that buff everyone at end game, because first of all to get value off of it you actually have to make it to end game while killer will always by default play endgame. And when only 3 survivors are left with a lot of gens to do and they have end game perks equiped they are even more disadvantaged. When 2 are left? Good luck with that.
None of that has anything to do with what I posted. My post was specifically about the fact that the game is not "over" when the exit gates are powered, because the time to do so is entirely dependent on the factors around it. I have not said anything about how fair or unfair any of the factors surrounding it, nor that it causes, are for either side. All I have said is that the time to complete is actually extremely short for that milestone when looked at completely linear fashion. This is in comparison to 2 minutes of hook time per survivor, while only 3 survivors are needed to achieve peak efficiency (again, disregarding the factors associated on either side.) The numbers game favors the gens being completed inherently, as it is the faster resolution: everything from skill to rng determines the rest.
This is an important consideration because it verifies that the gens being powered is not considered the end of the game, and perks like No Way Out, Remember Me, and Blood Warden are designed specifically to extend the duration of trials after that point. It is true that the survivors generally have reclaimed a degree of advantage compared to the gradual shift the killer has been building up to that point, but said advantage is going to be entirely relative to the status of the survivors (hook states, how many are remaining, etc.)
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277551#Comment_3277551
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277553#Comment_3277553
I'll answer the two.
Look, if you really are playing soloQ, you should know that you literally cant avoid the effect of eruption when activates. There is no perk combination that can consistently tell you when a teammate is going down.
With this in mind, how can this perk give a 9sec instant regression + 25sec total incapacitation + (now) 6sec of passive gen regressing? All on a single, non-hex perk with low cooldown for the previous mentioned effect.
Seriously, there are several killers that can kick gens and set eruption with no problem. Most people are talking of the requirement of a gen kick like they would need to spend 2-3min for a kick.
I have made no comments about being able to avoid it, just that I am able to adapt to it.
Also again, I have stated that the perk is indeed strong and actually provides value, which is the source of your frustration. The difference of opinion is whether it is considered too strong or oppressive, to which I completely disagree.
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277563#Comment_3277563
When the Killer was the host exhausted on the ground was a very real thing because the game was way more laggy for Survivors and Killer was the one validating everything, it became more aparent because after Balanced landing nerf, dedicated servers and network improvements people migrated to DH and more people using it, more people complaining about it.
Again, you literally just went down without getting exhausted. I used the perk religiously at the time. I also remember how the problem started due to the latency involved with checks between the server and clients being unable to sync correctly, as they were no longer a simple binary correction like they were when the system ran p2p off of the killer.
I have had plenty of times where i thought I dead harded on time but got downed, but again, exhausted on the ground specifically didn't start becoming an issue until it had to do a multi-step reconciliation check.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277579#Comment_3277579
Really, they are the same situation, just changing the one that is winning
The existence of perks on both sides that work when the gens are powered, or the EGC starts by any means, means that your oversimplification is completely inaccurate. You're welcome to lie to yourself, but don't expect others to agree.
-
@MeltingPenguins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277503#Comment_3277503
nice assumption and so amazingly wrong.
If the game would punish bad behavior like slugging etc AND allow to rule out certain killers, there'd be fewer dcs, you know that. It's called curating, and the only argument I have seen people try to put against it is 'oh but then people would just put ALL killers on a 'don't wanna play against them' list' as if that argument would have any logic or realism behind it.
Slugging is not inherently bad behavior, much like tapping the crouch button isn't either. You demand the ability to rule out certain killers but say nothing about being able to opt out of matching with SWFs, the two of which are one of the only reasons the game is balanced by averages at higher levels. As we have learned since Legion's PTB, ragequitting as a form of protest never stops at the claimed original reason.
The only way to cut back on ragequits and DCs is to cut back on the behavior behind them. And every time the penalty is removed or reduced temporarily, we are reminded that said behavior isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon in the community.
-
@Terion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277557#Comment_3277557
i mean they had the chance to express why they think how they think but yet choose not to and type a one liner. Missed opportunity XD
The most wild part is that half of learning is taking in different perspectives, including gaining insight from ones you disagree with. Its the entire foundation of feedback as a concept.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277510#Comment_3277510
One is made by the killer performing well, hence the survivors are mostly dead and one looks for hatch.
The other is by the survivors performing well, so the killer tries to get one kill.
They are not so different from each other
Apples and Oranges are also both fruit, and aren't so different from each other when framed as such.
-
@dspaceman20 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277504#Comment_3277504
No not every single other boon require for thr killer to be near it to be useful. Even Exponential doesn't need to have the killer be in the boon range in order to get the effect. The only perk you could argue for this is dark theory and we all know how bad this perk is. Yes I do understand how overpowered they were in the ptb. Thankfully they don't stack anymore and the issue with it working on all floors can be fixed when you rework booms as a whole.
Boons and hexes have enough differences that they should be considered to different.
I already said expontential varies depending on its usage, which again, is more than just standing up. The timing and placement can be important, and people can use it to stand up at times specifically where the killer relies on them not being able to, such as picking up another survivor at a pallet or if the downed survivor has a flashlight/flashbang. It has just as much impactful use when close to the killer as it does when away from the killer, which is why its a bit of an outlier in that regard. Besides, unless you crawled all the way across the map you would have had to have gotten downed near it in the first place, which means the killer would have been nearby.
And again, the differences between boons and hexes are specifically the QoL changes people have been asking hexes to receive. They are the safer version but also can be replenished and yet cannot be permanently removed without investing 1/4th of your loadout into it, while the exact opposite is true for hexes. They are different but that is exactly the problem, the rules feel "bent" for boons by comparison.
@Taxman232 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277540#Comment_3277540
Make a judgement call based on the circumstances of the game my dude. If you break chase then you have injured survivors who need to reset and re-boon and the chased survivor is off the gen they were presumably working on. If not you have chased a survivor off a gen with a potential down. Both good options.
My point was that "it only takes 2 seconds bro" isn't a valid argument against the fact that it forces a lose/lose scenario where the killer needs to decide which loss will hurt them more. Again, I have no issue with boons that require the killer being nearby to have any impact because the time lost in this lose/lose is then guaranteed to be minimal (barring the fact that boons affect multiple floors, which is a design oversight they refuse to address.) Those still maintain a lose/lose scenario, but the loss has a much lower baseline making it relatively comparible to the time investment that went into booning.
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277526#Comment_3277526
I don't think so. Many many times survivors have benefited from a boon I never heard. You do have to look for it a lot of the time, and that wastes even more time. It's just not worth it, but then they get a free boon. Boons are inherently lose-lose for the killer. And I don't think Exponential or Dark Theory are bad either. Exponential is Unbreakable for everyone. Dark Theory might not seem like much against 115% killers, but it absolutely cripples 110% killers, because they already can't really chase.
I understand all too well the time investment factor, and was even literally advocating it to someone just above, as well as providing reasoning regarding why CoH is an outlier in that regard. The only boon i think is underpowered entirely is dark theory, but its effect is just bad in the first place and will either be underpowered or absolutely busted due to the range of movement speeds between killers and their varying degrees of anti-loop potential.