Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Piruluk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268716#Comment_3268716
The product itself was flawed, and almost anyone who played monster could tell that its the most frustrating role in the whole genre, I never played anything more miserable in the genre than that, after few games unistalled, and teen while was fun, didnt worth to wait over 20+ minutes to get a game, thats how it is. DbD killer without any buff felt so much powerful than the monster in VHS.
It was also better to be "killer" in Propnight, in F13, in HSHS, in Sprit Detective, in Evolve and even in Deathgarden .
Cool, none of that refutes anything that I said, however.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268675#Comment_3268675
The disagreement I have with the lack of marketing argument is the timeframe. In a matter of a few months VHS went from a high of 6,023 concurrent players on Steam to 140 currently and I wouldn't be surprised if next month was double digits. That is too fast of a decline for not marketing to be the primary cause. If it were spread out over years, that would be a different story.
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.
It's too fast of a decline to be just marketing and the core issues were never fixed; new player Monster isn't fun enough to keep more than a small amount of people who tried it, of the ones who stayed they learned Monster wasn't fun even once you learned it, and without enough people to fill one side the match making, queue times, etc break down and impact the otherwise amazing and well-done Teen side.
In closed beta, whenever the fun part was brought up a common retort was 'But the balance!' and the devs gave high priority to the input from the same group of 50 people who were highly skilled at the game while ignoring the people in the lower levels of VHS who were saying it might be fun at the top but it's not balanced.
I literally said directly to the devs that if Monster is not fun enough to keep at least a minimum of 15% of the playerbase playing it and preferably 20% then all the rest doesn't matter because as Monsters leave queue times will grow, matchmaking will become harder and the Teens will also start to leave and this would crater the game.
Unfortunately, I was right and this is exactly what happened. I'm not surprised because as for my actual job over the last decade I have advised businesses (I'm not a teacher, I use TheSubstitute because of the mistaken leak for the Teacher Killer for DbD and teachers are good horror genre) and it was easy to see coming.
I am saddened, to be honest, because the game had so much potential but it forgot its product was entertainment value and balance was a tool and not a goal in and of itself.
NGL if you actually do this for a job like you claim, you really should learn the difference between correlation and causation. You're doing an awful lot of dismissing of relevant factors to laser focus on a single one, which would be extremely bad for prospecting clients who wish to take all relevant data from any success/failure in marketing and growth.
Lack of growth is much more of a death knell than even balance, as it creates a net negative potential. If you literally have nowhere to go but down, then the failure cascades rapidly as the sample set not only has no room to expand, but it shrinks directly relative to awareness. Its both poisoned stock and natural decline bottled together, and the vast majority of almost any game's sales happen in its opening 2 weeks, while marketing and advertising/promotion are designed to ebb vs the natural decline flow.
I'm not saying anything you have to say about VHS is right or wrong necessarily, just that you're drawing a lot of assumptions and dismissing a lot of valid reasoning.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3267638#Comment_3267638
yes, it means it's not a valid report.
I still don't understand why this loophole is allowed when it is directly bypassing an existing rule against disconnecting, for which there is a direct penalty per infraction. There are ways it can be verified both internally (through simple data like serialization or stored variables since C++ pretty much has the ability inherently) and externally through the same user report system that is used for other examples of cheating/hacking/etc. Why is this one so fiercely sanctioned and defended, especially when there is no parity between roles?
-
@Piruluk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268591#Comment_3268591
Yeah I think anymore buff to killers would hurt the survivor playerbase, right now its little killer favoured, but i guess it needed because most people cant handle losing playing as the one role, so they need a little bonus to winrate, 60% quite good number to aim for
Thats not the point of the target at all, its due to the lowest common denomination being forced to 25% intervals with a target that is higher than 50% (that still rounds down to 2/2 instead of 1/3,) and is weighted away from the "result of no interaction," i.e 4E.
Its not "because x side is hurting" or anything like that, its actually a very logical target considering how the game is designed, including the very same shared agency difference you mentioned earlier.
-
@Piruluk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268568#Comment_3268568
Nurse has above 50% winrate even at all mmr stats.
I mean sure its isnt 60%, but still above 50%
How many times do the devs need to disclaim not to try to use kill stats like this?
-
@Piruluk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268559#Comment_3268559
But here is the thing, if one survivor isnt skilled then the game is lost for survivor team, because killer only has to rely on themselves, while survivors are a team. So if you balance around that top tier killer player vs top tier survivor team has about 50% winrate, that means all survivor has to be very good in order to stand a chance.
Or they just have to play however good or bad and get carried by the other 3 teammates. You can't make that claim when agency is not divided evenly by 25% between survivors, they can carry just as easily as they can throw. Thats before even getting into the agency denial potential of either side.
This game is remarkably easy to "fail upward" due to how simple its win condition is for survivors, paired with the difficulties of their individual contribution. It always has been.
Edit: Regarding the overall topic, balancing for the top 1% doesn't need to conflict with the other 99%. It just means closing things that go beyond what is acceptable for one side or another, like the locker save changes. Things like startstruck nurse would obviously be included in that as well, but actually balancing would involve reducing the exploit potential and agency denial of both sides to a minimum. It wouldn't involve "removing fun" in any way unless the "fun" people got was from exploiting something their opponent can do nothing about.
-
It was fixed in the generation algorithm a while ago, but around when they reworked RPD they broke it again. Its especially ironic when compared to hooks not accounting for pathing, but if I had to venture a guess they likely had to change some things to account for more static structures on many maps (like RPD/Garden of Junk/Haddonfield) and it messing up the potential possibilities for the free radical tiles. If thats the case, its probably a safety measure to lessen the restriction to prevent dead zones, but this... isn't a good way of handling it, as that gif above illustrates.
All hypothetical, of course. Except the pallets being too close, that does actually happen.
-
You get a whole roster of other characters to spend the BP on instead of just one person.
-
What if they're just good reads?
I get the concern (and especially the paranoia) about subtle cheaters in the game, and I know that DH scripts exist and are used and should be removed like every other exploit, but why always assume the worst?
DH's change was made in a way that rewards reads, not reactions. Your opponent is hard commiting to when you're going to press the attack, and ignoring every flinch attempt and feint in the process. That type of mental fortitude is actually common in multiple other genres, including fps and fighting games.
I absolutely agree that there should be a better system of validation (especially knowing they use timestamps) and detection of scripts and the like, but for every 5 you think are cheating, it could only be 1 or 2. Especially since you stated it's apparently high MMR
-
its because everyone wants kindred basekit yet nobody bothers to actually run it. the lack of information excuse only goes so far compared to the allure of basekit BT, especially to newer players. Safe unhooking is extremely unintuitive by design, it has to be learned in a way the game doesn't naturally teach.
-
@LuthirFontaine said:
O come on survivors don't have much in the way of good perks CoH is one of few
survivors have plenty of good perks, most are so controlled by the meta they just refuse to use any that arent the dozen or so the internet tells them are the only viable ones.
Seriously, look through that perk list. its massive now and a lot of them make for pretty decent builds.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3260570#Comment_3260570
Of course i have no understanding of game development and balancing.
and true, i dont know your perspective in this.
But as a gamer, wherever i play a normal dbd game, and get into one of these stalemates i dont get the feeling that this should be the normal gameplay. To be stuck in a situation where i must wait for my teammate to bleed and die so i can get a chance to escape.
And i cant understand even less why killers think that in these situation they should add more mechanics to further punish the survivors that are already losing.
Those situations happen to survivor and killer alike, they're caused by the game being balanced on averages and letting extremes go unchecked. Thats why I was saying they're just part of the game, there's no point getting caught up on them when they aren't going anywhere until the entire game's framework is reworked to put in better sanity checks and less advantage stacking. You're focusing on survivors doing poorly and getting punished harder without considering that the same happens to killers who do poorly, especially when changes like basekit BT got both added and buffed. Nobody's complaints are necessarily invalid, they're just part and parcel of how poorly balanced and designed the game is. It outgrew its scope like 5 years ago at this point.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3260559#Comment_3260559
Look, let me give you an example so you can at least try to understand my point of view:
Imagine if i am a bhvr employee, and i decide to implement a new game mechanic called 'gen overpower' or something like that.
This new mechanic makes so that if 4 gens are completed and the 4 survs are still alive, the killer is locked of hooking for 4 min so you can only down them. Would you think that would be fair?
Because i could also argue with you that the 4 gens completion would be the 'culmination of all the things that happened... etc' and 'you should accept your loss and prevented it'.
Would you approve this new mechanic?
You're acting like I've never seen these scenarios. I'm telling you that most people who play the game have, and got over it. You also have absolutely no understanding of how game development or balancing work, so your example is kinda pointless. You don't even know what my perspective is on that manner, as I am a firm defender of normalizing the strength of survivors relative to their remaining number. Stop trying to conflate arguments with absolutely no foundation.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3260550#Comment_3260550
What i am saying is that you shouldnt be in a situation where every action except for hiding equals death, and if that situation in unavoidable, try to make that situation less easy to achieve.
There is no fun in being slugged for the 4k, either on the floor or hiding, i dont like to hide, but in that situation you have no other choice.
Because you can no longer repair for hatch. Gens takes more time and killers are always packed with 4 gen regressing/slowdown perks. So it is not that i dont want to repair, it is that every survivor in that situation realises that repair = death.
Yet everyone expects that survs to throw themselves to the killer and not try to survive.
You shouldn't be in most of the situations you find yourself in with this game. Welcome to DBD.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3260538#Comment_3260538
I am not listing 'worst case scenarios', you make it sound like a stalemate require an oustanding skill or a tremendous outplay by the killer when it is not. Strong killer like nurse and blight can produce this stalemate in 1-2 minutes and then what? accept the loss and throw myself to them because i am locked of doing anything else?.
By the way, Totally easy to raise my MMR when the only thing that counts is gate escape.
There is a limit of how much i can offset other, i cant block bubba's chainsaw, nor i cant pull two people that are being facecamped in a basement
You speak in nothing but hyperbolies, so yeah, you're trying to make things sound as dramatically out of your control as you can. I'm telling you that you have more control than you are complaining about, youre just refusing to make use of it. You even went straight to nurse and blight to try to emphasize your point, ignoring that killers like myers, trapper, or hag are extremely likely to lose 2-3 gens before even getting a single hook. There is a lot of room in between those two extremes as well, which is my point: If you focus on how bad things can get, it paints a worse picture of how they currently are. If you can't tell the difference, then I guess raising your MMR is impossible and you need to accept that every game will have your pinnacle of skill and wit held back by troglodyte teammates.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3260526#Comment_3260526
Look, if there are 2 survs left and 2/3 gens left, it's unrealistic that you are able to repair your way out, unless the killer is extremely careless or very new. So going for hatch is the only REAL option you have in those situation.
You know what is that it's infuriating about these stalemates? the 'culmination of all of the events that happened before' can be ONE SINGLE MISTAKE. Let me explain:
Situation 1: match in Gideon, two survivors got caught in the bathroom of the first saw movie by a bubba, double chainsaw sweep down, both surv goes to basement and bubba camps, pum, stalemate, 40 sec in.
Situation 2: random killer hooks the first surv, another one goes to rescue and he hook grabs him and hooks him close, pum, stalemate, 1 minute in.
Situation 3: killer facecamps the first surv, surv are not a comms SWF so they lose time trying to rescue, the one hooked dies and the killer inmediately downs the rescuer, pum, stalemate, 2 min in.
You see how easy it is to produce and abuse these stalemate?
Then be willing to take the loss. You can complain about the odds out of your favor all day, but thats not gonna revive your teammates or give you a better chance. You can list worst case scenarios all day and thats not going to change the situation when you find yourself in it, so stop making excuses and just play them out as best you can then accept the outcome.
If those situations are as easy and unavoidable as you claim, you should probably raise your MMR a bit more. Bad players make bad plays and killers will often take advantage of those, thats been the case since this game was created. Your complaint is literally that the killer is able to snowball off of bad players while you do nothing to prevent them from doing so. You share agency with your teammates, and you need to be willing to either offset theirs or deal with the consequences of their actions as much as your own. Thats how teams work. Don't like it? Play killer.
Edit: Might as well address them individually.
1) There are tons of lockers in that bathroom. They could have gotten 1-0 downed if they heard his chainsaw and jumped in them, but they didn't. Still an agency issue caused by bad teammates, so again, your complaint is about that.
2) Bad unhooks are not only a bad teammate play situation, the game encourages them with basekit BT. Blame the devs for making the most intuitive outcome the worst one strategically. Also another bad teammate complaint.
3) Survivors refusing to adapt to the situation, again, an agency issue. You don't need comms to identify when the killer is facecamping, and kindred both exists and is promoted heavily for this very reason. Bad players refuse to take off their full stack of second chance perks and deny themselves the first chance in the process. yet again, bad teammate issue.
You blame the outcome of a "stalemate" instead of being willing to offset your teammates bad plays that led to it. Either own up and intervene or accept the outcome of your team's decisions without you.
-
Play however you want, as long as its not disruptive/exploitative/AFK/etc. "fun" is a nebulous term that gets thrown around a lot with this game, but its still something you want to strive for as either role. If playing sweaty isn't fun, play more lax and be willing to take some L's in the process. Refuse to lose? Play like you're in a sauna. People are going to complain no matter what you do, so as long as you're following the rules of the game and not trying to sneak around them, play how you want.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3260491#Comment_3260491
And that will probably lead you to DC, Suicides on hook and in general survs giving up.
Consider this, You have this unfun, unhealthy, not difficult to reach in current meta, stalemate and your solution is to punish the two survs that are losing even more by forcing them to take actions that will undoubtely kill them.
And if they DC, you will ask for harder bans.
And if they suicide on hook, you will ask for harder restriction on unhook attempts.
And if they give up because they cannot win, you will report them for unsportmanship.
You do understand what this will cause right?
Its only a stalemate if they are unwilling to accept their loss. If both survivors are working on gens, they still have a chance. If only one is working on gens, their chance is reduced, but it still exists based on how many gens are left. Anyone giving up and hiding is unwilling to accept their situation, and just hoping that their teammate will die first so they can spin the wheel of rng for hatch. 2 survivors/too many gens is a culmination of all of the events that happened before, which is what a lot of people seem to ignore: If your teammates are dying too fast, you need to step up and get chased on purpose and give them more time instead. Have some agency instead of relying entirely on the agency of your teammates. If nobody comes for you on hook or whatever excuse comes next, then good job you got out of a game with bad teammates faster and can go next anyway.
The constant pessimism is why these excuses happen, people always assume the worst of their teammates, but refuse to take any action to circumvent how bad they'll be, then lament the self-fulfilling prophecy that it causes. You either get a win or a quick death, both of which are preferable to begging for free wins and second chances.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3259918#Comment_3259918
Sure.
Any map with a lot of high elevations is great for Balanced Landing.
Large maps are easier for survivors to evade the killer, providing it's not a highly mobile one.
Meanwhile indoor maps are bad for highly mobile killers.
Gideon has a ton of pallets.
Midwich and Gideon are great for TR base killers like Doctor or Starstruck Nurse.
Indoor maps are great for Ghostface/Myers and necessary for Mirror Myers.
Dredge has to think about locker placements.
Huntress/Trickster have to think about LoS blockers and locker placements.
But you can just as easily end up on these maps by chance as much as you could intentionally, and in those cases, someone is using up their Offering slot to take you there. I know Offerings slots don't hold as much weight as Perk slots these days due to the fact that everyone just plays BP offerings, but they could have potentially played a Mori, or a hatch spawn offering or something, instead. Offering slots deserve to be used for something that will aid you in some way.
I just don't get why people get so worked up about them. You have t play on a map, it may as well be the one you end up on, and if someone specifically wanted that map so what?
The only cases it really makes that much of a difference is Starstruck Nurse or a Bully Squad, and in either of those cases, it's not just the map that's making the game oppressive.
I swear I'm the only person who actually plays this game for fun anymore. Everyone else just wants to make it as boring and formulaic as possible. I consider the 'anti map offering' brigade to be in the same boat as the 'pro-DCing' and 'pro-new Mori system' camps.
Did you even read what I suggested earlier? The only thing that needs to go about map offerings is how they can be used to turn niche situational circumstances into guaranteed ones. On the same token, there are many addons and powers that work considerably poorly under specific circumstances, so they can absolutely benefit from being able to avoid specific map types. Converting the offerings into map type classifications is the best middleground without ruining fun or whatever you decided to rant about there. The problem is being able to choose specific map realms, as some realms have all of their maps have a varying degree of favor for one side or the other (making it a very poor category of being able to choose directly.)
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3259854#Comment_3259854
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3259848#Comment_3259848
If you take a bigger look at the gameplay progression as a whole
Survivors get consistently weaker throughout the match.
With each kill the survivors lose gen pressure making the match more difficult.
With each chase resources get used making further chases more difficult.
With each gen completed it is 50/50 as to whether this makes things more or less difficult due to a number of factors (Killler, Gen spread etc.)
On the killer side it is the polar opposite the match always gets easier, with 2 exceptions:
1. The 50/50 based on gen spread for the same reason as survivors.
2. While downs become easier due to less resources, hooking becomes slightly harder with each kill as you "Might" lose 1 hook.
So with a map average of lets say 10 hooks not counting basement, when a hook sacrifice happens survivors lose 25%/33%/50% of their available efficiency. While killers lose 10%/11%/12% of their available hook efficiency.
Killers have it pretty good in comparison in that ratio.
As for the great god that gets blamed for everything, our lord RNG, skill and strategy will still win out more than his will.
Why are you telling me to look at the bigger picture when i already made those points, just without the survivor bias framing you added? I already stated that the game starts easier for survivors and ends up easier for killers, but unlike you, I think thats an extremely raw deal for both sides. I've talked about how the efficiency cap affects multiple issues for both sides dozens of times, but for yet another go: Survivors should be weaker than they currently are at 4 alive and active (not incapped or hooked/dead) while they should lose less strength with each person down and/or out. That exact variable is one of the biggest ones that needs to be normalized to balance the game. Its not a matter of whether you think one side "have it pretty good in comparison", its a universal problem that causes a variety of other issues for both sides.
Also the skill deflection at the end was pretty pointless, and has absolutely nothing to do with balance: A matchup in a fighting game can be 7-3 in favor of one person and they can and will still lose at times, hence it being 7-3 and not 10-0. Skill is an invisible variable that is supplementary to balance, not one of its foundational pillars.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3259892#Comment_3259892
There is no map in the game that you cannot escape from as survivor or that you cannot 4K with killer. None of them are 'broken'.
"Exploitable" would be a much more accurate term. A lot of maps have issues that one side or the other can certainly abuse if they go into a match knowing they'll be there.
-
@TDtheDoc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3259843#Comment_3259843
If you get a Gen to 99,equivalent of picking up survivor ,and you let it regress all the way back to 0,equivalent of losing survivor because of no hook,that is completely on survivor.not even good comparison.gen regression takes way longer than the time a killer has to get a survivor to hook.
Yes and no. While I agree that the two aren't comparible, thats actually a good example of why: a kill is anywhere from 1-3 hooks (barring instamoris like myers and sadako) while the gens are always 5. That means it could be 4-12 hooks, which is a massive variance to make such a concrete comparison. Gens also start easier and get harder as they are finished, while hooks start harder and get easier as there are less resources. They're on opposite alignments entirely.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3259794#Comment_3259794
I play plenty of both sides buddy, and for the record almost never have issues with survivors being unhookable due to broken hooks, breakdown/sabo squads maybe but I manage my hooks so it really isnt an issue 99% of the time.
You missed my point in that your experience does not invalidate the experiences of others. If you've never had a game where RNG caused a hook desert and survivors figured that out, either your sample size is small or you're incredibly lucky. Even though you even admit "99%" instead of "100%."
No need to be defensive when all I'm asking is for you to not let your personal experiences cloud your judgement to the potential experiences of others, instead of using extremely loaded wording and reasoning to dismiss them. You also ignored my point about the RPD library, which can still be a concern on maps like midwitch and badham if you didn't waste time (and sometimes opened new loops in the process) breaking specific doors. The core of the issue is that the logic is distance based and not pathing based, so there's no point in using your anecdotes to tell people they're wrong for having worse luck than you.
-
@TeabaggingGhostface said:
Instead of deleting them, make them do the opposite of what they currently do now, make them prevent the realm from appearing
People have been asking for a map ban system, this should be it
I like this idea. I would take it one step further though and just make them "indoor" or "outdoor". Some killer builds (or even just powers) specifically favor one or the other, sometimes to the point of viability (like scratched mirror builds.) Since indoor can mean the game or rpd just as much as lery's or midwitch, I feel like it would be a good compromise for the currently lopsided state of maps. There could also be a similar split for "multi-floor" and "flat" maps as well, but they shouldn't be able to combine (in order to prevent swf's stacking to get specific maps again.)
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3259547#Comment_3259547
Just stare at them and keep them in the corner cuts the time in half if they just stand there, you can also plan ahead and not use up all your hooks in the same area. Thise players also take less time to bleed out in endgame because you probably already had been slugging them during the match
"not use up all your hooks in the same area", "probably already had been slugging them"
very unbiased take. Play killer more and you'll see how the hook spawn distance methodology breaks regularly on multiple maps, especially any with obstructed pathways (which breakable doors added to nearly all of them.) It doesn't always happen, and there will always be people who use it as an excuse when its not the case, but the RNG is certainly a relevent factor on many maps.
Not only that, but "hook management" is a bit of a loaded concept if two people go down in the exact same place where that hook is the only one in reach, no? Wasn't that a big part of the issue in areas like RPD's library, where only 1 hook was reachable even without boil over? Its just another issue for the pile concerning issues with map generation.
-
@JPLongstreet said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3259553#Comment_3259553
Dealing with Boil Over on my Xbox1 controller is a nightmare. It's so easy to bump into objects and get stopped cold in doorways.
Saldy they've said many times they have no plans to add M&K support to the consoles.
And yeah altogether the consoles are by far the largest part of the playerbase. Yet the vast majority of killers are on PC; I wonder why???
To be fair, playing killer on controller isn't overall terrible. It has some pretty glaring problems, but they can all be isolated. Things like boil over's impact (and its lack of counterbalance availability,) aiming with ranged killers (especially trickster,) aim dressing having a disproportionate impact, and some advanced techniques with certain killers powers being near impossible is quite a laundry list of issues, but your average game with any m1 killer tends to play out very similar to how it does with mouse and keyboard. The problem lies in how much of an impact those issues do have when they happen, which makes the killers that can't avoid them feel horrible to play by comparison. I would argue that things like lightening/removing/having an option to remove aim dressing can be just as helpful as something like fixing trickster's aim jitter or boil over.
-
@Haven414 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3259539#Comment_3259539
Well said, you should just put everything you said as it's own discussion
The devs are aware that many of those things have disproportionate issues on controller vs mouse and keyboard thankfully, so no point beating a drum over it. I'm just hoping they follow through with making the gap between control methods less blatant and having it be narrow enough to be personal preference.
-
Controller is the real reason why this perk needs to be reworked. As others have mentioned, on mouse and keyboard it has ways to counterbalance its effect fairly consistently, but on controller you're pretty much SoL. There are actually quite a few controller specific issues on killer side especially (and a handful for survivors as well,) just due to the nature of the control scheme. I feel its very important to consider both control schemes when looking at its impact.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3259428#Comment_3259428
Ok after reading some of your replies, lets see how you feel about a parallel.
Hooks no longer break permanently, they temporarily break for 60 seconds after a survivor dies on them. This is a pretty fair representaion of a suggested solution for this situation.
When gens get completed they are blocked for 60 seconds and then are able to be completed again, starting from 0 charges. This would be the same thing for survivors forcing killers to essentially patrol 7 gens all match long and eliminating the issue of 3 gens, because why should survivors be punished for doing their objective?
Those two aren't even remotely the same, the entire thing about gens being done permanently is that there are up to 4 survivors but only 1 killer. They can't pressure the entire map at once, even killers with kits that are better than average at multitasking/global map pressure.
The issue with hooks is, like others have mentioned, hooks being gone entirely is bad for survivors as well, since it encourages slugging/bleeding out by simple necessity. I do think hooks shouldn't be gone forever, but in terms of a compromise I would offer that if a survivor wiggles off, the hook that has been broken the longest gets restored; that way sabo squads can't do something like break a hook just before someone wiggles off to break the logic. It punishes killers for repeatedly using the same hook, but only once rather than indefinitely to prevent that from being exploited by survivors.
-
its true, though. If you are willingly taking L's that could be W's then you are lowering your MMR, especially since its metric is based on escapes/deaths. And the wider the gap between your MMR and the killer's, the more yours goes down with each death.
It makes perfect sense for you to be paired more consistently with bad players, because thats the outcome you're forcing on yourself. Works as intended.
-
@Random_NPC said:
In order to prevent my braincells from dying a horrible death and keeping the value of my time high I will continue to sewerslide on first hook whenever I deem my soloq team to be of a substantially subpar quality. Fix MMR or I will continue to do so and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Hate to break it to you, but if you're willing to ragequit over bad teammates then MMR is working exactly as intended if you keep getting them.
-
The point of having bots in custom mode is to practice, not avoid playing the game entirely.
-
@SunsetSherbet said:
Why would there be a slider? That's like having a slider to make your killer slower. Why would you ever do that? Higher FOV gives a massive advantage, so who would ever have it low? A slider makes no sense at all. Might as well have a slider for how often your killer M1 works.
If you just increase FOV overall, it will be a buff. Which plenty will be against. I'm not against increasing the FOV, but a slider is pointless. It would be a slider to handicap yourself.
At this point I'm convinced people don't even read the topic. All of these points have already been addressed multiple times.
-
@LazyClown said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3253007#Comment_3253007
I understand, you just want to be handed things in an pvp game while others will have to work for it(which is actually fun you shod try it). You could always play single player games, those will actually work with your schedule. DBD has one of the most fairest models i have seen in a long time and actually rewards you for sticking with it. You could be richy rich in DBD and lose consistently because you dont play the game enough. Looks like youll have to play the game some more.
Even when buying DLCs you need to work to level them up to prestige 3 to unlock their perks on other characters, nobody has denied that. Thats not the same thing as needing to watch the shrine of secrets every single week, potentially for years, just to have a chance at getting perks that are tied to paid DLCs. Thats the bigger concern, especially whenever they are hard meta.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3248150#Comment_3248150
I've made multiple attempts at actually informing people about how FoV works, but they will always come up with whatever misconception they feel like suits their argument. Its not worth the effort to talk to anyone but the devs directly about, honestly.
Might as well post the reminder from page 2.
-
@cburton311 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3252973#Comment_3252973
Better visibility of survivors IS a advantage. How strong of one depends on the killer and the way the survivors play.
Comparing this to BT is a false equivalency. Borrowed time was given to survivors because killers were playing in a way harmful to the player base.
You don't even understand what affect FoV has on "visibility of survivors." Higher FoV increases peripheral view but decreases focused view. You can literally blend better without moving vs a higher FoV than you can vs a lower one, since peripheral vision is based more on movement detection than actual sight. Higher FoVs are literally a buff to blending into the environment, they're only a nerf to running right next to the killer to try to get into their blind spots.
-
@Pizzaman said:
Sorry, but I just can't follow the thought process.
Now according to you, BT is/was the strongest Perk. But the constant crying (at least if you followed this forum regulary) was about DeadHard instead. Some people said that Iron Will was the strongest Perk (Scott Jund was one of them). But for others it was Object of Obsession (you know, because of the whole "see the killer at all times and relay his exact GPS coordinates to all team members in realtime while someone is in a chase to counter any killer mindgames"-trope). Lot's of people, lot's of opinions. But sure as hell there no consensus about "THE STRONGEST PERK"™.
So why again is this about "BT for Shadowborn"? Because you sifted through the Internet and found ONE post on reddit about it.
Also, BT becoming basekit was just another bandaix fix for a gameplay issue. Prior to Patrick mentioning it in a dev stream there were no discussions about making BT basekit, aka getting a bandaidfix. And nobody needed to be "onboard" with any of the changes anyway, because the devs just change things.
And people mentioning their ailments to justify game changes when it's convenient (Flashlights causing "epileptic episodes", now FOV causing nausea), just rubs me the wrong way and it feels like those people are desperately looking for any reason to act as a "PRO" because they just don't have strong arguments to make their case.
There are a metric ton of accessibility issues still in the game that have been discussed for years, and the "convenient" ones you mentioned are not new, nor have their requests for the game design to actually fit them. The new map has a red fog ffs, no colorblind filter is going to help you see red auras, blood, or red-orange scratch marks through that since there is no contrast to be had. People bring up accessibility issues to the devs because they are constantly oblivious to their impact, not because they want X side to be better or worse. Like usual, people fail to understand that the people affected by accessibility issues are already playing at a detriment due to conditions beyond their control, and they just want a more even playing field. All of this pointless offtopic balance ranting disrupting these topics just serves to further suppress the information that actually is on topic, so I really wish people would take those arguments elsewhere so things said on page 2 and 3 don't need to continuously be repeated on page 6 and 7.
-
@cburton311 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3251867#Comment_3251867
If 1st person games make them sick, maybe this game isnt for them. I suspect people claim accessibility as a argument winner, but in this case who wouldnt take more FOV. Motion sick and others alike would all enjoy more field of view because it grants an advantage.
You conveniently overlook the second part of my post which allows for a way to grant more FOV at a balancing cost elsewhere.
First person games let you adjust the FoV for that exact reason, despite your attempt at gatekeeping. Its been a solved issue since the days of games like Quake. I've also already stated and provided reasons for why more FoV isn't always better, and why some people might have reasons for preferring (or even needing) lower FoVs.
I overlooked your idea to force a penalty for the ability to play the game without getting sick because I pointed out that its a completely flawed premise. People who need the option in the first place are already disadvantaged by the status quo, and you're telling them to trade one penalty for another. Thats not how accessibility works.
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3251846#Comment_3251846
People have been asking for survivors from older times
But we got a ~1950/1970 motorbike dude... they completely missed an oportunity for an older time period Survivor.
And that was their decision to make. Maybe with how evil dead has characters like henry and arthur while the knight's power bears light resemblance to the necromancer as it is, they didn't want to give fuel to comparisons. Let them at least release the character's lore proper before going too hard on your criticism, especially when it revolves around "missed opportunities."
-
@cburton311 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3248105#Comment_3248105
Field of view is literally one of the designs of the game. Survivors have more field of view than killers on purpose. This doesn't mean that can't change, but we're talking fundamental balance changes at that level. Would killers give up movement speed to balance it back out?
You're asking people to take a penalty in order to actually be able to play the game without getting sick. They're already at a penalty of sacrificing a perk slot to potentially get less sick while playing. A big issue people never seem to understand in accessibility discussions is that they are already at an advantage vs people affected by the issue, the field is being normalized, not stacked against you.
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3251823#Comment_3251823
Then why pick him from the time period? They could go the Jane/Plague route and just release an unrelated modern guy, you can maintain his lore and make it 1950 instead of 1350 changing minor unimportant details like training in rifles instead of swords and the bodyguard who chained him a war vet instead of a knight, the essence remains the same.
If you select a time period for a character you may make some mistakes or adapt certain stuff to make it more appealing or gameplay reasons, nobody is perfect, this is like giving Plague a frilly dress and patent leather sandals or Oni a three piece suit and a top hat.
I mean Oni has a badass minotaur outfit which has absolutely nothing to do with his time period or region, but its cool as hell and looks amazing so I for one welcome such decisions.
The new survivor isn't even out yet, we'll have plenty of time to understand their decisions with his lore/tome/etc in the future. We can accept or criticize it more accurately later.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3251698#Comment_3251698
For real thought, have you tried playing her? She might seem strong, but she isn't firing Missiles, but first needs to hit you with a marker light and then follow up with the airstrip, while the target moves away.
A strong, well played Artist can be very oppressive, but that player went through the valley of tears and t-bags before they learned all the tricks. Artist is far from the strongest of killers or OP and good skills and hours poured into mastering a killer should be rewarded.
Have you seen what sick hatchet throws Huntress mains with 1000h+ can pull off? That's stuff that only grows with experience.
Its almost comical how much people complain about her nuances they as survivors have total control over. She is truly a knowledge check killer, and the posturing about hours and whatever other metrics always just comes off as silly.
Seriously, just play as her for a while. Her strength lies in her opponents being clueless to how her power actually works.
-
Its kinda sad that the concept has been so abused in other games that people have been continuously shifting the goalposts to what is and isn't p2w. There is no concrete definition of the term in any major dictionary, its usage is colloquial by nature. The majority of people's specific definitions of it are all equally valid, as the only established constant behind them is to have a paywall be an aspect in game balance. Whether it be temporary/mandatory, subtle/egregious, unlockable/purchasable, as a concept it has had applications in all of these fields. The underlying factor is that the end user is encouraged to spend money to create/keep/maintain an advantage over not spending money.
Most people are right when they say that DBD is/isn't P2W, since the term has no strict established definition, yet most arguments both for and against it are consistent with how the term has (and continues to be) applied to many other games. The real concern is that since it does have some valid arguments based on the usage of the term, it is thus toeing the line in the eyes of how its practices are received by the userbase. Even when things aren't as bad as they are in many other games (and again, there are only a handful of problematic concerns imo) it will inevitibly cause the end user to make the comparisons and start conflating business practices. "it might not be as bad as dungeon keeper, but its still worse than league of legends" and so on.
Also the financial shaming is pretty gross if I'm honest. A few bucks might not mean much to a lot of people, but to others they might have already cut out a lot of their excess spending and are playing games like DBD specifically because they don't have additional funds to purchase other games or additional content. The reason why paid cosmetics paired with free content updates is such a well received metric is because it allows the end user to support games financially on their own terms, not forced ones. Someone who may have spent plenty on DLCs and skins in the past when having more stable income may not have the spare funds to keep up with the current viable meta now.
Nobody should be hiding behind a non-existant definition saying it either is or isn't p2w. The important thing is for both sides of the argument to step back and consider the business practices involved as to why people would think one way or the other, and consider their grievences and reassurances on equal terms.
-
@AssortedSorting said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3249182#Comment_3249182
So basically people haven’t setup their monitor to be farther away with a backlight to prevent eye strain?
Damn I wish they’d add controller support to PC already. So much nicer being able to lean back in a chair than sitting eyes glued to a monitor. (Unless I’m forgetting that’s already a thing and people aren’t using a controller to help alleviate motion sickness by moving back a bit)
Thats not quite it. Its not a matter of eye strain as it is the FoV that you are seeing covering a conflicting amount of your view between your focused view and your peripheral view. I posted a video earlier in this thread that outlines it pretty well in under 10 minutes, but essentially your body needs to be able to properly tell that you are not in motion despite seeing a view that is. The FoV that you are seeing in game should be adequately relative to how it would look in your normal cone of vision, which is why it varies depending on view size/distance as well as representative FoV ingame.
Fortunately, you can use a controller on PC as it is, so feel free! I use pad on survivor myself and have for years. That doesn't mean its suddenly a fix for the issue for anyone, though.
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3250192#Comment_3250192
That's kind of what I'm trying to say. It may be that I'm just a baby killer who gets 360'd, even with thousands of hours in game. But we don't know that for sure, because it gets skewed by the existence of console auto-aim.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3250278#Comment_3250278
Yes, I am asking for a guaranteed hit... in situations where that's what the result should be. If a survivor is in my lunge range, no pallet or nothing, and I lunge, why should I not be able to hit them? Survivors should just be able to 360 or fov "mindgame" to get free time and distance on top of avoiding what should have been an easy hit. I think the fact that you pay special attention to, and keep a record of, times where you've maybe gotten a generous hit as killer shows that your thinking is survivor-centric. Mine is killer-centric, hence me being able to count the amount of generous hits I've been given in the last year on 1 hand. I don't think bad connection favors killers, because it seems to lead to more situations where your weapon is 90% done with its swing through the pallet, but the survivor still drops it in time and takes away your hit. Same with Dead Hard where they're somehow always perfectly timed.
Gen regression has never been more overrated. It's a setback and a delay, but it in no way guarantees that the gens won't be all done, and when they're all done the survivors have pretty much won, especially since they're confident enough these days to always bring Adrenaline AND/or Hope. Even with pre-nerf Pop, gens were easily getting done every time, because perks like that only give you regression if you're downing like all the time. If not, which is very likely at high MMR, you get nothing, which is why my meta build before 6.1.0 was Corrupt/Deadlock/No Way Out, because they're the only slowdown killer's got that isn't dependent on survivors going down all the time.
I do believe that I go against really efficient survivors or SWF 9/10 games, or at least 8/10. It's more noticeable now that I'm getting multiple people with scores of prestige levels in my lobbies. In just 2 nights during the last week, I've had 2 matches with prestige 100 survivors, and other matches with prestige 40+ and prestige 70+, and sometimes all of those types of survivors in the same lobby. My survivors are no joke, but everyone else seems to think it is. I will never have time to just mess around with stealth killers to get jumpscares like y'all do. I'm too focused on winning, or at least keeping up with the madness of the match at hand. I would need to be low MMR to be chill, and I do agree that MMR is screwed up because I'll face the sweatiest team ever and then complete babies, just randomly. I don't blame the survivors ever, unless they're being toxic. I get mad at the game balance for allowing them to have such an easy time for doing so little. Don't want to get hit? Just spin the joystick. If only my problems in a match of killer were as easily solved. No, you get to settle for a 1k, because those few key downs were denied because of 100% safe loops and then aim dressing when you finally did catch up to them.
Pretty much none of that has to do with FoV. Even the aim dressing issue is still a separate topic in itself to an FoV slider.
-
@Jallybwan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3250397#Comment_3250397
Some people just feel more comfortable with a lower FOV, so I wanted an FOV slider rather than just basekit Shadowborn to make sure they're happy as well. As for gameplay, a lower FOV means a smaller angle you can be flashlight blinded at (source: Shadowborn's page on the wiki). FOV has ups and downs in DBD, but it's mostly just a comfort thing.
In addition to personal sensitivities, it does also affect depth perception, which is why hunters in nature have more narrow FoVs while prey have wider viewing angles. Its focused view vs periphery, and why a hawk can see clearly much further in range while a deer can see less clearly depth wise but in a much wider angle. This of course also ties back to the previous sensitivities caused by their imbalance (and another example of why some would be better suited to lower numbers.)
-
@sulaiman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3250357#Comment_3250357
Maybe you read the thread title again. This is not about accessibility issues, its about the reasons why people oppose possible changes. So bringing the focus to accessibility is actually the derailment.
FoV slider is an accessibility option, and has been for decades. I understand you think its just a slider to delete "stealth" from the game, but please don't make dishonest posts like this when I'm trying to simply get the conversation back on track and away from things like collision detection complaints and entitlement on either side.
-
@nora_the_explora said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3250350#Comment_3250350
Well if u read the previous replies and one of the topics of the OP we were talking about how the killers fov is making survivors able to 360 easily especially if the killer is on console, the rest is all stuff related to it.. it makes your reply kida off topic too, but I don’t think is much of a deal no?
Because that was a part of their point about FoV, which you have been attempting to derail the conversation with multiple times in the topic. In fact, every single comment has been about criticizing complaints about 360s or ranting about hitboxes, and not a single point about FoV issues. Its hard to return to the original topic when you continuously force discussion on a tangent. Make your own topic about that if you want to ignore the main topic in favor of discussing it, this topic is supposed to be about an accessibility issue, not your personal take on one of the aspects that said issue can impact.
Clarification edit: I'm not saying the person you were arguing with is any better, and equally shouldn't force a tangent in the topic. everyone should stick to the topic at hand.
-
@nora_the_explora said:
i know why hit boxes are this way, thats my point, in a game where hit boxes are kinda crappy cause of multiple factors(lantency,the other player connection with favour mostly killer hits ecc), making hitbox bigger will be unfair. how this is off topic, i'm replying to something the other guy said
The topic is about FoV, you're both off topic.
-
@nora_the_explora said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3250166#Comment_3250166
"you give us the old "new" animations back, you make survivors' hitboxes or the killers' attacks a little bit more generous, and/or you take away auto-aim, aim dressing, and lunge rollbacks which take away the killers' rightful hits. And just throwing this out there, maybe survivors shouldn't be able to go from standing to a full speed sprint instantly."
sorry but hitboxes in this game are already crappy, countless time i've had a down where i should not have had hit, and also the fact that having a bad connetion favours killers ( when i play survivors i 70 percent of killers are laggy as hell, vpn or whatever) making the hitboxes for suvivor and hits more generous its a little to much don't u think? even the second statment u made its not valid... wym they should not run full speed instantly ? so if i play let's say ghost face(one of my main), and i come around the corner while a survivor is doing a generator, they should not have a chace and i should have a guarantee hit on them cause they can't "sprint instantly"? sounds a little entitled to me, i'm not saying u are but the way u are talking makes me think that u want a guaranteed hit every time whitout any prossibility from surviors to do anything. and yes ideally u want to down a survivor as soon as possible, it would be amazing if all of them get down in a 10 secons chase, but thats not the case and the game is not called killer stomping generators repairer, its killers vs suvivors, and u have to put in mind that as u are not giving them an easy time while tryng to kill them, they are not gonna give u an easy time while they try to survive.
In an ideal word "saying 10-second chases against efficient survivors is still barely an even playing field, because they're always on gens and doing each in like 72 seconds" its true, but u can stack multiple regression perks if u feel like gens are flying and lets not act like those are the teams we face every game because in this forum seems like killers go only against efficents swf 9 games out of ten while the reality is that most of the games are against solo q that are the opposite of an efficent team. I can literally have a suvivors with 2k hours and survivors with 120 hours in the same lobby and thats beacuse mmr is not well designed and based on escape and kills, wich is really bad way to define the skills of a player. i get killers is frustrating sometimes, i love playing stealthy m1 killers and sometimes i get stomped hard gens are flying but that s the game, sometime u win sometime u loose like very other game. ans much as there are entitled suvivors(and killers) Let s stop acting like every survivor is an entitled survivor because they try to do their best to escape , because they loop or whatever, ill never understand this mentality of us vs them and if u remove the idea of wanting to survive everytime of wanting to 4 or 3k every time, you game experience will be so much better overall
I think you might not understand why the survivor hurtboxes are bad, its actually related to the same issue. They're a vertical cylinder that aligns with your point of contact with the ground (aka your feet) while almost all of survivors animations involve them leaning forward in some way. It's actually one in the same issue, since aim dressing involves "compensating" for movement direction while spinning in place prevents the hurtbox from moving in that direction. Its the same reason why you generally want to aim for someone's lower back if they're in an animation like healing another survivor, their torso has no collision.
This is all kinda off topic tho.
-
@Lost_Boy said:
I mean I just bought every killer in the sale on a new account for like £40 and the game cost £5 so I really can't see how you could class a game that costs less than a new premium title pay to win.
Maybe it's just the fact that I've been playing mmorpgs on and off for years and seen people literally spend thousands of £££s in real p2w games, but I really can't see why a game that costs so little would be p2w. You wouldn't even need to buy all the killers for meta perks you could probably get away with 5 purchased killers to unlock every perk you need to play the game at the highest level. So you're looking at like £20 (including the game cost) in the sale to do this. It's hardly a number that is outwith probably 95% of the playerbase.
The fact that you can use in game currency earned through playing to purchase said killers/survivors would also make it pay for convenience (unlock things faster) over p2w, but I wouldn't even put it in that category because it costs so little in both aspects (money or time played).
P2W isn't about total dollars spent, its about locking balance behind a pay gate. Thats why this game toes the line so precariously, as it is not P2W by most standard definitions, but its nuances start to push it over the line very easily. As others have stated, by paying up front you are always putting yourself at an advantageous situation above others who don't (whether it be due to time to unlock, current meta, or synergy necessity) but "the best" option is free. It doesn't matter that nurse is arguibly the least accessible killer in the game, she's the most available so clearly everything is ok. It doesn't matter that the CoB/Overcharge synergy got "solved" by nerfing overcharge and leaving CoB untouched, Ruin and Corrupt getting bottomed out in favor of Eruption and Deadlock, these things still don't cross the most strict definition of p2w.
But boy are they trying to.