Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277525#Comment_3277525
Thats not a valid argument, first of all two wrongs dont make one right and second, old DH wasnt a problem for 5 years, it only became a it after dedicated servers and hit validation, when the Killer was the host DH wasnt considered a good perk because it usually ended with exhausted on the ground, the main exhaustion perk back then was either SB or Balanced landing.
Exhausted on the ground very specifically started becoming an issue when they did the migration to dedicated servers. Before that it required more timing than it did post-validation, but it didn't have any issues with false negatives. You would simply get downed before it activated if you did it too late.
-
@Terion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277537#Comment_3277537
shouldve read it first.
Why would anyone actually read posts or explanations that don't agree with their pre-established bias? -
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277512#Comment_3277512
If you dont have issues with this perk is because you are not playing in soloQ.
"The time it takes a killer to kick all the gens and down someone outplays the positive", are you serious? 9sec of instant regression plus 25 sec of incapacitation is not enough??
I play almost exclusively solo queue and have zero issues with it. I just take the time that I am incapacitated to find another gen, and spread out the pressure. You're also forgetting that the 25 seconds the gen is regressing is only 6 seconds of working on the gen, as regression is at a 1/4th rate. It also has a 30 second cooldown as well, which means there will always be at least a 5 second gap that you can tap the gen to instantly remove its regression even if you got hit and stayed around it.
Its strong, nobody is denying that, but its not broken. People find it frustrating because its actually effective.
-
@Taxman232 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277506#Comment_3277506
Dont drop chase, finish that and then progress back to the boon when you have the time and it does not compromise your game to head back to that area 👌
Cool, multiple people fully healed in the time you did that, which undid your progress in injuring them. You also now have futher to travel to snuff said boon, and are giving up more pressure to do so, including the outcome of the chase you finished instead of breaking off.
This is why CoH stands out as such a problem, its value is extremely high, but it also has full value when the killer is nowhere near it. You generally have to just accept that its going to be a safe area of the map for survivors to undo your progress for free, which just promotes camping and tunneling.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277390#Comment_3277390
So boons just aren't strong?
I mean most of them are too risky/niche/situational to be considered strong, its mostly just CoH that stands alone with minimal restrictions on its usage/value while providing a full on meta effect to multiple survivors with near-zero risk. Personally I think perks like shadowstep are perfectly fine, as the killer will have to be near the boon to be impacted by it, and thus already in range to snuff it with minimal forced time commitment.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277519#Comment_3277519
Ignoring time walking from spawn to gen to next gen to gate and so on, but yeah.
That was why I said "when not accounting for the other factors involved." Its also not accounting for the TTD of any chases, perks, items, etc. It has massive variance in either direction, the point is that the baseline outside of those factors is not in any way intended to be the entire match.
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277376#Comment_3277376
If survivors do all gens and killer has not managed to 3 hook one single survivor thne killer should leave them go. Why do end-game perks exist for Killers? Just let survivors get their well deserved 4 escape.
It takes a minimum of 180 seconds to do all 5 gens, just based off of raw manpower. You only need (90 x 2) to complete that objective, no perks/items/addons/anything. There is a reason the gates being powered/EGC is considered a phase of the game and not the game already being over, because the objective to get there is hilariously short when not accounting for the other factors involved.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277472#Comment_3277472
My point is even if second chance perks guarantee a escape in endgame, that would still be the killer's fault for letting the survivors reach said state of the game. Yet, those perks are still disabled.
Your previous point as why a survivor can escape from hatch if he/she performed bad during the game is the same as why a killer can avoid second chamce perks if he also played bad.
Because there must always be incentive to keep playing, even if it means a surv getting an undeserved escape or a killer getting an easy kill.
The EGC is an entirely different phase of the game, so thats not exactly an accurate point. Its also not even a one sided situation: Perks like adrenaline proc when the hatch is closed as well, even though the kill was all but secured at that point.
-
@Taxman232 said:
Boons take 30seconds to set up and 2seconds for a killer to break. Be more mindful of your environment/surroundings and rage less my dudes.
And how long does it take to drop the chase you're in, walk around whatever pathing is required to reach the location of the boon while navigating on a combination of listening for it and knowing totem locations, snuffing it, then running back to whatever you were doing? It would be an awful shame if people could be working on gens or otherwise completely destroying your map pressure during that time.
Time is extremely relevant in this game.
-
@dspaceman20 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277449#Comment_3277449
The point of the boon mechanic isn't to provide a risk to her value from them. The devs never claimed that. The point of boons is to provide a safe beneficial area to the survivors, no where is there supposed to be a risk that's why they are able to be put up multiple times. And even of they were the risk you take is to great in order for the survivor to get use out if it. Exponential and Dark Theory are perfect examples of boons that have too great of a risk with little chance of getting the benefits without a ton of set up time like bringing a map offering or something. Also we should not talk about hexs and compare them to boons considering that they play very differently and that most hexs are stronger then most boons.
Boons being permanently snuffed out would probably be ok of we were talking about circle of healing only but like I said before the set up for that would make the other boons not viable to use at all. Your ignoring the other boons and only focusing on circle of healing.
To solve the issue with boons your probably going to have to look at totem in general. Or buff all the boons to a good degree then nerf the whole mechanic to compensate.
The point of boons is to provide a safe beneficial area to the survivors, no where is there supposed to be a risk that's why they are able to be put up multiple times.And yet every single other boon requires the killer nearby to get value from it. The only real exception is exponential, which has equal value/risk relativity depending on what the intended outcome of its usage is (more than the obvious "getting up" part itself.) You can make whatever arguments you want about what the devs intended the mechanic to be, but youre going to have to wash those down with how hilariously busted the oversights from even the ptb with the mechanic were. Remember when they could overlap and stack? They still haven't even addressed their effective range being considerably larger on multi-floor maps.
If you don't want to compare hexes and boons, they shouldn't have so many similarities. Their differences almost all literally involve boons being similar but less restrictive, which is why the comparison gets made. Most of the differences between boons and hexes are QoL changes that killers have been begging for hexes to get over the years, like being able to relight them. Its an inevitable comparison when it feels like those ideas got lifted wholesale "to make them different."
-
@HectorBrando said:
Hatch is there to stop the last Survivor from holding the game until the end of times, its a benefit for both sides.
There was a time where Hatch would only spawn after 2 gens were finished and if the Killer managed to kill 3 Survivors before those 2 gens were done the last guy could hold you in the game for hours, Ive been there and I used to slow down if I was stomping too hard to avoid having to look for the last person forever, I think my personal record was around 25 minutes or so.
And we have received the EGC since those days. Its design and function are antiquated even with having been updated within the past few years, it needs to be updated in a way that ties in with the rest of the game evolving around it, instead of just being a coin flip on who is within audible range of its spawn.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277376#Comment_3277376
"of their deserved 4k" you don't deserve anything. you failed to catch the final survivor in time.
To be fair, the final survivor doesn't deserve a hatch escape if they were waiting out their teammates dying and it spawned under their feet.
The mechanic really should have some form of condition involving earning it. Maybe something like the hatch spawns closed and both players can see its aura, but a key also spawns somewhere on the map which neither can see. If the survivor gets the key, the EGC starts and the gates are powered, while the key can also be used on the hatch to give a three-way shell game of possibilities for the last escape attempt.
Not a complete idea, but neither side inherently deserves anything when it comes to the hatch, and people always seem to whatabout each other involving it when its really just rng picking whether the last person lives or dies.
-
@dspaceman20 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277397#Comment_3277397
If you bring down circle of healing to all the other boons then what would be the point in taking any boon? If Exponential, Dark Theory and Shadowstep are all niche and/or bad I don't think make COH niche and/or bad is a good idea. At that point no one would use boons
I think the best course of action is to buff all boons to current level of circle of healing then nerf the boon mechanic as a whole to make them more high risk.
The reason those boons are considered niche is because they require risk to get value from them, which is supposed to be an entire point of the boon mechanic. They are still much less risky than Hexes, which keep getting nerfed and are similarly pretty much useless (and even require a suplimentary perk to have decent odds of surviving long enough to have any impact.) The entire boon mechanic is very poorly implimented as it is, but supercharging bad boons to meet up with the ones that break game design and nullify playstyles is not a very healthy direction to take them, especially considering how much more important time management and map pressure are for the killer than survivors.
Your boon being permanently snuffed isnt even that much of a risk when you have up to 4 more you can relight it on. Map pressure revolves around remaining objectives, and "pressure dead zones" naturally form with every gen completed. All it takes is boons being placed in said areas and the killer needs to directly give up any time involved finding the boon, walking to the boon, snuffing it, then walking back to their pressure they had to give up in order to take that action. The only way that can possibly be balanced is by having the boons require proximity to reduce the amount of time wasted in each of those steps.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277429#Comment_3277429
Could we make it so the Survivors grow stronger with each knockout instead?
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.
-
@TAG said:
Honestly, I feel like the game needs to be rebalanced so that it isn't a death sentence for the Survivors if you start losing Survivors before the last gen. Then we can rebalance the Killer accordingly and then make it so games aren't as likely to either be a curbstomp in either direction.
Why not just take a normalization approach, and have survivors start weaker than they currently are, but lose less strength with each person down/out? The game is currently designed around lopsided advantage starting with survivors having the lead and killer gaining it as the match goes on, with both sides fighting over how fast the dynamic shift occurs in relation to their respective objectives being completed. 3 gens being done by the time the first survivor is hooked and 2 survivors being virtually unable to finish the 3 remaining gens are two halves of the same issue.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277397#Comment_3277397
Maybe it could come with say 4 charges. Each health state recovered across all survors uses a token, then you need to rebless another totem to reset them.
While not necessarily a bad idea, it wouldn't address the core issue of CoH as an outlier to other boons, nor would it provide enough impact to offset the power of perkless healing for all team members. It needs to have some type of distance/proximity related restriction, like requiring being in the TR (or even requiring an unfinished gen very close by.) Barring that, it needs to have information about its usage, like revealing your aura while healing. Certainly both would be a terrible idea, but they're examples of the kind of thinking that would need to go into keeping CoH in line with the others like shadowstep or dark theory. Primarily it needs to have some requirement of being placed in a pressure-oriented location to get value, or it needs to have a downside that is beneficial to the killer if allowed to remain in far corners of the map.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277390#Comment_3277390
CoH definitely is. The rest, definitely not.
You'd have to bring the others up to that level, where they could be worth using on their own and not just "well I've got CoH I may as well use another boon as well."
Shadowstep already offers complete stealth, I suppose it could hide pools of blood and grunts of pain too?
Exponential could offer increased movement and recovery speed while dying.
Dark Theory could potentially gain an additional 2% movement speed but anything more could be too OP.
Thats why CoH needs more restrictions to bring it down to the level of the other boons, instead of just numbers adjustments followed by a hard shrug.
Half the reason CoH is so strong in the first place ties in with the fact that boons aren't permanently breakable: CoH gets maximum value when placed as far away from the killer (and their pressure, like gens) as possible.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
I do not think that they are survivor or killer sided
That being said, I do think they are Noob-sided
The majority of their decisions (especially with balance) seems to be towards the noobs. It's why they might seem survivor sided because generally, a noob survivor is at a big disadvantage against a noob killer. It takes time and effort to truly figure out how to maximize playing survivor so BHVR balances to help them out.
Which in a way does make sense. A game doesn't survive for six years because they have a small but dedicated fanbase, a game like this survives by constantly trying to bring fresh blood into the mix. But fresh blood isn't going to stick around (and more importantly, buy DLC and Cosmetics) if they feel like the game is absolutely hopeless for them...
Good take.
If the roles were equally intuitive at low level while equally non-exploitable at high level, there would be very likely be zero bias (subconscious or intentional) in balance decisions. As it stands it often feels like there is bias due to how many situations are handled/designed, but it also feels like many of them are due to trying to essentially balance two completely different games (and thus prioritizing the newcomer oriented one)
Stuff like getting rid of locker blinds is a step toward fixing issues at high level that have little to no effect on low level play, which feels consistent with that logic. There is simply too much variance in efficiency to tackle everything, so when issues conflict it seems they stick with a prioritization system that inherently causes biased responses, even though the bias itself is not the intention.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3277154#Comment_3277154
Yeah that's your assumption, but any programmer would tell you an answer wont magically appear if you just put in time. It isnt always the case that time = results. Sometimes having over 100 000 users play a product is better at finding an issue than most QA teams.
You guys are just assuming the resulting product is caused by rushed development.
I would not call Knight unfinished, clearly the bugs only appear once you scale up the play.
I definitely understand what you mean (especially about the importance of sample size of testers) but time is still an extremely important factor in the debugging process. I don't think either of the two necessarily outweighs the other, as sometimes when the bug finally is found it can involve rewrites of multiple other things ranging from scripts to entire elements/mechanics to accommodate the correction. It could very well be that they learned of issues from the PTB and simply didn't have the time to fix them entirely, and releasing half-fixed would have broken other things elsewhere.
I always try to give the devs on the ground the benefit of the doubt, because these types of issues tend to boil down to project management, and even that can go all the way up to shareholder pressure. The long and short of the matter though is that the Knight was not ready for release, nor was his map. Whether they needed more perspectives to test from or more time to iron things out is a bit of a moot point, as its likely both.
-
@entertainment720 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3273883#Comment_3273883
Hello! I can assure that all feedback is being monitored closely! We encourage everyone to keep posting feedback, bugs, etc, as they come up.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3273899#Comment_3273899
I appreciate the sentiment here and I empathize with the frustration being experienced. We try not to kill switch for every issue, as it's a pretty hefty response. A re-weighting was deemed appropriate at this time. We will continue to monitor the situation. As always, thank you for the feedback.
At the risk of coming off as rude, reweighting the map's rate doesn't really do anything if people bring offerings for it constantly. Some of its more glaring issues (like the visibility of any tracking mechanics that stem from the color red) has also been reported during the PTB as well. Colorblind filters don't do anything if there is zero contrast to be had. The map just wasn't ready for release, unless a lot of legitimate feedback has just been ignored.
-
@GrimReaperJr1232 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275985#Comment_3275985
Yeah, I also distinctly remember those days having insta saw, Omega Blink, original Ruin, and hostage basements.
If the criteria of gamebreaking something that creates a hostage scenario or crash, then why was Object killswitched when it gave wallhacks?
Yeah I don't really understand that reasoning. If there was a bug where pig or wraith or someone was able to mori people without hooking them "like in the old days," I'm pretty sure they would still get killswitched until it was fixed.
This is just an issue of them refusing to killswitch the map because it's brand new, while it was not ready for release.
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275400#Comment_3275400
Yes, but again, they aren't going to killswitch the map they just released for their big update if it's still TECHNICALLY normally playable. Clown took the hit because he was already out for ten thousand years.
I'm not telling you it's good or proper reasoning, I'm just telling you why they did it.
And I understand that, I'm just saying its not acceptable reasoning.
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275322#Comment_3275322
I know, and I think the map should absolutely be kill switched, but you CAN still play the game as normal here.
It's not fun, it's not balanced, but like The Game, no one's crashing or becoming invincible or unsaveable or breaking collision. It just sucks.
Thats not how killswitching works. The entire concept is designed so that individual elements can be removed from live servers temporarily when they fail smoke tests. This is the same type of failed smoke test as when clown was able to permanently haste himself: It didn't cause crashes or anything that disruptive, but it sure as hell created one sided games due to having a significant effect on the gameplay loop and reasonably led to him being killswitched while they worked on a fix. Not switching the map tells the story that they don't think its "that bad," which a dangerous response when considering the game's health and its future. Their pallet spawning logic has been throwing issues ever since the RPD rework, and this map straight up broke it entirely.
Edit: also the Game is a pretty bad example, as its overabundance of safe pallet generation is a pretty unanimous issue as well. Its only defense at this point is that the scarcity of vault generation kinda offsets it a bit.
-
Some of those are a bit hyperbolic, but i laughed :)
The amount of free information he provides paired with his already existing downsides is pretty absurd. In a lot of ways he's like one of those joke addons that increase BP gained, but in killer form.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275248#Comment_3275248
You may have forgotten but we already had this discussion in another thread before, and i already explained to you while giving you several examples that it is not difficult for killers to produce these stalemates where there are too many gens for survivors to complete. But you just disregarded all of them. Told me i was exxagerating and bringing extreme situations....
To not fall in Defeatism is not the same as to evade reality. Honestly, i really hate to hide or see others hide but it is really easy with today's dbd to be stuck in this situation with very few mistakes. And a bad game chains to another bad game.
And these stalemates piles up and produce this:
- people opening threads telling how obnoxious sluggin for the 4k is.
- people asking to bhvr to reveal hiding survivors
- bhvr trying to do umbreakable basekit and affecting the normal slugging
And i will finish this discussion here, because no matter what i tell or show you, you are going to give me another fancy answer of how i am not good and why i must get better.
And i will finish this discussion here, because no matter what i tell or show you, you are going to give me another fancy answer of how i am not good and why i must get better.Likewise, no matter how much I try to emphasize that improvement reduces the frequency of the worst cases you laser focus on, you will always pretend to have zero agency in either their cause or result. Agree to disagree, but keep in mind you're the only one affected by your adaptation to the game around you. Whether you take my advice or not doesnt affect me in any way, and I am quite content with how these situations play out regardless of whether I escape or not. Thats the thing I've been trying to get through more than anything.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275183#Comment_3275183
'You keep begging for pity and claiming everything is impossible'
'If you go down in 5 seconds? yeah'
'You're a weak and easy target'
'If you can't last more than a few seconds in chase before going down, though, you are showing you present zero risk'
Your whole argument is just you claiming that i am pitiful, weak, etc. You dont even know how i play this game or how i behave in chase.
My argument has always been of how obnoxious these stalemates are, how easy they are to get, and how they were fabricated by the overnerf of what you call a pity mechanic. You defend this hard 4 minute cap thinking it is for your own skill, yet you always fail to mention how this were given to you by the devs nerfs on surv side and buffs to yours.
And now you can only said "get better in chase", "if you see a teammate hiding, lead the killer to him" , things that does not solve the problem in the minimum. You truly dont give a f about the survs put in this situation because you will just tell them to git gud.
"because in the first one your chances of survival are minuscule, borderline impossible to win against a decent killer."You made the argument yourself. Its self fulfilling prophecy. I have absolutely no idea how you play in any aspect of the game, but your perspective you exhibit is one of inevitible defeat, which alone prevents success from being a possibility. Defeatism is going to convey that you are not confident in your skill to overcome adversity.
`And now you can only said "get better in chase", "if you see a teammate hiding, lead the killer to him" , things that does not solve the problem in the minimum. You truly dont give a f about the survs put in this situation because you will just tell them to git gud.`Those things do fix the problem, they just don't fix your specific complaint with the problem. Thats why I've been trying to show the issue from multiple perspectives, so you can be more open minded about what the problem actually is.
Also where did i say anything about the bleed out timer involving skill? All I said is that it creates a conclusion to the stalemate, in a similar vein to the EGC. It wouldn't even be a stretch to say that the EGC itself was at least partially inspired by how the existing bleed out timer worked.
Edit: also stop trying to spread the net talking about buffs and nerfs. I know its a been a while, but you do remember that moris were reworked well before the hatch/keys, when they were both part of the same direction change, right? You're trying to shift perspective on purpose to suit your needs instead of being objective.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275097#Comment_3275097
Because in those scenarios, the last survivor skill is not relevant as you cant repair 2 or 3 90sec gens alone. You will eventually get caught unless the killer is really bad.
It's RNG based yes, but still the killer has an advantage over survivors in speed, especially killers like Legion or Blight.
I dont understand why you assume that i like hiding for hatch, i dont. What usually happens is that i am the guy being slugged watching the killer going back and forth the area. In this wonderful moment of dbd gameplay, i keep thinking it would be nice there were some way to escape this situation but it is not. Believe or not, even in soloQ survivors can care for the players that are in their team. I cant demand my teammate to keep repairing so he can die and i cant sell him either. So i am stuck spending 4 minutes bleeding out thanks to these stalemates.
Now tell me, killers do not want a 4k every game? at least whenever they slug for the 4k, they are actively halting the game for 4 minutes to guarantee it. If killers truly did not care they would just hook the 3rd survivor and go for hatch race and we wouldnt be having this conversation.
Then get better in chase instead of complaining about being slugged. If the chase goes for a long time, lead the killer to where the other survivor is hiding as they have clearly already both sold you out and teammed with the killer to get you killed. You keep begging for pity and claiming everything is impossible when you could be improving your gameplay to make it more worthwhile.
If there are only two left and a killer has to work very hard to down you while knowing the other person is just waiting for hatch, they're just as likely to let you go than the other person because they hate that situation just as much. If you go down in 5 seconds? yeah, they're going to slug you. You're a weak and easy target, and slugging you puts a hard 4 minute cap on finding the other person before the game is forced to proceed one way or the other.
'If killers truly did not care they would just hook the 3rd survivor and go for hatch race and we wouldnt be having this conversation.'many do. If you can't last more than a few seconds in chase before going down, though, you are showing you present zero risk if you're picked back up while they're searching. Like with tunneling, being a threat is the strongest deterrent. And in this case, it also coincidentally appeals to the other player's sense of competition and sportsmanship. Consider that maybe there's a reason you find yourself in this situation so often.
-
@AssortedSorting said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275074#Comment_3275074
Ah, I misread your sarcasm.
I wasn’t making an equivalence, but working off of you saying the survivor role was difficult with regards to map information.
My sarcasm was that there is a very strong push for more free basekit information for solo queue survivors right now (as the post it was commenting pointed out,) while this topic is about taking away information from killers. The role that already has a lot more mental tracking necessary at any given time. I hope it is now clear as such.
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275064#Comment_3275064
Then according to you viable is code for high MMR. All killers are viable cause every killer has over 55% killrate. Having under 50% makes the killer unviable, if he has under 50% I take it back. If one way of playing him is unviable but another one isn't that still doesn't make him unviable even if he is unoriginal or boring that way.
Considering how matchmaking works, I wouldn't even go that far. The biggest difference between high MMR players and low ones is that higher ones know how to stack advantages and exploit weaknesses in design. So yes, that is an important consideration for viability. Ideally the issues of the game would be fixed in a way that all killers (and the survivor role itself, including solo queue) would all be viable at all skill levels, but that's not how this game works unfortunately. What makes things nonviable in this game is the inevitability of their denial as long as the knowledge and technique are present, or their impact not being able to keep up with the flow of the game loop.
Edit: also please don't attempt to misuse kill statistics to prove a point, the devs disclaim against doing that every single time they share them.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275033#Comment_3275033
because in the first one your chances of survival are minuscule, borderline impossible to win against a decent killer. But in the hatch race, killer still have the upper hand as they are faster and dont need to hide.
Say what you want about the hatch, but it was a mechanic that kept the games going. It avoided these horrendous stalemates from happening and gave a reason to the last survivors to keep repairing and try to help the downed survivors.
Now it is all "accept the loss", "keep repairing so i can kill you or i will report you", "dont hide even if you have no other choice".
Now most killers think they are deserving a 4k every game ignoring the massive buff they received when bhvr almost kill switched the hatch giving them a whopping 4 minutes of stalemate advantage every single game.
"because in the first one your chances of survival are minuscule, borderline impossible to win against a decent killer."...unless you're a decent survivor. Why include the "decent" part for killer while being unable to have more than a "miniscule" chase? People can run killers for multiple minutes and do so regularly. You're cherry picking.
Nobody has the upper hand with the hatch btw, because the outcome of the hatch scenario is entirely dependant on where it spawns. Even if the killer finds it first, keys both exist and can be found mid match. It is a 5 layered cheesy burrito of rng.
'Now it is all "accept the loss", "keep repairing so i can kill you or i will report you", "dont hide even if you have no other choice".'So let me ask you this: If you have a teammate who is refusing to continue the game, slowly hiding from locker to locker waiting for you to die for an excessive amount of time, what choice do you have? You now have a three way stalemate unless you are the better person and attempt to progress the game, regardless of the outcome. You are so focused on pitying yourself in this situation you are completely oblivious to the fact that the other survivor is finding themselves in the exact same shoes. Believe it not people generally like playing the game instead of delaying it, and many would rather lose and continue the match than stall endlessly begging for a pity "win" (its a draw.)
The killers wanting a 4k every game comment is a massive projection every time it gets used, just like its opposite of "survivors want to be able to escape every game." Both perspectives show painfully obvious bias when they get thrown out pointlessly in discussions. Its not even worth addressing the "massive buff" comments.
-
@bm33 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275074#Comment_3275074
I kinda wish gens walked around the map when survivors weren't working on them. It'd be hilarious to watch a survivor chase after a gen to work on it.
It would be just as silly as the snowman event, though I can imagine it being an absolute nightmare from a logistics perspective :)
-
@AssortedSorting said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275021#Comment_3275021
Which is another thing I never quite understood, why do I know that a Survivor healed themselves across the entire map outside of my line of sight?
I mean, yeah, I can use that info to deduce if they’re rushing objectives, staying under hook to heal, or if they’re still preoccupied with deep wounds. Just not sure why I know that.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275056#Comment_3275056
Do you see me advocating for Survivors to be able to see generators auras basekit like the Killer to alleviate map knowledge skills?
Where did I single you out, or even respond to any of your posts? Also thats an extremely false equivalence, gens don't move, and there literally are perks that show you gen auras (which again, are stationary around the map.) The only way your comparison would be remotely relevant would be regarding the basement, and even that two places it can spawn on most maps.
Edit: forgot to mention that almost all gens have some type of secondary method of discovery as well, like the flickering lights indoors or the field lite poles on outdoor ones.
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3275044#Comment_3275044
Yeah but he can easily fall in the overwhelming side of killers. And as far as I can tell and correct me if I'm wrong, mechanically he is not challenging, so making overtuned is rather risky. I do believe his bugs will be ironed out no doubt although it'll take a while, but exactly because he is so different than the rest I think he is more difficult to balance right.
I personally will wait a little, I understand killers are not happy with him. I don't exactly understand how they wanted him to play out if I'm being honest and killers were also saying Dredge and Sadako were bad and the stats came out and people were making all sorts of guesses as to why is that because it didn't fit their narrative. Of course I cannot deny I could be way off with this Killer but I'll wait and see personally.
"Overwhelming" is often code for viable. Just like how wraith was "a wee bit OP" because his uncloak lunge was actually able to potentially hit people at medium sized loops. I get what you mean, but the perspective is not exactly impartial when you consider things like that. he has far too much counterplay and too much information to constantly calculate regarding his guards and their rotation on top of the chase and everything else the killer needs to be simultaneously tracking. You need to have a high reward for that much stress.
-
@Raptorrotas said:
Are you guys for real? Keep the damn info for killers.
With all that crapton of info you survivors want basekit UI added, you shouldnt really screech to remove thatfrom killers.
You have to understand, its ok that killers need to keep a mental spreadsheet at all times of all of the info thats hidden from them, but being able to figure out things as survivor is just too much work, and very distracting from watching a bar slowly fill up while reading twitch chat.
-
The knight's power is actually fairly ambitious. The ability to create pathing on the fly by itself is one thing, but having to create an adaptive system that makes it continuously need to rewrite said pathing and reroute accordingly based off of the movement of a target it no small order, especially when adding in as many variables as they have and having the tracking pointer be off of a moving player. That said, a lot of the other issues in the game come into play: stuff like collision issues being a big one, as well as the adaptive potential of said logic. I honestly believe its a big part of why they made them kinda dumb in establishing and starting chase, its the path of least resistance in play.
While I'm not going to defend how many things get by QA and how many get outright ignored while being known issues for literal years, this is absolutely a killer that is going to take a disproportionate amount of work and tuning before they work as well as people (rightfully) expect.
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
Damn, I don't think I've seen a positive post for this Killer till now.
If they actually took any risks of him being viable, I honestly think he'd be a very well received killer. As it stands, he's easier to counter than he is to play, and the reward is rarely worth the effort.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3274981#Comment_3274981
If you want the last survivor to stop hiding, then hook the one on the floor and go for the hatch race. PvP are meant to be played to the end, not for one side to surrender because the other side cannot bear to give the slight chance of escape.
so its unrealistic to expect the survivors to keep trying even though the odds are out of their favor, but its not unrealistic to expect the killer to give up their kill to give another chance for the survivor to not only escape, but do so without even having completed their primary objective?
The hatch is a pity mechanic. There's a reason it doesn't even count as a win, but rather a draw. Anyone willing to drag the game out over it on either side is equally guilty, but considering its nature I don't really blame killers for wanting to prevent it as much as survivors selling out their teammates (and yes, waiting for your ally to get found and killed while doing nothing to attempt the objective is teaming with the killer, even if not overtly) to try to sneak out. This game is structured entirely around a shifting advantage dynamic, with everything starting very survivor sided and devolving to being killer sided by the end of a given match (unless the killer loses before then.) Thats an important consideration to ponder while sitting in lockers wasting 4+ minutes delaying the game.
-
@Hensen2100 said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/SPRYZW0YTSGF/add.png
Did people bother to look at this? I wish they would give some sort of indication that the 3 different characters are SUPER different in how you should be using them.
I think a lot of people are just spamming the 3 without realizing just how different they play. 28 second chases from canifex with the yellow addon are no joke. Jailer can get up to 30 second patrols and a 18m detection radius with addons etc etc.
Knight could be a prime basement camper with the 2x jailer addon
Because you can't pick which one you get, while being expected to memorize all the stats of all 3, keeping track of where you are in their rotation (which can change with addons) having to rely on their nemesis zombie tier pathing, giving a million tells and indications of exactly what you're doing (everything short of which guard is about to spawn, really) and deploying incorrectly (or having deployments fail due to any of the above) gives survivors a potentially strong (yet very short lived) buff.
From a design perspective he is an absolute joke. There are a bunch of good ideas in there with glaring issues making most of them range from counter-intuitive to pointless. Its also a shame because he's a really cool killer both in concept and design, the execution just feels like they're playing it hilariously safe.
-
@Peanits said:
This isn't something we're looking to add at the moment. The rotating guards are a core part of his power. That said, if there is one you want to appear more than others, there are add-ons you can use to make them appear twice in a row.
His power can actively buff survivors when used improperly. Not letting the killer choose which guard to send out is just double dipping on pointless anti-intuitiveness when paired with that.
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3270690#Comment_3270690
Doing gens is not a counter, is the objective
My point was that stealth actively removes gen pressure, so he can't be invisibly stalking all 4 survivors at once. If a stealth killer is stalking every survivor they have absolutely zero map pressure, and every time they cloak they're removing what pressure their TR provides. Thats not even talking about how much of an impact healing has on completely negating their progress toward getting survivors out.
The numbers game is 100% shifted against stealth killers if you literally just hold M1 on gens and don't get downed instantly. They have to win and lose based on the circumstances of the match, including people complaining they're OP when not utilizing their laughably intuitive counterplay of actually doing your objective.
-
@Rudjohns said:
Wraith is invisible, indetectable and fast whilst cloaked. There should be a counter to this, and it's not even base kit.
The counter is called doing gens, and having the awareness to see his shimmer/hear his snarling/hear the extremely distinct bing bong that is only hidden with specific addons. The hell kind of take is this?
While I think some of the reasoning and examples are a bit of a stretch, I do agree with the concept that a killer's power shouldn't inherently come with a counterintuitive flaw. Its one thing to give counterplay, but another to make a power actively work against the killer, especially one that relies on things outside of the players agency (such as AI pathing and logic.)
Getting the banner should just remove the chase. Giving buffs for doing so is extremely bad design, and actively discourages use of the power.
-
Its weird because on paper, laggy players have a massive disadvantage in every way. The fact that all forms of validation are timestamped means they objectively have their inputs and interactions de-prioritized. The issue is that the visual desync is so strong that people are reacting to things that already happened, which is why the lag seems to hold the advantage. Im pretty sure they've done a few rollback re-sync methods to attempt to address it (like the occasional rubber banding) but its like the server itself and what any given player sees are all running +/- X seconds of each other. I feel like depth perception is the thing that suffers the most from it, so I've just made like a side mirror and gotten used to always assuming things are closer than they appear.
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268830#Comment_3268830
That goes beyond my point
Kill rates, especially artificially (in/de)flating aren't a point in themselves, so what was I supposed to be referring to?
Do you honestly believe a ratio of 1/4 while having a forced Time To Completion instead of forcing an outcome early on a (1-4):1 scale is anywhere near as statistically relevant? It comes off far more as projection than anything, and I was trying to bring it back to a common ground issue instead.
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268631#Comment_3268631
Oh yeah, but survivors killing themselves on hook was to increase kill rates, right?
Killers can't kill themselves on hook, so the entire match has to play out. Survivors killing themselves on hook is also more of a detriment to other survivors, as it secures 3 other people are much more likely to lose regardless of their skill and input. AFK killer literally just gives 4 players a free win.
I've said multiple times that either hookicides need to be addressed, or killers need a similar way out. There's just no parity in the ability to bypass the DC penalty.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268819#Comment_3268819
I see your point. I assume that most people know that I will change my opinion based on data, that I'm fine to agree to disagree on most topics and that without data and facts backing me up I consider everything I say to be an opinion and to be taken as such. I know that I shouldn't assume everyone knows that but it slips my mind since the natural tendency is for people to assume other people think like them. Thanks for clarifying.
Of course, and sorry I came out of the gate so strong.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268791#Comment_3268791
But I'm not insisting the other reasons are inconsequential. I'm saying my belief is that the primary factor, which as I define as greater than the other factors, was the Monster side and of that the new player experience of Monster factored more into player retention than the unfun nature of Monster. As I stated above, I don't have any data and, to be honest, don't really care if I'm that accurate in my attributions of importance or not since if any reliable data ever came out I would change my opinion to be in accordance with the data. I'm not aware of any historical comparisons that show that the player loss that VHS experienced could be attributable to a lack of marketing and thus don't see it as a primary factor. A factor, yes. A primary factor, no.
I think this is just a breakdown in communication. I might not have explained it clearly enough but of the multiple factors that caused the downfall of VHS my opinion is that the largest factor, but not the only, was the Monster experience and this primarily came about because the devs focused on balancing on the top 1% as the primary goal. As I said, I don't have any data or analyses to look at but from what I've seen and my experiences in closed beta I think there's a good possibility that that was the primary cause. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and if I'm right, I'm right. It's not a big deal to me; I'm more upset over the fact that this was all avoidable and VHS had a lot of potential that will be lost if it simply just closes shop.
The reason I'm so insistent on the clarification is because of how dangerous that type of information is. People who don't understand the situation will easily point at people who do to make their arguments for them, not understanding the first thing about the topic to begin with. The echo chamber effect is too strong, which is why opposing viewpoints need equal consideration. The topic was originally about how this game apparetly needs to balance specifically for casual players because balancing for top players is poisonous because of VHS as a case sample, which is why I'm so adamant in my stance. Its more about the conclusions people draw from the data than the data itself, which is why its near impossible to actually have constructive balance discussions at all. The initial dismissals, regardless of whether you meant them, serve as vindication for people who refuse to take insight from opinions they disagree with. Agreeing to disagree is perfectly fine, its just important that such a stance be an informed one and not one of vindication.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268767#Comment_3268767
I just saw the edit in your post. That makes it seem a lot less hostile. Thanks for adding that.
I never mean to be hostile with these types of things, I'm always more for clarifying and avoiding dismissals. Even with what I've said about lessening the burden of the outcome on the game's balance, I have no opinion if it was a contributing factor and am sure it played no small part. Its just a bit dangerous to incorrectly assume single factors like that are the only one when trying to learn from another company's mistake, thats the kind of thing they did a lot in the industry in the 90's.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268767#Comment_3268767
In this case while marketing is a factor it would be, in my opinion, fallacious to say it was a primary factor. A game that is fun to play, even without marketing, will not experience an over 95% drop in its playerbase in the timeframe that VHS has been out.
I'm not being dismissive of the person either. I am dismissing marketing as the primary reason it failed. If you are unfamiliar with this part of VHS history everytime the issues with Monster came up they were dismissed with the 'But this will fix it!'.
Rather than launching ad hominem attacks such as claiming I don't understand correlation and causation and calling me uninformed and disingenuous perhaps you could explain to me or show me a game of similar complexity as VHS but was fun that lost over 95% of its playerbase in a few months due to just not marketing? One that had a few thousand players in its playerbase would make for a more accurate comparison.
If you can't find one or show that losing over 95% of your playerbase over a few months in a fun game that has the same complexity and replayability of VHS perhaps you should consider that a lack of marketing was not the primary reason.
There is a reason so many companies do not make new IPs. It is an extreme risk to release a game with zero foreknowledge and pre-release marketing is all that is needed for a "single experience" title. When you make a "game as a service"/living game/whatever moniker is used for it, post release support and promotion is even more important then pre-release. It affects everything including balancing, as rebalancing is a very important aspect of player retention. This is actually a very important distinction in the medium, and is a major part of why even single player games attempt to mimic it when and where they can.
Marketing is more than just pre-release advertising, post-release support is also a factor in it. This game is a great example with its licensed chapters, they do a lot to market the game to new players and understandably see a jump in players with their releases. People buy chapters like the SH and RE ones, Pinhead/Freddy/etc because they're iconic. BHVR pays for the licensing because they know it will bring more people in, aka marketing.
Games that don't get post release support are a trend that the industry recognizes too well. Its why growth is so important, this game in particular has lost a massive amount of players since its release, but also gained much more to offset it. And again, this game has gone through some near unplayable levels of imbalance, even if the worst of them were generally short lived.
Also when did I say "just" marketing? Again, I have been saying that poor balance was not the primary cause, and have been showing that marketing has more of an impact relative. I also stated that you can agree to disagree and reiterated that my issue was only with your insistence that your perceived issue is both the primary one and that others are inconsequential. Also don't know when I made any ad hominems, unless you mean pointing out your stance leans heavily into outcome bias.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268736#Comment_3268736
Where did I ever say that the other reasons listed were excuses? What evidence do you have that the new player experience for Monster was not the primary cause and where did I make the logical fallacies you said I'm making? Also, where did I say that what I said was the only reason instead of what I believe to be the main reason? I'm also not throwing clout by mentioning my background to further elaborate on what happened and try to help convey part of the reason why I'm so disappointed this happened to VHS.
You're normally very calm and reasonable but, and my apologies if this isn't the case, but you're coming across as a bit hostile. Did I phrase something poorly or annoy you somehow?
In the very post i originally quoted? In case you forgot:
The not enough marketing, at least to me, seems to be an extension of the 'But more beta keys will fix it!' to but 'But EA will fix it!' to 'But a better tutorial' and now to VHS needed more marketing.Again, You were being extremely dismissive to another person who was making very valid points about the game's outcome in order to try to push a lesser reasoning as primary. Balance doesn't matter if the game's only sample size is its release window, and it gains little to no new blood to expand said sample size. Thats why I called it poisoned stock earlier, it lacks growth both in actual players as well as perspectives. This game didn't even have looping as an intentional mechanic at the start, and it changed a lot over the years, and had plenty of its success while in an extremely unbalanced state. My issue is that you're trying to force a lesser reason as the primary one, which I would dismiss as simply uninformed if not for claiming to understand how these things work from a professional level. That makes it come off as more disingenuous, regardless of whether that was your intent.
Edit: if your dismissals were knee jerk or something then fine, seeing you're more agreeing to disagree is also fine, I just call these things out as I see them. Sometimes people don't even realize when they do it.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268716#Comment_3268716
I understand what you're saying but it's not like I was hired and performed analytics. I was a player with a business background. I'm also not saying other factors didn't contribute but as for the primary cause it was primarily problems with the Monster role, and while not having any research or data so I'm making an opinion, I'm guessing the primary part of that was the new Monster experience based off of what I saw repeating from the beta waves.
You went off listing valid reasoning as excuses and conflated them with other excuses made concerning other games. Why try to throw clout with your profession if your observation was directly counterintuitive to it? My point was that the person you were responding to had valid reasonings that can both coexist with your own and can have more direct causation than your hypothesis. Your stance is also subject to outcome bias paired with anecdotal accounts, which again, makes it a secondary cause much more than a primary one. Just try not to be dismissive with stances that agree with reality but disagree with your outlook.