Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223576#Comment_3223576
overcharge is meant to be an infinite hex:ruin for kicking a generator that is applied by kick. its design to punish generator tapping from skill-check, but an added lose/lose element was added to the perk where by not tapping generator, you lose over-time progression which I find hilarious because one of the perk that specifically changed was because it had lose-lose element to the perk.
remove lose-lose element from 1 perk only to add lose-lose element to another perk. Overcharge sucks at punishing gen-tapping from super easy skill-check but the infinite over-time regression is super valuable for killer.
call of brine negates the negatives of overcharge since regression starts at 175% and reaches 300% for last 30 seconds of regression.
both perks fulfill over-time regression. Its just that two of them have strong synergy with each other. Eruption is the perk that replaced pop. The effective nerf of pop is that eruption does 12.5% regression so half regression of pop, but you gain 25 seconds of incapacitated which some survivor have complained about 2nd part of the perk being more powerful vs solo and very useless vs 4 man swf. Its just nobody talked about eruption before change because the perk was garbage.
That is all outside of my point, which is that overcharge was nerfed specifically because of the synergy, while making it that much more necessary. And the second half of that synergy being on a licensed garbage tier recent killer who is still waiting for her post release revisit.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223562#Comment_3223562
Ummm... Overcharge is actually better than COB.
The reduced the start slowdown speed significantly due to complaints of synergizing the two. Which one you like better isnt the point, they approached it as a position to secure DLC sales rather than break up what was considered an annoying synergy.
-
@theboyitachi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223556#Comment_3223556
mind you the old meta was atleast free so everyone got a chance to use it perks like reassurance and deadlock are locked behind pay walls to even use
Its my biggest complaint how they handled CoB/Overcharge: Nerf the free one to pretty much require the paid one. Was a pretty **** move.
-
@theboyitachi said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/1AKMDS9E2X6D/57fb21f6-6dff-4350-86da-f8cf9d3cd270.jpeg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/PVIEQNHP8X9C/c87f9540-3981-45cc-9c98-5747e2120bf0.jpeg
why do people continue to act like meta has change an any significant way compared to a year ago to now especially for killer ?
Because you have to buy new DLCs for the current meta, of course.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223267#Comment_3223267
Yes let me just use self care instead and make it a 3v1, I’m sure as a killer main you’d appreciate it.
Self care when used properly is actually pretty efficient for splitting pressure around the map. Even with its decreased speed, not needing a second person means that second person can be working on more efficiency. Different usage from the average person immediately self caring in a corner when they get a splinter, but it does exist.
-
Whenever you have content for a limited time only, and use that as an incentive to either put time or money into the game. Its a particularly manipulative form of retention tactic that gets rightfully criticised for taking advantage of people with gambling addictions, OCD, or other similar conditions. The term usually only gets brought out when it is applied to an unreasonable degree, either through lack of later availability or the unlock requirement being unreasonable enough to try to incentivize sales during said limited period.
edit: damn people type fast :D
-
@CoDismylife said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223278#Comment_3223278
Until you face a killer who isn't tunneling at all and you wasted multiple perk slots which could have been used for something better
But tunneling is apparently so bad that 2-3 perks is necessary, if you listen to half of the forums. It gives you multiple second chances back to back with only 2 perks, which is pretty huge if you actually are being tunnelled. You're playing the wrong game if you want guaranteed value from every perk every game.
-
@dspaceman20 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223211#Comment_3223211
There are other ways to nerf the perk without your suggestions making it completely useless
Agreed, though I get the feeling we're never going to get anything that makes everyone happy unless everyone honestly understands what it does in its current state. It certainly doesn't take much to make it universally improved from the status quo though.
-
@RatbasterdJr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3222166#Comment_3222166
I do this all the time, but the killer often times will literally avoid me the entire match to get the weaker survivors.
@RatbasterdJr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3222263#Comment_3222263
Which I do… then somebody goes down in 10 seconds of chase, while the Claud urban evasions around the edge and the other guy in a locker lol.
I exclusively play SWF now with equal buddies so it’s not an issue personally anymore. But I feel OP’s pain.
Sorry, might have been more accurate to say you were dismissing them as "but then"s. The entire point of my message was to not internalize those types of things beyond your control and instead own everything that you actually can control.
-
@Hex_iButt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223292#Comment_3223292
It just doesn't sound like the right way to go about aligning it with Shadow Step and Dark theory. Unbreaka-boon is more inline with CoH where you don't want the killer to really be there as you're getting up. There's like no real good way to balance this perk without nerfing it into the same oblivion as Self-care, or reworking boons/totems as a whole. Requiring the killer to be nearby to heal yourself within a radius is way too restricting, and just would make Self-care the better perk for the work CoH requires to activate.
And I'd honestly prefer totems in general having a QoL update of sorts.
Thats not necessarily true, especially with exponential, because soul guard, adrenaline, flashlights,etc exist. There are plenty of times where getting up right in front of the killer is when you want to use it to maximize its impact. And you're right that it would make self care the better perk in terms of raw effect, and thats how it should be: CoH is more versatile in terms of loadouts: only one person needs to run it for 4 people to gain its effect. Self care is the "selfish" version that only affects yourself. Its a standard tradeoff between versatility and potency.
-
@legacycolt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223286#Comment_3223286
There’s no need to try. What this person says is facts.
Truth doesn't fear investigation, also evidence is important when making claims definitively. What I have witnessed from other accounts could have been subtle hackers, and evidence would go toward being able to clarify that. They also later added in that exception about DH because DH still working means that the endurance effect would have to work differently than they posited. Its not something easily tested individually, which is why I asked if they had evidence (while simultaneously not being in a position to provide any either.)
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223250#Comment_3223250
Yeah, sureeee. My poor killer fellows would stop tunnel if we nerf CoH...
Oh wait, they said same thing for Dead Hard too. They exactly said same words for old DS too. But i never saw anyone stopped tunnelling.
61% killrate and killers are still asking for more nerfs. CoH is unfair!!!!
What about camper Bubba? What about CoB + Overcharge combo? What about Plaything + Pentimento combo? What about Nurse? What about Blight with his busted addons?
Nahhhh, they are just alright. They are killer stuffs, they don't need nerfs. Just nerf survivors more, so we can get our 99% killrate.
New dead hard is honestly better than the old one, both in terms of balance and in terms of impact. Its skill floor is a lot higher, and reads are more helpful than reactions, but you can actually extend chases even further than you could with old dead hard.
Also, funny you mentioned CoB/Overcharge, since overcharge specifically got nerfed to pretty much require pairing it with CoB. That was the devs' idea of trying to break that synergy up.
Their point about CoH was that it has ruined the viability of multiple more healthy strategies, which has been a significant variable in why those affected would have adapted back to LCD strats. Its a perfectly valid assumption, and not mutually exclusive with the belief there will be people who camp and tunnel regardless of options.
-
@Hex_iButt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223266#Comment_3223266
Unless you run Iron Will though, or Bite the Bullet in hopes to not get found and downed it's a pretty bad way to balance it out though. Shadow Step and Dark Theory have that risk/reward to bring the killer towards the boon to help you loop inside its radius. Unbreaka-boon is somewhere in-between; where you hope you get slugged and can make it to the boon to get up in time.
I feel if you were to make CoH more "in-line" with what we have as boon totems already (even though they're already pretty consistent with the same radius, set-up time, and reliant on a totem), then you'd have to rework the whole thing entirely IMO. And the only thing I can think of that would fit a rework for it is gradually healing over time, as you can't heal yourself and be chased at the same time (that or increase the healing speed to compensate for the risk). It'd have to work like a syringe/Renewal which would be objectively worse than having a survivor take their time to heal themselves vs doing gens.
then you'd have to rework the whole thing entirely IMOexactly. My suggestion was simply one to bring it more in line with the concept it is an outlier to. Nobody said those other metrics like time to set up are different, just that its entire dynamic with a concept as core as map pressure is pretty out there, especially when it has arguably the most useful effect. It is nowhere near restricted enough for what it provides.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223280#Comment_3223280
Nope, you lose your Endurance for all Endurance-Perks when you get hit. This is why current Anti-Tunnel measures are pretty bad - they all resolve around Endurance, so one hit and all are gone.
The only reason why OTR is still active is because you have the other effects (100% grunts of pain reduction and aura-read protection) still up for the full duration of 80 seconds, even if you lose your Endurance earlier.
Have you even tried it?
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223278#Comment_3223278
lel.
Eating a Hit with BT but keeping OTR. Funny guy. This does not work.
DS with 3 seconds is useless. This is not even a point of discussion.
It does, actually. If you get hit before the BT wears off, the BT is what gets eaten up but the OTR is restricted by the deep wounds specifically. DS resets the deep wounds allowing you to use another endurance effect. If you're not using OTR you can also use dead hard instead.
I havent seen anything in any recent patch notes saying that synergy has been disabled.
-
Have you just not seen how people use it now? You take the free BT hit, get downed somewhere you will have a safe position to route to, use the DS to reset your deep wounds and reach said pallet/window, extend the chase further and still have either OTR on deck for its duration or be ready to dead hard and gain even more distance. DS is a secondary perk now rather than the main star, but it synergizes even with its own replacement.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223250#Comment_3223250
Eh. I think we are at the point where games without Circle of Healing are better for the Survivors. At least for the majority, because Survivors waste so much time setting up Boon-Totems instead of just doing Generators.
Unless they put one on the literal opposite side of the map vs a 3 gen, then its a guaranteed win if nobody throws. The fact it can be placed outside of pressure areas is the biggest issue with the perk, especially since its benefit is one that restores health states without needing coordination or reducing efficiency.
-
@Hex_iButt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223261#Comment_3223261
Healing in the killer's terror radius kinda defeats the purpose of finding a safe place to reset though, no? Then it literally becomes Self-care 2.0, being the killer's new hex perk lmao.
Of course, not having that safety is the point. It introduces a risk that is equal value to being able to heal without needing self-care, a medkit, or another survivor. It also only really runs that risk vs a killer running nurses and/or with a small TR, doesn't exactly hurt stuff like the doctor or wesker anti-heal builds or maps like badham/the game./midwitch where you can be nearby the killer but impose a pretty length path they need to route to reach you. Most importantly it stays consistent with the other boons in terms of their risk/reward nature, and doesn't have a disproportionate impact on stealth killers and/or hit and run playstyles.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223132#Comment_3223132
Boons shouldn't be good as they stand. Their design philosophy is awful and doesn't work in this game.
Honestly, I don't have any issue with boons that require the killer being nearby for their effect to happen. Since the routing and snuff time are quite low compared to the blessing time, they kind of function as a one time "trap" that can disorient killers with the effects like hiding scratch marks and other minor effects that can have a major impact depending on how either side plays around them.
@Aven_Fallen said:
People still complain about Circle of Healing? Oh my...
But CoH is the outlier, and continues to be to this day. People will continue to complain about it for as long as it breaks all of the other design concepts that boons adhere to, and until they throw on a stipulation like "must be within the killer's TR to self care" or something of that sort it will continue to be problematic compared to boons themselves.
-
@RatbasterdJr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3222318#Comment_3222318
what are you talking about? What never works out?
You had an excuse for every solution, then pivoted into talking about how you now play swf due to an implied impossibility of being able to offset bad teammates. My point has always been that it is possible to do so, and you kept firing off "ok but what ifs" as responses.
Edit: I have plenty of sympathy for people who get bad teammates, before that assumption gets made. I just would rather be constructive and make the most of my agency rather than simply commiserate and accomplish nothing.
-
@LylakLavender said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223231#Comment_3223231
Think it would help with their stats more if they added PTB to consoles? I ask because when they run PTB it's only on the computer and they will always have different results than those of us who play on console?
Sadly not, the PTBs are a bit of a ****show for getting actual data. There is generally no MMR and no progression/consequences so people just mess around to learn things then either go back to live or try to do sanity/smoke tests. Or just take advantage of broken stuff like during the boon one or the boil over one and just try to make the other side miserable while they're trying to test things on their own. The PTBs only statistical functions are as smoke tests at this point: aside from the obvious introduction to new content, people are trying to find out how broken they are and if they are ok to hit live without changes. Everything else is pretty much pointless unless you are only doing custom games with likeminded people.
They really need to do occasional closed beta PTBs with fog whisperers and other detail oriented content creators. They have a massive pool of playtesting at their fingertips but don't understand how to coordinate it for that end. Otherwise it feels like they truly use the PTBs more to advertise the content thats coming out and to give a preview of it, but not much else.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223135#Comment_3223135
COH has been nerfed multiple times at this point. It does not need more nerfs. If healing is an issue for you use sloppy.
Whats a point of a nerf that doesn't address why it needs to be nerfed in the first place? None of its numbers adjustments have affected how much value it gives while simultaneously being a map pressure outlier and playstyle deterrent. It could be exactly the same as self care and still be op because it both allows others to self care without needing self care, but also because it can create a heal station for the whole team in an area that the killer cannot fit within their pressure. Its an extremely poorly designed perk that doesn't even fit in with the other boons conceptually.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223130#Comment_3223130
This is a bit too much idealism though. The game simply can't be balanced quite so perfectly that the range between the extremes at the highest and lowest skill levels are merely 5% apart.
Newbie survivors will always be at a disadvantage against newer killers, because the strength of a good survivor team is coordination, which comes from information and experience. These are not things you can account for via mechanical game balancing, they are player factors, not game factors. The lower end of the skill spectrum will always favour the killer, quite heavily, because inexperience simply hurts survivors more.
Which poses the question, at which point do you aim for balance? A median level? If you aimed for 50% average across all skills levels, you are accepting a killer-favoured skew at the lowest end, which means there must be a survivor-favoured skew at the higher end.
Should the highest skill level be survivors sided? Should the highest level killers resign themselves to a permanent disadvantage?
Its not an inevitability that the highest skill bracket should be survivor sided, not in the same way that the lowest skill bracket must be killer-sided simply due to the basic format of the game. Surely you would want to discount the fact that newbies will have tougher survivor games, and then balance the rest of the game around that conclusion. So lets say you discount the lowest 10%, aiming to balance the 'top' 90% of players to some sort of average. If the 'top 90%' have an average kill rate of 50%, then that same balance state, when factoring in the 10% you originally discounted, will skew to 55%.
If you discount the bottom 20%, then the 'balanced state' of the 'top 80%' of players will look like a 60% kill rate when applied to the entire playerbase.
TLDR: The top skill bracket shouldn't have to be survivor sided, but the bottom skill bracket will inevitably be killer sided. This means in a balanced state, when averaging the entire playerbase into one single figure average, it will look like a killer-favoured state.
This is merely a symptom of trying to boil game balance down into one single figure. Having one single 'average kill rate' for the entire game, is simply bad statistics. But when you don't have any defined ranking system or even a decent way of measuring skill, that's all you have to go on. You need to play mathematical 'tricks' to account for all these variables that you know will skew the data, and then you eventually end up with a figure that, while it does represent a fair state for the game, doesn't look all that pretty, and that's how we get to "a 60% kill rate is balanced".
TBH they just need to get better at being able to accommodate the low end without giving new tools to the high end. If there's anything we've learned with how they handle balance, that type of nuance is the one thing they will never truly understand. The whole Thana situation will always be a perfect example of that, as will how many disasters happen across various PTBs. They need to make things more intuitive and self evident instead of wondering why 90% of the community has a semi-justified bias against people running perks like self care. Hell, there are still people who call perks like Windows a training wheels baby perk, when its legit meta at high MMR currently (especially in solo.)
Too many aspects of the game require experience or crazy acute game sense to understand, and at face value newer players are going to get rolled over it constantly. More experienced players either learn that extra info and get better, or complain and stay stuck there. None of that will ever change until the game holds their hands in the understanding part rather than the second chances or even the information provided ones.
-
@Eelanos said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3223070#Comment_3223070
4 escapes being the "outcome of least interaction" is kind of a lie, and that has been the basis for a lot of arguments against camping. You can get 6 hook states (2 kills, not spread out) and enter a tie with very minimal interaction, yet you can lose a match where you've tried to apply pressure and managed to spread all 8 hook states.
Killers having less information than survivors isn't meant to make killers work harder, but it's actually a side effect of being the power role. It's the entire reason why survivors play on third person while killers play on first person. For the sake of fairness, you cannot ask to be the power role and expect the same treatment as the team at a disadvantage.
4Ks and 4Es should be around equally as uncommon. An average killer should be able to get around 2 kills per match, and an average survivor should have roughly a 50% escape rate. Lowest and highest ranks should never go much further than a 45%~55% kill or escape rate. They will naturally have an imbalance in the extremes, but that should be what needs to be rebalanced to be kept in line to the 50%. Every single game does this, where the balancing adresses both ends of the player skill spectrum.
This is also the reason why some people advocate for things like base kit kindred. To push up the win rate of the lower end. In theory, giving the lower end (mostly solo-q) the same tools SWFs have should close the gap and make balancing easier. If doing this decreases the kill rate, follow-up buffs for killer should come into play.
Asking, like some people in previous comments (this part is mostly for those), to not balance for the 50% because "well, but what if high level killer is like 30% kill rate??? do you want to nerf them???" is like saying Sadako doesn't need any changes because Nurse and Blight exist. If there are outliers, you rebalance them to be put back in line. Saying "No, because what about high/low rank" is the lazy way out.
Camping is an interaction so its already more interactions than zero, and you're ignoring what the description means: You can't get a 4k unless there is interaction, but you can certainly get a 4E if the killer is afk in the basement and does nothing. Its not a "lie," its a lopsided possibility that one outcome can have over the other, which is important for statistical relevance. I've already covered the ranges of interaction potential between the two, and never implied that all 4Es mean the killer did nothing to interact, I simply presented that the opposite outcome of 4E DOESN'T require interaction, thus making it less statistically ideal (as you will want the sample set to offset that possibility at least enough to negate it, while wanting more to offset any unaccounted for affect it can have on the rest of your set.)
Killers having less information than survivors isn't meant to make killers work harder, but it's actually a side effect of being the power role.Being the power role is supposed to make you have to track considerably more information with little visual or auditory asistance, while fighting with chase music so loud that it prevents footsteps from being heard depending on literally what cosmetics they're using paired with whether the sound attenuation bug that has been in then game for ages decides to play nice? I understand your point as to why its designed that way, but you are being pretty bold to assume everything works properly enough to match. Meanwhile the next big thing survivors want basekit is either kindred, or icons for every single action that any other survivor is doing at any given time. There is an absolutely massive information disparity well beyond the normal hunter/hider dichotomy, and the proposed UB basekit situation would create another big one: Accounting for 45 second basekit UB is completely different from accounting for 22.5s, and the killer has zero idea which they would have until its too late to adapt. That type of scenario is just like the slug-or-risk-ds one in the past, having to listen for sound after an unhook to know if they have OTR on top of the free basekit BT, having zero way of knowing if they're hiding DS in order to reset their deep wounds to use multiple endurance effects, etc. And keep in mind, these are all just 1v1 scenarios, you have to also keep track of the other 3 survivors simultaneously with absolutely no assistance outside of perks that provide auras at specific times. As someone with ADHD I literally cannot track the amount of metadata that is necessary to play the role effectively due to how important that information gets the higher you climb, and I don't fault anyone who has similar issues.
TL:DR, its not that you're wrong, its that BHVR doesn't understand how to handle that type of advantage/disadvantage in a way that doesn't turn the "stronger role" into a "weaker" one. Until this game is bug free and every mechanic works how it is supposed to, killers will always have a much higher amount of information they need to track mentally, well beyond what should be normal for the role division.
4Ks and 4Es should be around equally as uncommon. An average killer should be able to get around 2 kills per match, and an average survivor should have roughly a 50% escape rate.What do you actually base this on? In an asymmetrical game, the two opposing sides have different objectives, different time to completes, different degrees of individual agency, and different tools to work toward their objective while denying the opponent theirs. All of these facts mean that if skill is equal, the 1 will always have to work considerably harder than the 4, with the only exception being when the skill quotient is so low that it is statistically irreverent (at which point, it is determined almost solely based on how self-evident and/or intuitive each role is toward their objective.) 1v4 by nature means that the 1 is always supposed to be equal to the 4 in order to have a good game, which begs the question of how you would possibly hope to design a 50% win rate when 4/5 players have to both work together to maintain efficiency equal to the 1 opponent, but also not be able to use their individual agency to provide a disproportionate amount of progress for their teammates who provided much less. This isn't a fighting game or a FPS where the rules are tailored specifically to making every match as fair as possible, this is a game where someone can ragequit because a nurse tagged them in the first 30 seconds and now you're trying to win a 1v3 vs nurse at 5 gens (which is still possible, but it would certainly deviate from a 50% win rate.) Its far too random to make that kind of assumption, a game can be over before it even loads. That example goes both ways btw, and there can also be games where the killer wants to farm or uses an extremely meme build and underperforms despite being skilled enough to roll with a 4k.
If nothing else, the kill ratio should be higher than 50% exactly because the killer needs to do considerably more work than any individual on the opposite side in any match that plays out as designed.
This is also the reason why some people advocate for things like base kit kindred. To push up the win rate of the lower end.And Kindred is a perk that gains more value the more you understand it, which is why its a terrible idea. The only realistic thing that will fix low level players is to stop pampering them when they knowingly make bad plays. They need to learn the difference between a killer facecamping and one who was trying to leave the hook before they ran right past and tried to unhook in their face. The more they baby people with basekit BT (which they even had to buff because they STILL didn't understand how to use the tool they were given) the more they let them justify their own objectively bad plays (and in some cases, even turn them into lose/lose ones for the killer because why not?) the less reason they have to think they need to improve, and all it ends up doing is giving better players more tools to abuse.
Asking, like some people in previous comments (this part is mostly for those), to not balance for the 50% because "well, but what if high level killer is like 30% kill rate??? do you want to nerf them???"Thank you for clarifying you werent conflating me with similar arguments, but for my actual input on that situation: Kills should be in the upper 50's to mid 60's, enough to be within 2k/2e without being enough to round up to 3k/1e. It should also be within that range for all killers, which means that a lot of killers would need a lot of work in viability at different skill levels. Killers that are outliers due to high/low skill requirements or other important variables should have their value weighted to account for those (for example, a 40% nurse is still perfectly fine since her high skill floor means her performance will be weighed down considerably by people learning how to use her) and the long overdue practice mode where you can load into a custom game without a friend would do wonders for a lot of these statistics. Just like removing the corrupting elements like suicide on hook would (which is a topic I completely avoided, but is certainly relevant to anything talking kill%'s.)
-
@Dito175 said:
I feel called out, 5k hours and I loop lole a baby.
Out of curiosity, have you tried more aura perks, particularly windows/kindred/empathy? You don't need to run all 3 obviously, but those 3 in particular can help with a lot of decision making while looping. Often times people get tripped up by mindgames because they hesitate, and the hesitation ends up being the difference between gaining distance and being downed. Nice thing about the perks is that they all get stronger the better you get at understanding them, so a lot of people end up just keeping them permanently, especially in solo. Bond/Aftercare/Alert also get honorable mentions due to providing similar metadata, albeit a bit more specific.
-
@Eelanos said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3222889#Comment_3222889
Even if it was 1vs100, if a single character is able to kill 50 out of the 100 players, that's already the power role, as a single individual is able to take down 50 of the teamed up characters.
Heck, even if the single character has enough power to kill only 10 out of the 100 other players it would be a power role, but it wouldn't be balanced. It would be heavily skewed towards the team rather than the single player.
Just because the game is asymetrical it doesn't mean you have to ignore the 50% win rate rule, otherwise it's imbalanced.
Not only are killrates not possible to accurately track in this game (due to a variety of reasons,) they are going to vary between skill levels, as others have mentioned. Below a certain MMR the stats might as well not even be tracked, because how to kill is simply more self evident than how to escape. "do gens" is obvious, but being efficient at doing gens apparently takes some people thousands of hours before it clicks somehow, which is why there is such a massive kill disparity across skill levels.
Even if you ignored all of that, you would want more than 50% because you would want more 4ks than 4e's, since the latter is the outcome of least interaction. A 4E can have anywhere from 0-8 hooks, and yet the killer did not secure a single kill within those interactions, making their impact very minimal, comparatively a 4K means that 12 hook states had to be achieved, with 4-12 hooks having been secured and pressure created between the two sides at the very minimum.
Lastly the 1 has to work a lot harder than the 4. Individual input is considerably higher, and there are no fallback teammates to rely on to carry you. There is a tremendous amount of metadata that either side can keep track of, but for killers it is much more mandatory to do so by comparison. The game purposely obfuscates a lot of key details that makes life harder, and they get considerably less "free" information (not knowing how many stacks your power has on someone vs being told exactly what hex you're affected with the second it activates, for example.) Between those three factors the kill rate is supposed to be higher than 50% by design because that is how asymmetrical balance works.
-
@RatbasterdJr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3222263#Comment_3222263
Which I do… then somebody goes down in 10 seconds of chase, while the Claud urban evasions around the edge and the other guy in a locker lol.
I exclusively play SWF now with equal buddies so it’s not an issue personally anymore. But I feel OP’s pain.
And you're claiming it never works out without needing to resort to swf? or just that you'd rather focus on the worst that can happen instead of adapting as the situation presents? You can come up with "what if's" all day, but using them to dismiss strategy is limiting yourself.
-
@RatbasterdJr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3222166#Comment_3222166
I do this all the time, but the killer often times will literally avoid me the entire match to get the weaker survivors.
thats them adapting as well. You then take advantage of that immunity
-
Get chased on purpose then. Never hide in lockers, and metaphorically Tpose at any killer who dares try to find you with an aura. If you ever feel that your teammates are bad in loops, that means you need to be willing to step up and cover that weakness. The required skill to hold M1 on a gen is considerably lower, so its where you want less skilled teammates to be as often as possible.
-
@Alcuin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3222152#Comment_3222152
I run team-oriented perks in Solo Queue. Kindred, Open-Handed, Bond, etc. There are only so many perk slots. I like a perk to help with chase, too, which is what Plaything helps with.
As someone who always runs kindred and windows, i understand that all too well. And considering CoH is an extremely team oriented perk, you're kinda using that as an excuse. You still have room for 1 exhaustion perk and 1 flex spot, while any boon of your choice can work there to fulfill the same end of also covering for the play/penti combo (or even just pentimento at all)
-
@Alcuin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3222137#Comment_3222137
The devs should buff Huntress Lullaby. There's no reason why Plaything should have multiple uses while Lullaby has one without Undying. It's a superior perk to Plaything as far as design goes. It requires effort on the part of Survivor whereas Plaything requires very little on the part of Killer.
Since you ignored the hint and decided to find a new thing to complain about instead, boons completely nullify the combo because they let you turn any hex totem into a dull instead of breaking it. Its yet another feather in CoH's cap, basically.
-
Plaything is pretty much the only way to ever get to even use pentimento, especially since hexes can be booned and snuffing it just reverts to a dull. Pentimento also tells at least one person exactly where it is, due to it requiring at least one cleansed totem to be able to apply it. The entire point of the perk is for it to provide a strong amount of slowdown for a very limited duration due to its drawbacks.
Its kinda not great, but its also better than a corrupt that removes itself the moment someone is downed, a ruin that deletes itself if nobody cleansed it by the time you get a kill, and so on. I hope you're not bothered by deadlock, because that one is becoming pretty meta lately as well for the same reason.
-
@H2H said:
This is some real bullshit from BHVR, and makes it pretty clear that they’re happy to take your money and give you the finger in return.
I promise you that licensed content negotiations are never that simple. The entire reason the goldeneye port on x360 was never completed was literally due to the rights owners arguing over who gets how much money, and specific companies having one person use an executive decision to block it. The port was like 90% complete when they decided they couldn't come to an agreement, and that certainly wasn't the dev team's fault.
While I'm not one to defend BHVR having bad practices (and they certainly have plenty,) I don't necessarily think this is one of them, especially since its more likely the ST rights holder(s) fault than theirs. IIRC some previous licensed characters weren't even allowed to get cosmetics or content updates for quite a while, I remember it being a thing when some killers were finally allowed to get alternate cosmetics. You could argue they need to negotiate those contracts better and you certainly wouldn't be wrong, but stricter contracts could very well have prevented half the licenses the game has gotten.
The option to play the ps4 version on ps5 is actually one other companies have taken as well, its a failsafe for issues like this. Its part of why so many ps5 games come with the ps4 version as well and you can use either one on the ps5: Its the most they can do in a worst case scenario. Even King of Fighters 15 had people using the PS4 version on PS5 before they were able to fix the input latency on the PS5 version. Its not ideal but it is an option.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3222069#Comment_3222069
I don’t need to justify any of my reasons to suicide on hook, all the ones I mentioned were pretty valid.
If you think someone can carry a 3v1 at 5 gens… idk what to tell you really.
You're right, you don't need to justify anything. You already tried to though, which is why you opened it up to criticism.
as for comebacks, sorry, they managed to finish a single gen in the time it took the first person to die so its not a perfect example for your complaint, but here ya go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URxn5tHDA9E -
@Marigoria said:
Reasons why I suicide on hook:
Someone already dead at 4/5 gens.
Someone DCED at the start of the game.
Either the killer or someone on my team is a hacker/cheater.
Someone on the team is a sandbagger.
Something important irl happened and I need to log off.
1) then keep playing and make a comeback. If your team is so miserable, then be a proper skilled player and carry them.
2) If they DCed, this one is fine. The results have already been thrown out, and you're essentially vote quitting. The match was already ruined, not a whole lot of fault in this.
3 and 4) Then record and report instead of leaving. Hostage hacks are almost exclusively done by survivors against killers, which are the ones that actually require some form of disconnect. Otherwise you have the perfect opportunity to provide evidence and a report in bhvr's archaic system.
5) If its that important, you should be using the built in DC function to not waste time getting hooked and killed. The 5 minute penalty shouldnt matter if you have something more urgent that needs that attention.
The vast majority of reasons people give for suiciding on hook boil down to the fact that they don't get a penalty for doing it vs using the DC button. with 2 in this example someone else already ruined the game, so you're just trying to quit while keeping what points you were able to get before the match was ruined. The rest are just excuses.
Edit: Also for anyone who hasn't put 2 and 2 together yet, the more you suicide on hook and DC, the more you're going to get stuck in low MMR. If things like bad players are reasons for DCing, you're kinda making sure you stay stuck with them since they are fellow bad players at that point. You can encounter them at any MMR, but forcing losses on yourself kinda lowers you down into that territory.
-
@TeleportingTurkey said:
these are self excluding.
fun to verse & strong killer is an oxymoron
strong & balanced killer is an oxymoron
Not necessarily. Some of us like going against blight and nurse, we just don't like going against only blight and nurse.
outplaying someone who is strong or is supposed to win on paper and whatnot is plenty fun.
-
A killer who is unhindered by communication and organization, has anti-loop specifically designed to focus on safe/god loops instead of short ones, and who has inherent design ideas that lean significantly into rewarding spreading pressure rather than focusing it. Playstyle variety as well, like having interesting addons that do more than just make x more efficient/less miserable. In the game's current state, I feel like those are the root of most people's issues with/against any particular killer.
Edit: Forgot to mention, they should also have mechanics that encourage interaction as much as possible, which could tie into the above point about rewarding playstyles.
-
@BringShaggytoDBD said:
Shattered Hope should be basekit imo. There are 5 totems in each game which means survivors can get 5 uses out of their boon perks. Allowing constant blessings is just ridiculous.
Other options to nerf boons:
- Increase the time it takes to bless a totem each time one is snuffed out.
- You have 3 tokens, each time you bless a totem you lose a token. Once all tokens are gone, you lost the ability to bless totems. (This would allow up to 12 blessings per game if all survivors brought a boon perk).
Having boons be breakable basekit is another one of the issues caused specifically by CoH: Most boons only get value when the killer is nearby, so not being able to break them permanently makes sense due to the map pressure dynamic it creates. There's a lot of interaction and cause/effect relationships caused by the boon dynamic itself.
CoH throws all that out the window since it is used to make a healing zone wherever the totem is, including if there is zero map pressure there and the killer has to sacrifice pressure to even get there. I don't think people would mind them being reusable as much if it weren't for that, and reusable CoH is such a problem it pretty much kills multiple playstyles. They really should just make it so that if CoH is on a totem, regardless of other boons paired with it, the break is permanent (while leaving any boons without CoH on them to do the same snuff/reaplicable stance) but then im sure there will be complaints about how booners are sandbagging each other and whatever arguments people want to start from that.
-
@Wezil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218998#Comment_3218998
Suicides and DCs are different, they aren't the same thing. It's an asymmetrical game, one side is going to be able to do things the other side can't do. You can't have consistency across the player base.
They are the same when they are suicides, since the player is trying to leave the match earlier than intended, aka disconnecting. If you actually read my suggestion or even the secondary explination from when another user asked for clarification, my system was designed specifically to target suiciding on hook while leaving all normal functions of both the self unhook and skillcheck struggle mechanics as untouched as possible. You're trying to misrepresent the asymmetrical nature of the game against something for which the only purpose is to let one side specifically leave matches early with no penalty.
You're just being argumentative at this point. Please go back to the previous suggestion to agree to disagree.
-
@Wezil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218910#Comment_3218910
Your opinion is in direct opposition over every other streamer I have ever watched. I'm talking about the likes of Otz, Scott Jund and Tru3. Tunneling-at-gen-5 and Camping-at-gen-5 is widely accepted to be extremely bad and unrewarding gameplay for killer.
It's considered unhealthy, but they do it regularly, especially Tru3. He also explains exactly why he does every single action while he does it, why he takes advantage of it and when he decides its either not necessary or not efficient, etc. Otz and Scott in particular i watch more for their insight and not their regular matches, but they are also extremely bad examples because they are generally very clear about the disconnect between strategies they encourage and strategies that are currently effective in the game. Believe it or not most people don't want camping and tunneling to be as effective as they are, but they simply understand how much changes to the game have hurt the viability of other strategies over time, especially in regards to their efficiency when compared to LCD strategies. I wouldn't begin to put words in their mouths about any topics as they are all very good at explaining their reasoning and perspectives just fine.
-
@Wezil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218996#Comment_3218996
DC penalties are consistent across the play base. Suicides are not DCs.
Suicides to escape DC penalties is also not consistent across the player base, since killers do not have any similar forfeit option. As has been posited multiple times now.
-
@Wezil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218884#Comment_3218884
I would be ecstatic if the developers added a DC button for both sides. If you can convince them to add a DC button for both sides and remove the DC penalty, then I'm all for it.
You have not convinced me it's necessary to group suicides in with DCs. My opinion is that allowing players to escape toxic gameplay is healthier for the game than the negative feelings players have after a suicide or DC.
Then you're in luck, because both sides have access to a button to disconnect from matches and have for years. It incurrs a matchmaking penalty because using it disrupts the game for other players, but it is always there.
And there it is. You're completely allowed to disagree with me, and I haven't been trying to force you to agree or anything. Your arguments have been extremely misleading, which is why I have been clarifying their misconceptions on the chance that they were unintentional. You're allowed to agree to disagree, but thats pretty different from your approach to this point. Even then your closing argument is still not consistent, since again my stance has never been about removing the ability to DC from the game, just enforcing consistent consequences across the playerbase. But if you truly want to agree to disagree, please feel free.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218928#Comment_3218928
If you need to adjust what to say is because you believe is wrong.
At least for me, "GG WP" stands for "Good Game, Well Played" and if my english is not wrong this is not an insult.
So If this is enough to offend someone, then the problem is not really on my end.
It would be a nightmare if people were forced to do an internal mental analysis of whatever word they use to find hidden meanings to whatever person it might reach.
That is indeed what the words mean, the issue is whether people are being genuine or mocking when saying it.
...which isn't even necessarily their fault. People internalize a lot from their matches in this game, and a lot of people either handle it poorly or get defensive when they really shouldn't. I've tried to be more mindful of it myself and started giving considerations if the opponent gets absolutely rolled: If they're a killer with no addons and maybe one perk, i'll make a comment about how rough matchmaking is, then offer the gg. If a survivor ragequits I'll say something like "sorry about the nea, that sucked. gg and gl on the next" or something along those lines.
We all had that one kid that used to spit in their hand before lining up for gg handshakes on sports teams when we were young. It's understandable that people can be bitter when they get defensive and assume the worst, but it also doesn't take much to be mindful of it and prevent the misunderstanding. All that said, I also used to get upset when people threw gg's when it clearly wasn't one, but I've worked on that and encourage any others who feel that way to do the same.
-
@Dead_Harder said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218909#Comment_3218909
I dont think you understand. No matter what they do, 12 hooking will still be by far the hardest method. That means no matter what they do, if 12 hooking is viable, basically everything else is so incredibly easy that there is basically no point in playing the game.
For example if its viable to hook survivors 1 by 1 and still win, if i focus on hooking only 2, i would be dominating the game because thats about 2-3 times more efficient than hooking people 1 by 1 and im not camping or tunneling any one so im not getting hit by any possible nerf to tunneling or camping.
12 hooking should never be viable unless you are just smurfing.
What if they just made 12 hooking actually rewarding? The emblemn system was far from perfect, but people were at least able to build their own win condition using emblems as a direct metric, and perks like BBQ having the bonus require at least 1 hook per survivor did a lot of encouraging that mentality. Part of the issue is that killers are supposed to be playing purely to kill as many as possible, and have almost no incentive to do otherwise. BP itself isn't the most universal motivator, but it was certainly better than zero motivation at all.
playstyles in general need to be given more room to breathe, and need to be more appealing than the LCD strategies. I do definitely understand your assumption that making 12 hooks viable would likely make the LCD strategies even stronger, but why not redesign the entire objective to address both of those issues simultaneously?
-
@Wezil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218858#Comment_3218858
In truth, I think you are absolutely right.
Gen Rush is playing for the objective.
Camping-at-gen-5 and Tunneling-at-gen-5 is the opposite of playing for the objective.
Theyre used to secure a kill as fast as possible to shift the efficiency potential away from survivors and toward the killer before they can prevent further kills. It is absolutely doing the objective for killers to facecamp and tunnel, and its effectiveness is determined by its efficiency. If win conditions were tied to emblems instead of kills, you would be correct, but it is not.
They're not friendly or sympathetic strategies, but they certainly are focused on completing the killer's objective, which is to get as many kills as they can.
-
@remoirel said:
you're not forced to do anything.
you choose to camp and tunnel because you believe its the only way to win, which it isnt, it just makes it easier because the quicker you erase 1 player it becomes so much harder to get things done as survivor.
Note how this sentence changes completely if you instead say "...it becomes so much easier to keep up with gen speed and pressure." and neither statement would be mutually exclusive. Both are correct, and they're two sides of the same issue.
-
@Wezil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218043#Comment_3218043
I am dismissing your idea, not because of personal bias, but because the developers are already addressing the cause of the issue which is toxic player behavior.
But lets say the developers weren't already working on the issue. Here are some thoughts I would present to you as a computer system admin and programmer myself.
- The most important question for me... Are hook-suicides statistically significant enough to warrant spending time on adding a punishment for. When I was playing, which was about 3 weeks ago, I didn't ever feel like my games were significantly affected by hook suicides. And I was playing survivor at the time which is the group affected by it the most because they are the ones that lose the game because of it.
- Does allowing hook-suicides benefit or harm the game as a whole. There is a lot of toxicity in the game, is it beneficial to allow players to move to another game instead of suffering toxicity from another player.
- You said it would only take 100 lines of code to fix this issue, but there are some problems here. Are the original programmers still with the company. If not, do the new programmers know where this code is, because this will add additional time to the project. How poorly written is the code and if it is poorly written, will this significantly increase the time to implement the change. Is it cost-efficient for me to allow my programmers to work on this project when the main money make for the company is content creation.
- If I was the project manager for BHVR (I've never done game development so I'm going to try and think like a BHVR project manager here and use my knowledge as a system admin to supplement my thinking), I want to keep players but I also want to continue making money from players by making content and so far, I haven't seen significant enough drop in players to indicate to me that this is a worthwhile endeavor.
- If I coded 100 lines of code, that would probably take me about an hour per 10 lines of code, plus testing. I'm sure there are people faster than me since I don't code as my main job but I'm sure there are people slower than me because of how much experience I have. That's 10 hours I would have to pay someone to fix this issue. That's also 10 hours that I have to take away from content creation. That's not a good deal when this issue doesn't seem that significant to me.
So you're just arguing and not actually reading any of my ideas, then clout throwing to try to dismiss them. You say you are a programmer as well and I have no reason or evidence to doubt that claim, but you should certainly know how easy it is to write simple conditional checks and apply them to all relevant dependencies within an environment through means of an event handler. The game was originally written in Blueprints so you should understand how absolutely simple my recommendations would be if that is their base (they have since upgraded away from it, thankfully.) Also "addressing toxicity" is an extremely unfocused goal because not only does it have no clear definition, but it is focused around human behavior as something that can be "fixed" instead of damage controlled through (de)incentivizing behavior accordingly. Kinda exactly like the ideas that I have put forward.
The most important question for me... Are hook-suicides statistically significant enough to warrant spending time on adding a punishment for.Not only are they due to how they create a one sided shift to one of their core statistics that they use as a metric for balance, it has a disproportionate effect where 1 event determines the outcome of matches for 4 people other than the user that instigates it. Due to both its statistical relevance and its impact having a ratio of 4:1 in determining both outcome and quality of matches, it absolutely has enough statistical relevance. You should also know as a programmer that anecdotes are completely meaningless when discussing relevancy of statistics. And for the thousandth time, the punishment is already in the system and hook suicides specifically bypass it, making it an exploit that circumvents existing measures and bypasses existing failsafes, yet another reason why it would be addressed from a programming perspective. Leaving known vulnerabilities in logic is not exactly high on the list of best practices either.
Does allowing hook-suicides benefit or harm the game as a whole.Does this stance apply to all players regardless of role? or just the ones you decide it does? It currently does not have pairity in both sides having a workaround to avoid the DC penalty, only one side does. This means that if this was an actual valid consideration, you would be equally willing to explore ways to achieve parity in either direction depending on your answer.
You said it would only take 100 lines of code to fix this issue, but there are some problems here.Despite that string of excuses, the game was originally written in Blueprints and updated to C++. All of its code structure damn well better have the ability to have an event handler that does simple conditional checks while being able to plug in the dependencies for all relevant actors, you don't need to be the person who wrote the source to do that, especially if you're working directly within that environment and releasing content updates to it every 3 months and adjustments to it every 1.5. This isn't trying to reverse engineer something to create a source port due to lack of source code, they're looking at the same code they do every day they walk into work.
Also direct profit from direct labor is not how projects like this work. Thats how the cosmetic and DLC portion works because they are designed as avenues to increase revenue specifically, but game health and maintenance is a profitless but necessary aspect of maintaining a game as a service over an extended support duration. Its the reason you're even able to discuss anything about how you feel about the balance of the game, and the reason why biased complaints like the ones you've given are even able to see the light of day. This very board does absolutely nothing to directly churn out profit, but it is an example of the necessities that come with maintaining a game like this.
If I was the project manager for BHVR (I've never done game development so I'm going to try and think like a BHVR project manager here and use my knowledge as a system admin to supplement my thinking), I want to keep players but I also want to continue making money from players by making content and so far, I haven't seen significant enough drop in players to indicate to me that this is a worthwhile endeavor.I'm sorry but this is completely dishonest. Did you not recently make a doompost about steamcharts numbers decreasing in another topic?
You're more than happy to frame it as survivors being dissatisfied with the game, yet suddenly those issues don't matter? Especially when a single ragequit has a 4:1 ratio of impact? Please don't be disingenuous with your concerns. But to address the point directly, yes, due to the actions of 1 affecting the product quality of 4 other people, it is an important consideration. Just like how you prioritize "killer toxicity" as important since that, too, has a 4:1 impact ratio. Notice how the prioritization of one specific side vs the userbase as a whole makes the difference.
If I coded 100 lines of code, that would probably take me about an hour per 10 lines of code, plus testing.Absolutely not how it works. 1 line of code can literally be just brackets depending on your coding structure for one, but giving the benefit of the doubt that you're not using Allman indentation (despite the fact i'm pretty sure i've seen devs comment in topics expressing to prefer it) each definition does not use large amounts of information per line unless it is required to specifically as additional data to the contents before it (namely as args.) Lines of code can be literally just a word, value, and appropriate syntax. From my personal amateur experience, you can do testing in stages which means you're not testing it with every new line or anything that unnecessarily inefficient. You create the base and appropriate nullchecks to make sure all necessary casing is accounted for to prevent runtime errors or other aborts, you test the foundation, then you apply each dependency and test those. Your main limitation shouldn't really more than the time it takes to compile after each change.
And, lastly, you keep de prioritizing the issue as much as humanly possible to try to get it to fit into your logic, instead of being logically consistent with your approach to the situation. Still no mention of a forfeit option for killers even though I have offered it as a potential common ground solution multiple times. You are purposely limiting your scope and it prevents you from being able to be unbiased in your outlook on the situation.
Clarification Edit: I have mentioned it in other posts, but to reiterate, I have acknowledged that my information regarding how easy or difficult any aspects of my change are to incorporate specifically into the code of DBD is incomplete. It is all going off of the assumption of common application, which is why much of it can require additional considerations to be able to fit within existing 6 year code that I do not have access to. My point is mainly focused around emphasizing that even if the process ends up being different than my assumption, it should still be well within a reasonable degree for game health changes and updates as are currently worked on and released.
-
@Wezil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218108#Comment_3218108
I agree with you on this. Removing a survivor early on is too rewarding to the killer, which promotes tunneling-at-gen-5 and facecamping-at-gen-5.
My thought would be to increase survivor gen-working-speeds and healing-speeds when a survivor is removed from the game. (With adjustments to killers). So that would make it a lot more beneficial to the killer to 8 hook all the survivors, before starting to kill them off.
That fixes things for one side but leaves it pretty nebulous for the other. The solution needs to address things for both killers and survivors evenly or it goes back to the same jenga balancing we've seen for the past 6 years.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3218115#Comment_3218115
It has actually.
Shouldn't be a problem, he's a 115% killer and if he's not stalking you — everyone gets two health states. Additionally, his stealth is still broken post attack. You should be good.
Just pay more attention and use common game sense. Avoid easy to ambush areas. I'm sure you played against a stealth killer before so I'm not going to elaborate further.
My point is that he basically becomes a better wraith at that point, being able to hide your red stain and TR in chase is huge, which is why it has the reveal mechanic as a counter.
-
@Rudjohns said:
Any complaints involving "SWF" should never be considered for the game balance.
If the game is balanced around SWF then the game is gonna be atrocious for solo q, therefore the game will die
Why not as sanity checks or smoke tests? Limiting excessive potential without hurting general use is how you are supposed to balance for any ranked system, so ideally everything should be balanced in a way that only limits the potential of SWF without affecting normal play (or even casual SWF.)
It comes up because it is the cause of extremely frequent oversights that affect high level play a lot more than low level play. Addressing both is perfectly valid, and without SWF the same sanity and smoke testing would apply in different ways. Communication really does just make things extremely hard to balance when the game was specifically designed around disorganization.