Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
MMR gives you more accurate teammates. That means that good players are more likely to get consistently good teammates, and bad ones with other bad ones. That said, Low MMR has a very significant "gravitational pull" due to various factors like ragequitting, sandbagging, and generally throwing matches. This means that the skill of one needs to be able to both be proportionate to their role in the 1v4, while also being enough to offset teammates who are not.
Since the sole determining factor of the ranking is based on survival through the exit gate specifically, it leaves multiple places for good players to do bad and bad players to do well. It refines over time as good players are more likely to carry and survive regardless of their allies. This is why when you get to high MMR, everyone is already trained to play well beyond 1/4th of their team, and you get extremely solid teammates. most of the time.
Since bad players can still get carried, you get the occasional person who doesn't belong, just like you can get unlucky good players who are stuck in
ELOMMR hell because people make most of their games uncarryable (which to be fair, still did happen less frequently with emblems.) compared to the emblem system, its much harder to climb in general, which is why it has a pretty decent correlation to skill even while skipping most of the factors regarding skill in the game. Since none of those considerations are present in the emblem system, it basically becomes a matter of average players being able to climb as much as strong ones, just taking longer to get there.I would say that MMR is more accurate, but I wouldn't necessarily say its better. The game is much more balanced for emblems than MMR, since the game itself is horribly unbalanced. There are simply too many match deciding factors that can have little to nothing to do with player input on either side, far too much agency denial, and all MMR does is teach people how to min/max those more effectively. It removes nearly all variety at high level play, while also making it harder to get there in the first place. Its just not a very even distribution, nor is it fitting for the game's original design.
-
Spine Chill has been a problem for stealth for a while, but CoH basically murdered it. There's just not enough time and too little potential to pressure unless you make specific builds that cover those weaknesses or just use stealth killers in a non-stealth way.
All that said, I have been seeing some pretty fun dark devotion builds, which are kinda silly but still work quite a bit.
-
@RoastedGarlic said:
I honestly think shadowborn should be basekit, I never even considered that high FOV could bother some people though. A slider would be nice, I would welcome it.
If you're interested in how that works, here's a video explaining the whole situation I shared in another topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blZUao2jTGA&feature=emb_logoBasically this game being on both pc and console while having a significant portion of it be played in first person pretty much necessitates having a slider. And I just realized that video is 12 years old.
-
Spine Chill working on stealth killers has never had anything to do with the accessibility aspect of it, but boy did they choose an extremely bad time to introduce that particular interaction which was previously not supposed to happen. It got snuck in with the accessibility walkback and I think most people are content with the accommodation out prioritizing the blatant buff, but it really would be nice to have some more info on the basekit mechanics they are working on to replace the perk's HoH usage (which apparently can just be carried over from mobile if they really needed to) instead of this UB/mori test nobody really wanted.
-
@versacefeng said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3212609#Comment_3212609
Thats not map design that’s rng. The game does that whenever there’s a lack of pallets that spawn in the map.
Thats part of the design. Their procedural generation algorithms regularly go maverick and make stuff like pallets way too close, god loops aligned into each other, hooks being "wtihin distance" but not accounting for the necessary routing to reach them, etc. Those are all map design problems because they cause malfunctions in their own failsafe logic.
-
He can't shoot you fullscreen and then teleport behind you with an overhead in this game :)
-
They do not have a steady foundation for balancing, and its part of why they've been so awful with maps. They need to make maps that bad survivors are going to be able to last for more than 2 seconds in a chase, while good survivors last less than 5 minutes. Bad killers to get downs in less than 5 minutes, while good killers take more than 2 seconds. High tier killers to have a less stark advantage over low tier ones.
There is too much chaos in this game to balance, but unfortunately they are unable to focus on the most important aspect of that, just like in the other elements of the game: They're unable to balance for the bad without giving a massive advantage to the good.
-
You are a team because you have a shared goal that is not mutually exclusive. One person escaping through the gate does not mean another cannot, so you are all working together toward common goals. The only time this does not apply is regarding the hatch. Its the only objective in the game that remotely justifies the 1v1v1v1v1 nonsense (even if only 1v1v1) due to the 3rd needing to die for the 4th to get a chance at hatch. Any other time in the match that anyone tries to use that "we're not actually teammates" argument they are literally just trying to justify sandbagging, and even with regards to the hatch its only due to bad design.
I really wish the devs understood this better because when they make comments like that, all it does is let bad players justify screwing their teams over, because they don't consider them a team.
-
@BreadSilence said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3211279#Comment_3211279
There is no pregame chat if you're on console though....
Yeah, I wasn't sure about that. The ability to quickswap is still there though.
-
Sounds like the grab validation failed. It doesn't rollback the M1 to start when you first attempted the grab, which is why it misses even after the grab is denied sometimes depending on how bad the latency is (takes too long to reconcile to land the hit, basically.) The simple fix would be to have the hit register as soon as the grab is denied by the validation, but they just have it start the swing there instead. Hopefully they fix it, but at least its probably not foul play or anything.
-
@Wezil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3211174#Comment_3211174
A game that has been around for 6 years and all of the sudden photosensitivity has become an issue. I know you are trying to prop up your argument by using an ad hominem fallacy, but it just doesn't fly. Where did all of the photosensitivity players all the sudden come from and why did they sudden start playing 6 years from the creation of the game. This all came about because killer-mains got their feel-goods hurt because survivors can taunt them.
Why would you accuse me of ad hominems when you literally can't stop blaming killer mains and accusing them of having thin skin? I have been pretty diligent in not directly insulting anybody, let alone trying to use insulting them as a means to discredit them. If you actually saw any of the discussions about this topic in the past, there has been a lot of silence from BHVR directly, but the topic became relevant again after the release of Sadako. Since these changes don't happen overnight, it was very likely in deliberation internally since then. Considering the photosensitivity warning was also added between then and now, it shows that their progress might be slow but it is deliberate.
Aside from all of that, the entire point of the topic is that OP thinks that BHVR is being disingenuous about their reasoning. The backlash they have gotten is that people don't care if the change is one that allows more people to be able to safely play the game. The only people who could possibly be upset by the change are the ones who think the "flashlight nerf" was more important than people's well being, which is why so many understandably have pretty emotional responses. I've even given common ground with bringing up spine chill multiple times so that there can at least be consistency to the logic, but the hyperfocus is on this specific change.
The best part is how minimal the change actually is. You would think turning on the flashlight just ejects its battery with how people have been hyperbolic about it. Thats why it looks so absolutely silly when compared to the thought of someone having an episode and being hospitalized over someone else's actions in a damn game. Might as well copy it over from the other topic so people who are unaware can at least use it for context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Pf-2OVLzwIts easy to brush off people who just don't understand epilepsy and other photosensitive conditions from just being uneducated, hopefully they learn better and maybe their perspective will change. But knowingly diminishing conditions like that compared to personal reasons ranging from feeling like your advantage has been reduced to choosing this one specific topic to call the devs hypocrites is extremely immature.
-
Shadowborn basekit isnt necessarily the way to go since it will trade who gets affected, but the fact that they put that in there means they understand how to not make the situation worse when adding a new mechanic, so there is certainly hope. FoV slider is hopefully the plan when they work out all of the other things that would need to be adjusted to accommodate it.
Still, whether they were just tonedeaf and intended this option when they announced the update (and forgot to mention it would have a setting for it) or if it wasn't an option but they listened when it got called out (and put in a measure to prevent it from making things worse) either one is a win for how they're handling accessibility and hopefully the trend going forward.
-
@Rovend said:
Imagine survs seeing they are against a doctor and insta-switching to calm spirit. lol
That actually happened for a while. People were using hacks to identify the killer in lobbies and suddenly every doctor went against 4 calm spirits, every plague went against 4 no mither sabo build squads, etc. Was pretty rough to be on the receiving end of but also pretty obvious why it was happening.
-
Items have always been considered a "bonus" part of the loadout. Hence why they can be earned mid match in chests, dropped, given to other survivors, etc. They even used to get used up and consumed if used 100% in the past (though you did get to keep addons that didnt consume the item if you escaped with it and it still had charges left.) They're not a core part of the loadout, which is why its fair for the killer to see them and adjust theirs accordingly, especially for niche perks for that purpose like franklins.
The inverse is that survivors get to chat in the lobby (if they choose to) and coordinate loadouts and/or comment on challenges or anything else without the killer being able to see the chat (admittedly, don't know if/how this functions on console personally.) If killers were able to see the rarity and addons of items that would be one thing, but since killers can't switch which killer they're using in lobby anymore I don't personally think its a disproportionate advantage either way. Especially since at least survivors still have the last second swap you mentioned which killers don't/have limited ability to react to.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3211185#Comment_3211185
It comes off as disingenuous to me. That’s my problem.
I didn’t say it should be all or nothing either. I find it contextually to just be a PR move.
the context being that they are under-fire by almost every group in the game for varying things, including their ambassadors. They usually pre-announce all PTB changes coming to the game, and this was never mentioned. It literally feels like a last minute change with just a reason attached just because.
i would’ve loved to hear that they hear the community, especially those that suffer from their specific sensitivities and how they are looking to improve the QOL of the disabled people in the community. But it was a small change with a little line tagged at the bottom.
you are free to disagree about their intentions but I’m not sure why the others feel the need to be so upset that I don’t think BHVR is being honest
Because most rational people are more happy that people who this affects can play the game safely than your moral outrage at a company doing normal company things.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3211128#Comment_3211128
Thanks for actually understanding what I am saying instead of trying to put words in my mouth.
I never once advocated against the change, or said it shouldn’t come, or that accessibility shouldn’t come into the game. But literally looking at patterns of how BHVR releases things, and how they are currently under-fire. It seems like a last minute addition, just to have a “hey guys! But I did this too!” card.
the fact that is happens to be a buff to killers is just an additional point to my post, but people blew that bit up too
Then why have you not addressed Spine Chill? its a slam dunk for your argument but you refuse to touch it.
-
@Wezil said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210004#Comment_3210004
This is caused by killer-mains using people with photosensitivity issues to get the developers to remove something they don't like. This is completely because killer-mains get their feelings hurt when a survivor outplays them, then flashlight clicks. It's so blatant, it's not even funny.
Instead of just telling the truth, killer-mains are pretending their concern for other peoples feelings, which we all know is a lie. This is a group of players that tunnel, face-camp and 4 man slug and you're telling me that the killer-mains are concerned about people with photosensitivity issues.
The developers are removing flashlight clicking because they consider it toxic, not because they actually believe killer-main lies about them caring for people with photosensitivity issues. Don't think killer-mains pulled the wool over the developers eyes at all.
I know its hard to understand, but there might just be people who either have these conditions, or help friends or family deal with them as well? Why respond to my post and complain about bad actors when you are very clearly being one right now?
-
@ElodieSimp said:
The overall sentiment seems to be positive, not sure why you posted this.
I wish this post aged better.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210206#Comment_3210206
Okay and what is it do with you? You are pestering me even though I explained myself handful of times. Can you literally leave me alone, you even went to a different thread from a different user to disagree with me there. Like just leave me alone
Yeah, thats not exactly the same thing as having multiple conversations on a forum but sure. I'm gonna continue to defend the decision because i put accessibility over your personal cynicism toward BHVR, but I haven't intentionally been singling you out over it. I would be happy to ignore your take, so please stop spamming it everywhere if you don't want responses.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210200#Comment_3210200
Why are you stalking me? You've stalked me across 3 threads to argue about this with me. One of which wasn't mine.
I'm not, I wasnt even the first one to notice apparently. I've been discussing this topic with people in multiple topics, and you made multiple versions of the same topic on the issue.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210181#Comment_3210181
Can i ask what your absolute problem is?
I am allowed to question and disagree with what people do, why are you trying to police me on what i should or shouldnt be doing? LMAO
I've been trying to understand your point, since I have been pretty vocal about my displeasure with how BHVR handles PR in the past. I, like most people, think you're choosing the wrong hill to die on if that actually is your intention.
-
Your other topic is literally still on the first page.
-
@SunsetSherbet said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210033#Comment_3210033
They also lessened Sadako's visual effects and the menu effects for when he chapter was new. Because people with photosensitivity issues couldn't play. But I guess that was to nerf something and buff killers, and get twitter points. Or something.
I can almost understand where OP is coming from, specifically because of the spine chill situation. There was an extremely tone deaf reasoning that was used which paired a good thing (accessibility usage) with a bad thing (side buff that had absolutely nothing to do with the accessibility issue.) I've asked them to comment to try to understand the consistency to their argument, and try to help point out the differences between this situation and that one, as well as how their handling here is an improvement over how they handled it there. They dodged the question though, so they kinda skipped their chance at proving consistency in their argument.
I don't have a whole lot of love for how BHVR has, nor continues to handle a lot of accessability issues in this game. But I also realize its a game that has outgrown its initial scope by more than double at this point, and that they are putting forth efforts in their own way. Some things are easier to make work than others, and positive changes should never be punished, nor should anyone assume current intentions based on past intentions from different people within the same organization.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210159#Comment_3210159
? I think dying on the hill that companies shouldn't weaponise diseases for a good PR stunt because they are receiving backlash everywhere else is a good hill to die on, you dont?
Then where were you literally any other time they've done it in DBD's history? You're specifically latching on to this one change and pretending not to care when people call you out on it. You still never answered how you feel about the Spine Chill fiasco, just that "you'll always do it."
Most of the community understands that all business decisions have more reasons than the ones provided. They generally don't care as long as they are positive and healthy changes. You should have quit this game long ago if you actually cared that BHVR has done this before, and you should probably boycot the vast majority of companies you provide your custom if you care so deeply about it. The rest of us, including the people who this actually affects, will be happy that accessibility was improved instead.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210052#Comment_3210052
Because you are directly manipulating my words.
Your post that I responded to, stated that 'I wished it had never been implemented' when my original post stated from the FIRST sentence that I didn't care for the actual change but the reasoning for the change, which I think is fake and just a PR move to protect themselves from further criticism.
Why do I think that?
They have a cheater epidemic, they are implementing controversial changes (MORIs and UB Basekit), criticism for not even attemping to fix specific killers that had issues for YEARS.
Why would they not make a change that will 'positively' change the game? Especially using the excuse for accessibility? BHVR is known for not changing things unless they absolutely break the game, or until it is convenient for them. Not sure why me criticising them on this, where the foundation of my belief is years of their behaviour and attitude towards changes, PR messages and how they handle criticism.
Because you specifically said, in the very topic title, that it is concerning the flashlight change. All of the subtext in that entire post is that you don't like the flashlight change, then you just put a disclaimer that you totally don't care. The irony is that you're complaining about the devs using accessibility complaints from the community as an excuse to make this change for some spooky underhanded reason, when you're projecting by making this very topic and framing it the way you have. The only other takeaway is that you wanted a platform to talk down on the devs and are using a positive change as collateral in your stance.
Deflecting onto other entirely unrelated issues means nothing. Putting a delay on flashlights did not undo their roadmap on how they are going to handle the cheating issue, its not going to prevent optimization of the game, you didn't even mention the UB/Mori changes in the topic title nor your first post.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210017#Comment_3210017
You missed what I said, i don't care for the change, as in i am indifferent to it. Not that it shouldnt have happened, but whatever dude lmfao
No I got what you said, i'm just trying desperately to find a constructive avenue from it. If your entire point of any of this was just to ****talk the devs for having some kind of ulterior motive in doing something that helps people be able to play the game, you should probably reflect on why you feel the need to prioritize that sentiment.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210033#Comment_3210033
Where the hell did i say that? I literally said I don't care for the change, I am not saying it shouldn't be implemented. I literally said they shouldn't be hiding it behind 'this is for accessiblity!!!' when if it were, they should've implemented this years ago! #########, what a way to miss the mark, mate.
You are just looking for a fight tbh. if you continue to try to manipulate my words i am gonna ignore you
How am I looking for a fight when that is the entire point of you making this conversation? You're misatributing your own assumptions on why the devs did this with no evidence other than how long it took them to actually do something about it. My argument is that they are taking steps in the right direction (even though they still slip up sometimes) so your cynicism carries less weight and serves zero constructive purpose. This topic is literally intended for you to argue with people who defend the devs finally warming up to accessibility options.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210023#Comment_3210023
Again, not sure why that is your take-away from my post. I am not against the change in of itself, I am against them trying to hide the change behind it being an 'accessibility' change because it's a lame way to protect yourself against criticism.
Did you make the same argument when they literally did that with the spine chill walkback? Because even when people called them out on it, they would rather have the people affected be taken care of and ignore the fact that their reasoning had nothing to do with accessibility vs when killers have no audible TR. It was an actual case of what you are implying happened with the flashlight change, and most people were annoyed but accepting because its better than the affected players being left unable to play the game reasonably.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210013#Comment_3210013
My point is, clicking flashlights, especially to trigger epilepsy has been in the games since the beginning. It's been an issue and that part of the community always vocalised that.
I don't think it's about learning, I think it is just a way to protect themselves. The same way they released the Cheater update upon the out-rage across the community, which was nothing more than powerpoint pictures of 'how many people they banned'.
So you think it should just never have been fixed, rather than eventually getting addressed? I don't understand what moral high ground you're trying to stand on here but its shaky at best. It wouldn't matter if they did it because someone on the team thought it would help their chances in that weeks lottery drawing, the end result is positive for accessibility and they are showing signs of improving their accessibility accommodations.
One of the first things that got mentioned about the FoV change as described was that it would further cause issues for people who suffer from motion sickness due to its lack of accessibility options in the game. PTB rolls around, and now they've added an option to prevent the FoV change from happening after being called out on how the auto-adjustment ignored the situation. They still havent fixed the overall accessibility of FoV in the game, but they listened to a concern and prevented the change from making it worse. I have no doubt there are people listening to the community about these things, and it could very well be that its just been a matter of executive decisions no longer stopping them from being introduced and accommodated for where they can.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/348763/the-responses-to-flashlight-changes
I am upset by the change not because it happened but because of their reasoning. It's lame and a PR message just to protect themselves against potential backlash (if they were to get any).
I'm sure people with photosensitivity issues care a lot more that they did it than your personal cynicism. And thats coming from an extremely cynical person regarding this game.
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3210004#Comment_3210004
Because if the developers cared about accessibility, it would've been changed to not trigger epilepsy years ago. Clicking flashlights has been a feature ever since the beginning. Not once did the developers care to cater to that part of the community.
I am criticising the developers for not having a backbone. it's a PR message to protect themselves had they gotten backlash.
You know that "the devs" are not just one person who does not learn, right? It could be that they actually listened to user accounts and educated themselves on the topic. They have certainly had mixed results on their approach to accessability (with a very fair share of quagmires in itself) but if you check in the PTB they even started to carve out a section of the options specifically for it. They are tonedeaf on it sometimes, but that doesn't mean they're not making an effort. Just a slow and sometimes off the mark effort. That doesn't mean you demean them when they get something right, you help them learn from why they get things wrong when they do.
-
How are you not weaponizing the topic when you're implying that its changed only as an excuse to nerf, rather than an actual valid reason? Its not even killer specific since flashlight macroing affects survivors with photosensitivity issues just as much, while you're literally turning it into a partisan issue in the post you're telling people not to.
-
@HeyItsQuiet said:
My favorite thing to do with my best friend on DBD is have flashlight arguments when we find each other in the match. We literally can't blind to save our lives and we aren't toxic to killers either it; we genuinely only bring them to be goofy on her stream.
I know it's a small thing, but it's one of the last things that was funny and enjoyable about the game.
Just learn morse code and teabag silly messages at each other instead then :)
-
Emblem system needed a lot of work, but it was a much better fit for how the game was/is/will be balanced. MMR tries to force too much emphasis on individual agency in a game that regularly denies it. The issue of being able to "fail upward" was present in both systems, to MMR's credit at least.
-
@Irisora said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3209840#Comment_3209840
Yes very well explained, every person is a world so not everyone reacts the same and its good that the devs decided to change how the flashlight behave to reduce the potencial seizure if possible but obviously there are more things that could cause it, that why i advised it's not wise to play a game with this condition and of course someone with photosensitivity can play games but there is a risk and more if not being medicated.
You can have this condition and not run into a single event in any game that causes a reaction to it. Thats a combination of proper warning, education, research, testing, and most importantly design. Because the flashlight macro is a perfect example: rapid clicking was never an intended feature, and even used to flat out crash users' clients. They took that scenario and used it to fix the instability in the game rather than fixing this issue at the same time. But even aside from that, people can go for literal decades without having any issues while enjoying games just like everyone else.
Anyone who has ever needed to cater for a group of people can easily understand why things like peanut butter and shellfish are bad ideas if you don't know food allergies, so they are usually avoided when providing food for a large number of people... you don't just tell those people they're not allowed to eat or to bring their own food. The responsibility of not eating food they are allergic to is theirs in the end, but a very small amount of mindfulness goes a long way to not exclude them entirely.
-
@Sluzzy said:
Most games have flashing lights. That just goes with the sport. It should be user responsibility on whether to play games.
It would be like a person with heart failure trying to play sports. Ruining the games fun factor by forcing all players to walk to allow heart failure players to engage would be a good analogy.
I usually ignore your posts as biased, but targeting people for their disabilities is low, even for you. I can't think of a way of wording this any nicer, but you do not understand the first thing about this situation nor the people it affects. Please do not post in these topics.
-
@Irisora said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3209755#Comment_3209755
I said don't play or at least they shouldn't, don't cut and quote.. There is a huge seizure warning in most games and even in some that don't do it, people that suffer from this can get seizures. So If someone decide to ignore the warnings its not wise and they aren't caring about themselves.
There have been multiple topics covering this, but the long and short is that there have been seizure risk elements in this game for far longer than there has been a warning (only a few months,) which means they were far behind the curve in giving the end user information warning of events that could cause photosensitivity issues. This was because they were extremely uncommon, and would slip through the cracks for years if people are not exposed to them. Sadako's vfx actually got adjusted for this very reason, which reopened the discussion since it was finally acknowledged.
Aside from all of that, people who suffer from seizures are not told to avoid playing video games or anything like that, but rather to inform themselves of any risks present in the game. The issue many have had is that information was not present, nor was it consistent: This is important for people with conditions such as that, because they have to "trial run" games with someone willing to look over them if a response occurs. Testing the waters is extremely important for them, but its also usually something that only needs to happen once or twice, since you can generally encounter these types of causes within a standard play session or two. After that, it is usually very clear on what does and doesn't cause concern, and you can make an assessment on how safe or unsafe the game is after that. There are people who are at risk of seizures who play even fighting games with no issues, complete with their over the top flashing lights during KO screens, its just a matter of learning triggers and tolerances like many other conditions.
Its unlikely to go extremely long periods without ever seeing a doctor, a sadako, or a flashing light on a map... But flashlight clicking is a user end cause, not one within the game's natural design. It's always been an outlier that people can cause "on demand" which is why it needed particular consideration. This is a change that has actually been put forward concerning this topic for ages, so its good to see BHVR making good on their claims that they're listening in terms of accessibility. Still plenty to go, but considering the severity of the impact on end users, this change was definitely one of the most urgent ones. Here's hoping that other ideas for the overlays and other risk factors, while more avoidable to a degree, still get similar consideration. They kinda doubled down on the FoV issue by introducing a new mechanic tied to it, but at the absolutely very least they did add an option to prevent it from changing dynamically mid match when it occurs.
-
@Shaped said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3208394#Comment_3208394
I am not new to survivor nor killer. I just take breaks.
The way you worded it made it sound like you were a killer main who only started playing survivor recently, my mistake. The rest still stands tho, as its basically how to climb out of
ELOMMR hell in this game -
If you're more new to survivor, its most likely the concept of shared agency. coming from a side where you win and lose based on your own play, the concept of having a large portion of your outcome determined by teammates you can't communicate with can be jarring. The trick to solo q is learning how to be as little of a liability to your teammates at the start, then it turns into learning how to carry bad teammates and prevent their mistakes. As long as you follow that trend and shrug off games where your input matters less than the damage the other survivors cause, you'll notice your outcomes getting better on average until you end up getting matched with other survivors who do the same.
-
@steezo_de said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3206412#Comment_3206412
No, they're not survivor mains. It just seems that way because of how they balance, which is for the casual gamer. This game is not for someone that wants the ultimate PvP experience. People that play this game are 30, 40, 50 year old uncles and grandmas that want to be their icon, Freddy or Myers, or want to have fun in a SWF and be ok at it. The devs take all skill levels into consideration and try to balance the game so this can happen. Of course you have people that take the game seriously, but it doesn't take long to figure out that this game is broken for any type of serious play unless you make up your own rules in a private scrim.
I absolutely agree with pretty much all of this, including how its misguided to assume the devs are x mains in people's arguments. My only issue with how they balance it is that they are oblivious to the impact of a lot of the changes they introduce, the kind of stuff that any playtester worth their salt will generally point out in alpha testing before even getting to further details. There could very well be people who raise these concerns internally and get shut down, then end up both validated and ignored when the problems they warn about happen. Its not fair to blame anyone on the team and assume the worst, when they're just doing their job and following orders at the end of the day.
If you want to blame anyone, it unfortunately falls to the top, which is why they're in the positions they're in. They have to make tough decisions based on the information provided, and it can be unknown why they might reach the decisions they do without having all of the data and perspective they do. Even then you can absolutely disagree with what they decide or why they decide it, but its essentially impossible to determine their intentions.
-
@ad19970 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3208282#Comment_3208282
Dude at this point it's hard to even understand what you want. Loaded language to try and minimize anyone who disagrees with me? Whut? And unrelated tangents from that point? Nothing I have said is in any way unrelated. You said removing hook grabs would hurt killers too much, because they wouldn't have a way to punish hook diving. I then explained to you why I do not think that's the case. Those aren't unrelated tangents, those are the reasons I believe that removing hook grabs will not be unfair for killers in any way or form, and are indeed needed. But please, tell me what exactly of what I wrote is unrelated to the discussed subject?
Killers have received a bunch of buffs, and killers can still down the survivor going for the unhook. Which I think is more than sufficient enough. I do not think that removing hook grabs would introduce new problems, because I believe killers would still be completely fine without hook grabs. Getting a hook grab right now puts survivors into a really bad situation, just because of one move. That to me is ridiculous.
I also explained that I am positive hook grabs are only used by campers in 99% of situations, and the few other situations, where hook grabs are not used for camping, just aren't worth considering when it comes to a change like this, because nerfing camping is extremely important, especially when looking at current queue times. And again, especially with killers having received a bunch of buffs, I do not think a nerf would cause any problems, even to non camping killers.
Just out of curiosity, how would you fix this problem? In a way where camping is clearly nerfed like it would be by removing hook grabs?
"Killers received a bunch of buffs, that already made them clearly stronger.", "That little amount of skill should not be awarded like that.", "Or we can just not give survivors any other buffs anymore," and so on. You're making arguments against things I have not even mentioned, arguing with what you perceive must be things I also agree with. You even keep bringing up "killer buffs" which are not related to this specific issue, regardless of their impact or value. I havent argued any of those things, nor have I implied that the issues survivors have with the situation are solely skill based or any other form of dismissing them. I'm saying that you're ignoring WHY hook grabs are in the game in the first place, to make it so that trying to unhook someone directly in front of the killer is supposed to be an extremely risky play. The situation isn't perfect and I haven't even remotely implied it is, just that you're completely ignoring that aspect of why it happens, as well as focusing on how killers can exploit it while ignoring how survivors can. It needs a fix that addresses the issues on both sides because the issue is "what happens when a survivor tries to unhook in front of the killer" just as much as "what happens when a killer stays in front of the hook." Either side can fire off dismissals based on introducing additional factors because of how bad the game direction is, but you don't keep introducing lopsided changes hoping that they'll eventually even out. This game is balanced like a damn jenga tower as it is.
For the record, statements like "I also explained that I am positive hook grabs are only used by campers in 99% of situations" are why you're not allowing yourself to understand any other perspectives. You're using your own anecdotes to try to override the experiences of others, then going on to skew everything else based on preconceptions like that.
If you honestly want a solution from me, an on the spot idea would be to punish either side for making bad plays in this situation, but rewarding good plays. Make it so that if a survivor brings a chase to the hook, they get exposed for a duration and the unhooked survivor does not get their free BT. On the inverse, if the killer stays within the hook distance for an extended period of time after it starts giving the proximity penalty (maybe 15 seconds to start, bringing the total to 30 seconds IIRC) Then the opposite happens, and the killer is unable to grab and all BT/endurance effects work as normal, with a two hit during unhooking resulting in the second hit giving the endurance effect.
Even then, that would have to be part of bigger sweeping changes to encouraging leaving the hook and other considerations for "accidental" cases, like if the killer never gets to leave the hook realistically in that time, or survivors who don't lead the killer to the hook but lead them to someone else going for the save and the killer detaching, but its the start of a solution that resolves issues both sides face instead of prioritizing one over the other. Its also the idea of the solution much more than the details, I came up with all of that on the spot so surely there are factors that it is not accounting for, but thats also my point: A lot of these types of ideas like getting rid of hook grabs aren't inherently bad, they just need to account for more details before they are in any state to be attempted in the game's existing balance.
-
@ad19970 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3208227#Comment_3208227
There is a difference, surely, but killers do not need the ability to grab survivors off of hooks, to have two survivors downed at once. That little amount of skill should not be awarded like that.
Killers received a bunch of buffs, that already made them clearly stronger. They now need these kind of nerfs for survivors experience to become fairer again. And again, it's because this change would mainly only hurt camping killers, those very few other instances just don't hold enough wait against that.
It's not a one sided view at all if you also consider all the buffs killers received. This is how the game will continually become better for both sides. Killers received a bunch of buffs, now it's time for survivors to get some help as well, especially against the crappy strategies like camping and tunneling. And if there are those very rare other instances that would also get nerfed by that, then that's simply a necessary evil.
And if, at some point, survivors have received too many improvements, and killer becomes too hard, the devs then can look into buffing killers again, but in much more healthy ways. Map balance improvements immediately comes to mind. I would love this game to get into a state where we could see better map balancing, but the game surely isn't in that state at the moment.
Or we can just not give survivors any other buffs anymore, but that clearly isn't doing the game any favor. Again, killer queue times are clealry longer for good reasons.
You're again focusing on projecting it to be a skill issue when my point was only warning about how it can and is used to force a lose/lose scenario. You're then going on a ton of unrelated tangents from that point, using plenty of loaded language to try to minimize anyone who disagrees with your statements. I've already stated that the entire situation needs to be reworked, and that you're just trading one aspect of it for another by removing the mechanic without even considering why its there in the first place.
If you want to fix things, fix them right. Otherwise you end up like bhvr and keep introducing new problems alongside your fixes.
-
@ad19970 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3208176#Comment_3208176
Not really one sided in my opinion. I believe a lot of killer players agree, and I am a killer main myself.
Survivors wouldn't be able to dive bomb without punsishment? Removing hook grabs doesn't cause killers to cease existing. They can just down the unhooked with two hits. And if you are already in a chase with a survivor running to the hooked survivor, in most cases you already injure the survivor on their way to the hooked survivor.
The only killers that couldn't punish survivors anymore for hook diving are killers that simply aren't good at the game. In 99% of cases where hook grabs are used, they are used by camping killers.
And it sure as hell isn't a necessary evil anymore. Killers already received a bunch of buffs, now it's the survivors time for that. Killers will still be strong without hook grabs.
Unless of course we want to keep holding on to the longer killer queue times.
My statement was that you were literally only considering the issues of one side and not the other. You're not even acknowledging the difference between a hook trade and grabbing someone before they can get the unhook in your reasoning, and trying to brush off a legitimate concern with skill issue posturing. Thats not how you fix issues that cause problems for both sides.
-
@woodenEnthusiasm said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3208176#Comment_3208176
I mean survivors with reassurance can practically dive bomb and loop around their teammate with no penalty
Once per hook state, which is exactly why that stipulation was added. I've even gone over the exact considerations of that scenario paired with the basekit UB in another topic, both how it works and how much worse it would have been without said stipulation. Its still bad, but again, they need to rework the entire standoff itself at this point rather than picking and choosing grievances to address specifically.
-
@ad19970 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3208138#Comment_3208138
They 100% need to be removed. It's an outdated mechanic that in 99% of situations is used by campers.
Pretty one sided take, since removing them entirely means that survivors can divebomb the hook without risk or penalty. What happens when survivors lead chases directly to the hook while healthy? They just get a free save for basically sandbagging their entire team? Its a necessary evil until they come up with better means to address the situation uniformly.
-
@woodenEnthusiasm said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3208135#Comment_3208135
Thats part of my point. Grabs are instant down, why are killers being met halfways for the games bugs? At this point just remove grabs and give them like .5 seconds of exposed instead
Then every killer gets a lagswitch to use for short intervals to guarantee instadowns? nah. Grab interactions like vaulting already require the survivor to be injured in the first place, and stuff like gen grabs are usually extremely unrealistic in normal play. Better to not open another avenue for exploitation for minimal reason.
Edit: Grabs should definitely be fixed, but not buffed. I do agree that there should be changes to things like hook grab standoffs, if that is part of the consideration here, but not necessarily just making the survivor exposed and instadowned for it.
-
@woodenEnthusiasm said:
Wild how grabs have been broken for literal years now. You'd think they could at least apply a mini expose status when you get refunded, but instead killers have to get compromises even on mechanics that are broken
The fix was that it should have an attack properly follow through if a grab is denied. The issue is that this still doesn't work properly, and hits can just not connect due to the amount of time required in reconciling the rollback. They need to change it so that if a grab gets rolled back, it counts as a hit was registered, instead of having it go for a "second chance" hit afterwards.
-
@sulaiman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3203167#Comment_3203167
I think there really is a flaw in your thinking, about why this strategies might form.
Many killers will tell you way play to win, and winning is a 4k, thats why many slug for that 4k, and why they hate the hatch.
Those killers might appy this strategies, because otherwise, they dont get that 4k, and they say they are pressured into using them, because the game is stacked against them.
Lets say we were to rework maps again, reduce pallets and everything. What do you think the endresult would be? Killer would be ok with just getting a 2k for a balanced game? Or would they still want that 4k?
Because then, there are just 2 possibilitys:
a) even after a rework, killer still cant get a 4k without those strategies, so they use them again.
b) they get those 4k without it, which mean it is balanced around killers getting a 4k (remember, whenever it seems to be only a 2 or 3k, they still can resort to camping and tunneling).
It all comes down to what killers and survivors think a balanced game is.
I play both sides, and i think a balanced game is a 2k. less than that is a win to survivors, more than that is a win for killer.
But even devs think different, because a 53% kill rate wasn´t enough.
But we know killers are not satisfied with a 3k, thats why they slug for a 4k.
In short, the reason why this strategies are employed is to get that 4k, and no balance change will change that, unless the 4k is easy enough to get to not need them.
And yes, that is truly what i belive.
(to be fair, i play both sides, and even i am not satisfied with a 2k).
You can only have a [xK/yE] breakdown use a lowest common denominator of 25%, as there are 4 survivors in every match. This is why 2K/2E is their target. Realistically you want there to be more 4K's than 4E's though, since 4E's are an outcome that involves the least potential interaction between the two sides. This is why they want more than 50% kill rate, but not enough for it to round up up 75% with the aforementioned LCD. Since the number is also going to vary due to how killers are balanced (as well as MMR differences and other relevant factors) you will end up with a spread instead of a direct number for your kill rate, which is why their target is in the high 50's to mid 60's, mostly depending on what distribution gives them their average within said range (which they have stated is about 12%..)
50% is not, and should never be the goal because of the way that the game is designed. It's not only not balanced enough for that, but it gives equal weight to low-interaction outcomes as it does to high interaction ones, in a game where one side has a disproportionate objective.
I haven't even said anything about slugging for 4Ks, but they actually tie in even further due to the hatch. Its a mechanic that exists to rob the killer of the 4th kill and allow a losing survivor a chance to call it a draw instead. That itself throws the above math off even further, which means that rightful 4K's can become 3K's which weighs down their average again, and further contributes to the (between 2K and 3K) number that the devs are striving for to offset it. Aside from that I don't really understand why it was brought up against the post you quoted, since I think that slugging for the 4K and other similar situations are caused by how people react to the game situation (including not even acknowledging it and not caring about hatch escapes,) just like survivors who give up and abandon their team to pray they get the hatch instead (who can likewise keep trying despite being one of the last two.) Its also why winning for killer is a 3-4K and not just a 4K.
-
@Sluzzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3206808#Comment_3206808
Maybe not always but a majority of the time. There is no opportunity for survivors to come back from a bad start unless the killer simply screws up royally. If someone goes down within 15 seconds of the match starting, then you can pretty much know already the match is a goner. Survivors need a gen or two done before someone is hooked because the killer gets so much pressure from someone being hooked or slugged.
so close yet so far. There is the spark of a meaningful situation being addressed (the scaling efficiency cap and the importance of survivors bursting as much progress as possible at the start of the match, as they get weaker as the killer gains pressure) but then it skips the rest of that situation (the inverse for killer, meaning they need to minimize progress quickly or suffer from being unable to keep up.)
Believe it or not, the fact it works that way is actually bad for both sides.
-
@Pulsar said:
If you get rid of it, you'll see more DC's and more AFK Survivors.
At least DC's throw out match results, so if nothing else the devs internal statistics would be more meaningful for them. Also, aren't those just the two options killers have regarding refusing to continue matches? You're correct that the entitlement won't go away, but it'll at least be less sanctioned.