Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Hawk81584 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3194006#Comment_3194006
Get real. nothing he said made the game any worse for anyone else
If you ragequit DC or self harm on hook, you are making the game a 1v3. so yes, that is making the game worse for the other 4 players. The latter has the added impact of skewing statistics on balance in the process since they don't get thrown out as well.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3193983#Comment_3193983
There was this whole fiasco in a thread by @kizuati about photosensitivity and accessibility and how strobe lighting (among other VFX) isn't integral to horror media and can easily be substituted for a more friendly set of effects, only for people to reply that strobe lighting actually is integral to horror as a whole and people with photosensitivity shouldn't be playing the game.
Then again, more recently, there was another argument about FOV sliders and how binding FOV to a perk is archaic design, only for people to again say that people will use accessibility features (this time revolving around eye strain and motion sickness) for an in-game advantage that other's won't have.
People in this community (at least on the Forums, somehow Twitter is slightly more accepting but not by much) seem to be opposed any form of accessibility because it doesn't directly benefit them, and therefore will be able to be exploited against them for an advantage, completely unaware that they can use these features too.
Its especially exhausting when paired with the ****posts that get voted up during the Q&As, so important topics like accessibility never see the light of day, and often remain radio silent from official channels on the forums. For all we know nobody on the team ever sees half of these things until there's a PR blowup.
-
@vBlossom_ said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/347139/prove-thyself-hyperfocus-and-a-toolbox
- Equip Discordance
- Equip Gearhead
- Equip Franklin
???
I wonder why there is never any build variety in this game anymore
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3193981#Comment_3193981
Eh. I'll go out on a limb and say 99% of those people already held those opinions, they just wanted something to point to to be loud about it.
It didn't really change many minds. It just made a couple people more annoying.
While thats certainly true, it also makes it harder to change minds, when they have incomplete data they can use as a tool to try to warp things to their perspective. Its kinda like enabling a bad habit.
-
@Moonras2 said:
I see a lot of times where people dc and the killer automatically assumes it's because they got downed quick. I have dcd many times over the years and it rarely involves the killer at all.
It's the fact that I get chased, 30-90 seconds later downed, sometimes more sometimes less, and yet after all the time all 3 teammates are still crouching around the map. I just started letting go on hook or dcing every time this happens.
I wouldn't care if they were at least breaking totems or doing chest but 7/10 times they are literally crouched behind a rock.
I also don't blame someone for doing the same when they are being hard camped. They want to play the game not stare at a killer. I hate being camped straight out but it usually doesn't cause me to want to quit as much as my teammates doing nothing. Even with that I still expect certain killers to camp in some way as they are almost built for it.
Cool. You're also regularly ruining it for the other people playing, and corrupting BHVR's internal statistics as well. What an absolute legend.
-
@jajay119 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3193922#Comment_3193922
It's exactly the same thing. Both sides are 'doing the objective' to the most efficient way. Killers are trying to get kills, survivors are trying to survive against increased insurmountable odds where doing gens is no longer the best solution.
Constantly trying to excuse one act as more permissable than the others, especially when there is a very clear cause-effect correlation at play, is a massive issue when both eventualities are boring and need addressing.
What I said above still stands, if you don't like 'wasting your time' then stop slugging and camping for an easy win... because survivors are getting wise and you're not getting it anymore. You're the architect of your own frustration.
Hook the survivor and allow a chance of 'normal play' to continue.
If a survivor is delaying for hatch, they already lost the game. I am a very strong supporter of the efficiency cap of survivors being adjusted to make them weaker with more people while having more of a chance with less, but the fact of the matter is that the hatch does not spawn until the killer has won. They have gotten 3 kills and therefore they no longer have the potential of a loss or draw, while the hatch exists specifically to rob them of the 4th. Many killers adapted by just not caring about the 4th, but that doesn't mean that the mechanic itself doesn't rely on pity either from the killer or the entity.
You don't win through hatch, it is regarded as a draw. If the hatch is in play your only way to win is to get a gate escape after it has been closed, which can be harder or easier depending on the RNG involved with the exit gates.
The reason this is important is because it has to do with the prioritization of outcomes: The killer deserves the 4th kill far more than the survivor deserving the hatch in almost all cases, since the survivor could have used their agency to attempt to distract the killer and keep their team alive more. People need to understand that losing because you couldn't carry hard enough is different from losing because your team was bad, and mechanics like the hatch and its many wonderful standoff variations over the years are a pretty clean example of mechanics that prevent that disambiguation.
And before people take any of that out of perspective to try to dress it up to attack, no, I don't think that no survivor ever plays better than their outcome, nor that every killer who enters a hatch situation deserves the 4th kill 100% of the time. I'm talking about the mechanic purely from a game design standpoint, and going off of what had to happen to get there. Since the hatch has absolutely no requirements to earn it, it will forever be a charity and not a reward. Its just another case of people refusing to accept the factors that got them to that point, regardless of how much or little control they had over them.
Edit: I should also mention that obvious outliers like cheaters or people ragequitting ruining the game for their allies obviously are exceptions to all of this, since I feel like those kinds of outliers are obviously part of the 100% of the time exceptions but I didn't specify them, leading to attempts at gotcha comments to try to discredit the rest. But for the record, yes, there are going to be games that are still unfair based on this assessment.
-
Basekit Kindred won't help because the average survivor doesn't even understand what to make of half the information it provides. Ironically running it still gives you tools to address that, as you can play reactive to their auras. People want to hope that giving everyone that same information will improve their teammates' agency and game sense when neither party is even willing to run it themselves and get its tremendous value that they demand as necessary.
Where are all the people who kept saying FoV is a balance issue? Why aren't they protecting the design of the game here?
-
@DEMONANCE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191467#Comment_3191467
if it was pre nerf self care i might have agreed but now if you only use self care without at least botany you're throwing but then you would be limiting your build greatly when you can just bring a strong medkit and heal whenever you like twice as fast, or inner strength (yes you have to do a totem first but you can still use it whenever you like after and it ignores any anti healing/ aura reading perks)
that's ignoring the god of healing perks "coh". just in case you don't wanna pay/grind for it.
I never said that SC is the best healing perk, just that it has times where it is situationally better than the others, even the absurdly versatile CoH. As it does have situations that it is best suited for, it makes a valid choice based on how people weigh them vs disadvantages that come with the others. If you're nowhere near a totem or the only one available is in an area directly next to the killer's pressure, CoH would still be less desirable than self care, even with how many positives it carries otherwise.
-
@DEMONANCE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191375#Comment_3191375
just like we should respect self care being the most popular survivor perk even after its nerf even tho it destroys solo q? it is the player's agency after all, yet we do complain about it.
but we're not gonna complain about dead hard cuz it actually helps survivor so even tho the point of the midchapter is to change the meta we're ok with it coming back like nothing has happened.
i wish dead hard really took half the skill people claiming it does but personally i don't feel outplayed by a lucky click of a button on react compared to a well used lithe or a 99 sprint burst.
not every popular perk deserves a nerf yes but dh has been popular for 6 years and people would like to see something different in their games you know? however you still have to wait a few seconds afraid to lunge cuz survivors may have a button to outplay you haha exhilarating gameplay.
Self Care is actually nowhere near as bad of a perk as its average user's game sense on when and how to use it. Thats kinda the point they were making, as perks can have a variety of value based on how they are utilized. Some will use it well, others will use it poorly, but at the end of the day none of that has anything to do with the perk's inherent balance.
in SC's case there are cetainly more universally efficient solutions, but they all have conditions that go with them. Using them in a way that their conditions impact their performance is the same issue as it is with people self caring in a corner or right next to a huntress who has nurse's calling. They are allowed to choose because there is no perfect solution that covers all situations, and its a matter of determining how those variables will impact your value from the perk.
I'll take someone who uses self care well to properly go for saves or bait the killer away from the hook over someone who keeps chain cleansing dulls to keep inner strength up at all times vs a killer with pentimento any day.
-
@Gamedozer7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191426#Comment_3191426
The problem if you bring swf down is your basically nerfing people for playing with there friends and BHVR has said they won't to that nor should they imo. The biggest advantages that swf has over solo is communicating and knowing who your playing with and there is no real way of removing those. Sure you can say swf aren't around to use comms it's now against the rules but how does BHVR police that.
Ah, but not if it's done in a smart manner. All you need to do is nerf SWF's potential instead of their average performance, and it then only affects the ones who try to maximize the advantage. You could do that through preventing synergies, applying debuffs that target maximum efficiency, blocking specific perks from functioning or limiting their impact, etc. The majority of SWF are playing for fun and most of them aren't even 4 man sweats or anything, but there is an extreme lack of sanity checks in the game to prevent how out of control some factors can get. You have to consider two different types swf when considering how to address them, as you mentioned.
Things like comms will always be there, but imagine how much of a null issue OoO would have been all that time if it didn't work when you were in an swf? Or if its effect on when the killer could see you was permanent?
-
@Gamedozer7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191390#Comment_3191390
The devs use to balance for only solo and it caused so many issues as well. Self care was broken,ds had no requirements just activated on your first down or second or third if you just didn't try and hit the skill check BnP were busted. These are a few things that the devs did when there acted like swf didn't exist. If you strictly balance for solo you'll end up with Swf been literally unbeatable. I'm still an advocate for bring solo as close to swf as possible but that's not going to fix the survivor that never touches a gen.
While i feel like bringing swf down closer to solo is the better solution, you definitely get it. The rift between the two is too great in terms of potential, and trying to keep swf in check has been a big part of why people feel solo keeps getting weaker. In some ways its actually better than its ever been, but those improvements go undervalued when compared to what swf is capable of. I absolutely feel the 3 roles need to be brought closer together, and also that it won't fix everything but would improve most people's outlook on any given match in addition to making them more balanced in general.
-
@HugTheHag said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191370#Comment_3191370
I didn't mean to come across as "people should ignore bad behavior", I was just saying that as it's what works for me. I do think bad behavior should be punished to an extent, but I agree that rewarding better behavior might be the better way to go.
Your ideas to reward better behavior are by far better than what I could come up with. I'd love to see that thumbs up button get more use. I sometimes use it and leave a kind word but I know very well that no one will read them.
Thats true, and I definitely know what you mean. I probably worded it a bit harsher than I could have, but wanted to address it since BM is generally done as a frustration enhancer. Generally they are telling the other player that they know whatever just happened frustrates them, and they're taunting to maximize its impact. A given person's temperment is variable enough, but actions like that are designed to try to tilt even those that have more patience than others, while driving the less patient ones to make half of the rantposts we see on here. Just had to emphasize that its impact can have disproportionate impact in the recipient, even when not necessarily just a skin thickness issue.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191316#Comment_3191316
I am more or less on your side, for I watched that video you posted and know understand your issue better. But one last thing to consider is this: yes, nearly every other pvp game has the option of a FoV slider, BUT in nearly all of this games the players are on equal footing and the game isn't asymmetric at its core. This is not issue of "terrorits got this weapon and swat team this weapon", but that their basic abilities are all the same: they move and see and aim all the same, so all players are equal. In DBD the killers tunnel vision is part of the core idea, I guess.
Though today I played a lot with Shadowborn and due to the wider FoV I had a sense of "Need for Speed", ie it felt strangely addicting to zoom around the trials while I was actually just at my normal 115%. It didn't actually feel as that much of an advantage, but it was just one day. All in all, maybe everyone should play for a while with Shadowborn and get a fresh impression themselves. I somehow liked it, but tbh, nowhere would I slot this permanently in any loadout, unless I was playing a high mobility killer, were I can see this would give the highest value.
Maybe shadowborn could get some sort of buff, so that those people, who need to equip it permanently, gain at least something out of it? Heh, we could stay in topic and not only make this perk a FoV slider, but also a gamma correction, so that you can actually see better in the dark. When I sometimes view some streamers I am always taken aback how bright and vibrant their games look, either my screen suxx or a lot of them use some "QoL gamma correction tech" <3 Oh well.
First thank you for watching it, my number one stance is to educate more than argue with anyone, as I feel many people simply don't understand the impact these types of accessibility issues actually have on people, nor how design can be adapted to prevent them entirely. I understand the perspective difference making a balance situation out of an accessibility one, but as you mentioned, they aren't equal. While this would slightly hurt tactics specifically designed to exploit the specifically low FoV for the killer perspective, the inverse already has multiple advantageous tools that far exceed its worth: Being able to see around corners and over some obstacles that first person doesn't allow, the ability to see the red glow, and the inverse of not being able to see scratch marks inherently gives them pros and cons against each other. I have personal gripes with a lot of aspects like contrast and luminosity issues not remedied by the colorblind mode setting (which is exclusively a hue filter) as the setting did nothing to fix the issues some people have with many blood/texture combinations (which is still an issue that has more of an impact on those who are colorblind, regardless of the filter.) That said, I also acknowledge that being able to just make blood glow like basekit bloodhound would obviously give an unreasonable advantage unless tracking itself was reworked entirely, which is why I didn't campaign for the problem to be fixed further.
This isn't an unreasonable advantage, though. If it allowed you to see over loops or provide any of the survivor PoV bonuses, that would be a different argument, but the only thing that being able to adjust the FoV would "break" is when you try to get so close to the killer you are outside of their line of sight cone. Since the cone gets bigger as it goes out, it has much less impact on someone trying to hide behind an obstacle. In fact, since higher FoVs distort your view comparatively and make it more "fish-eye" by comparison, you'd actually be more likely to miss subtle details like that, and also why it felt like you were going faster when it was increased. The only reasonable impact would be against tactics designed specifically to exploit the fact that the killer's ability to interact with things is tied directly to the center of their screen.
That speed "feel" difference you mentioned is actually one of the big reasons it causes motionsickness, btw. Your body is fighting a battle between whether you're actually moving or not, and your senses are essentially arguing about it. The more they are out of alignment, the more an uncanny valley-esque reaction is invoked, which is why the many aspects of what your senses are perceiving makes such a difference. Its also why some remedies work better for some than others, it has to do with what does the best job at keeping our physiology in harmony.
-
@HugTheHag said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191335#Comment_3191335
What you're saying is very true.
It's hard coming across as nice or respectful as killer and still be taken seriously afterwards, or it can be confusing for the survivors. While at the same time, bad behaviors go unchecked by the game and are even rewarded in certain cases.
Since you can't really prevent some bad behaviors without it impacting negatively on other functions of the game (for example, preventing teabag with a crouch timeout would impact negatively communication among survivors), I guess the second best thing is for everyone involved to learn not to take to heart some little amount of BM. For example, I tend to see tea bagging while in chase as more of a playful attitude rather than mean intent, and I've been less agitated or anxious playing since then.
It's sad that the best thing you can do is get desensitized to it, but I don't see BHVR taking a strong stance against bad manners, except maybe for more god-awful chat filter.
While i agree with almost everything here, I don't necessarily agree with the "just ignore it" part. I feel it would be much healthier for the game if better behavior was rewarded rather than bad behavior punished (or even just ignored.) Make it so that the thumbs up in endgame reports actually does something, maybe if you maintain a certain % of them you get a scaling BP bonus or a small modifier to XP gained or something, basically design it in a way that the only way people can influence it is when its positive, kinda like how upvotes work on the forums here. While its obviously a losing battle trying to fight the low end with the stick, offering the carrot for staying on the good end would do a lot to keep people from letting their frustration turn into anger and leading them down the same path.
-
@HugTheHag said:
Bad manners are carelessly cultivated in this game I guess, though I don't see them nearly as often as I would have expected.
I think people tend to remember more the negative experiences than the positives, so when thinking of the game you'll most likely remember being tea bagged or clicked at or camped rather than the normal games, or even the games where people were being nice.
I personally keep screenshots of the fun/nice postgame chats I get pretty often, and I find they outweighs the unpleasant ones.
I think part of it is also how obvious being rude or toxic is compared to being nice. More often than not, nice and polite actions don't have the context to be understood as being as polite as they are, either through lack of being able to convey that or lack of being able to understand it. When no good deed goes unpunished, it tends to discourage them as much as the negative ones encourage further toxicity, sadly. Sometimes trying to make it obvious just makes people think you're asking to farm D:
-
@sonata93 said:
I'd just like to preface that I play mostly survivor, but sometimes play killer when I'm feeling up for it.
My reason for creating this discussion is that I played solo-queue and matched with what I can only guess was a three-man SWF and loaded onto Crotus Prenn against a Wraith. I'd just like to clarify that this was obviously a new killer; they had four tier one perks (Wraith's three teachables and NoED), default Wraith skin, and it was pretty clear during chase they had little-to-no game knowledge.
Anyway, I felt so bad for them: whenever they managed to get a down, the SWF just body-blocked and flashlight saved (not sure why as this killer was obviously no threat to them escaping). They completely denied them any hooks, constantly took hits for each other, baited out OTR/DH etc. Alongside this, there was plenty of teabagging, flashlight clicking, and spam vaulting windows/pallets to get attention.
Skip to the end game: they open the gates and decide to stick around for a while before realizing the Wraith had NOED. They got two downs (myself, and one of the SWFs). The other player got hooked and the Wraith face-camped them. The timer was quite low and as the map was so big the others struggled to find the totem and got pushed out of the gates by the Wraith. Anyway, the other player let themselves die on hook, then the Wraith picked me up and let me struggle out to escape: they nodded at me and hit his bell a few times which was really cute. 🤣
Come to the end-game chat and the others are like "Why did you let Jake (me) escape"? and they replied with "because he wasn't toxic and played the game normally". There was then the usual influx of abuse ("GG baby killer", "NOED carried you", "trash camper", etc).
This player added me and we're going to play some 1v1's to improve their chasing skills and they're actually a really cool person. Now I'm not saying all camping/tunelling is warranted, but what I'm saying is that after all that grief these players gave to a new killer, they then expect respect and 'fair play' in return!? You go out of your way to make it a difficult experience for other plays (which is fine as you're not responsible for someone else's fun), but then you can't be surprised when players grief back. Honestly, as a survivor main I cannot stand these types of survivors. Sorry for the rant - it needed to be said.
They're lowest common denominator strats, which means their simplicity and effectiveness have a good ratio that is universal to all killers. situations like you described definitely contribute to them, mostly because people fail at more advanced strats and see them as unviable, then fall back to "what works." The way the two of you handled the situation is pretty wholesome, especially with the 1v1 lesson offer. I used to absolutely love Ardetha's coaching videos because they were great at this very thing: When people understand what they need to improve, and how they need to fix it, it helps them perform better and need to fall back on the LCD strategies less. It just makes the experience more enjoyable for all parties involved. Its not even a killer specific thing, but the situations you described tend to happen more often to their side due to the bullying potential you mentioned.
-
@fogdonkey said:
Are there other ways to fight motion sickness than FOV increase? Monitor distance/size, monitor brightness, room brightness, etc.
Or maybe unfortunately some computer games are just not suitable for you :(
As I have mentioned and as the video i posted earlier explained, FoV is one part of the equation. Considering its also something that is adjustable in almost every game it has relevance in for this issue, are you suggesting people change their setups entirely every time they want to play this specific game? Or go into all those other ones and change all of their settings to match the awful ones present in this one?
I'm sorry but most people's living rooms or computer setups are not just some loadout they can switch with every game they play. That is not an acceptable solution, nor is it a reasonable compensation adjustment. That said, they absolutely ARE all factors that those affected usually go through regularly, with the distance and display size being the ones that are obviously harder to compensate and adjust on the user end.
-
@Rizzo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3191278#Comment_3191278
I wasn't referring to your comments.
Motion sickness is an issue and people shouldn't belittle others over it.
my latest comment appears to have vanished while the one it was responding to remains, so you can understand why I would come to that conclusion.
-
@Rizzo said:
Let's keep the discussion civil.
It's ok to share your opinion, what is not ok is to belittle others for theirs, let's stay constructive, thank you.
I am trying to be more constructive than most of the people in this topic. I understand the requirement to keep the peace, but actively calling out disingenous behavior is not the same as belittling.
-
@konchok said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3189419#Comment_3189419
Statistics are facts, plain and simple. Now it's true there are different philosophies regarding balance, but I think it's personally reasonable to say that balance is at 50 percent. If you do not think that 50 percent win rate is balanced I'd like to know why not. It seems to me that the statistics are very clearly showing a current lack of balance and that if anything anyone who is trying to justify the current kill rate are those who are trying to push a narrative.
Statistics that do not cover all relevant variables are estimates, not facts.
-
@rvzrvzrvz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3189435#Comment_3189435
By that logic console/controller killers are ruining the stats too because most of them are less effective than PC killers, and games with a DC are not counted in stats, vast majority of these games are killer stomps, you're right true stat is probably way worse like 70+% killrate
I mean not even remotely the same but it would still tie into my point that their internal statistics are extremely flawed and that they willingly allow it to happen. And no, it would actually be lower with these considerations because, again, if someone throws a game and hook suicides right at the start it is a 1v3 and not a 1v4 match, which causes at least 2 other people to very likely die regardless of other factors. That match does not get thrown out and gets treated the same as a real 1v4. I give room for one because of the statistical anomoly of the hatch, which can allow escapes in even games where people stand no chance and does not require being earned in any capacity. Making it another point similar to my original one.
-
@Hermit said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3189419#Comment_3189419
I was about to write exactly the same :D
Let the drama begin!
Its kinda sad how predictable it is, right? BHVR have always been coy about a lot of stats but seem to have no issue throwing ones like this out, knowing they're both incomplete data and that they'll become a key talking point in so many arguments on their own forums.
-
@Dustin said:
To be honest the stats to me at least in regards to kill rates are so pointless. Most of the stats are influenced by people using perks specifically to complete challenges in the tome. Usually resulting in the game being thrown.
Isn't there currently a challenge SPECIFICALLY to only use the perk self care, heal yourself and then escape? I feel that alone proves my point.
Between self sandbagging challenges and hook self harm not throwing out game results, they're misleading statistics at best.
-
And so it begins, the newest batch of people using bad statistics to try to justify their perspectives.
-
I like a lot of the ideas of the map, like having a psuedo-bayou southern mansion with warped reality is an interesting take you rarely see, most residential settings in horror games tend to be either urban, suburban, or a farm so having variety there is neat. I've always liked the idea of using more varied archetecture in that regard, and always loved when games try to use those types of locales in a way that works. Sometimes its done a bit more tasteful than others, and this one is definitely one of those good ones, unlike running through a bombed out city in the middle east or the standard fare you see in military FPS for example.
The problem lies with how its resources, flow, size, and most importantly lighting were designed. Much like haddonfield (both versions,) its problems far outweigh its thematic choices, which is why most people kinda hate it.
-
@lauraa said:
I don't agree with an FoV slider, sorry. Base FoV should be increased slightly but FoV should be consistent among all killers unless for some reason that killer naturally comes with a larger FoV for whatever flavor reason.
I play on Console and I find Shadowborn is amazing, despite being the waste of a perk slot. I find myself not getting spun or getting discombobulated.
Would like to see Shadowborn reworked and we all get a slight fov buff.
You're welcome to feel that way, but even your proposed suggestion would just change who is affected, since once more for the people in the back, "there is no perfect FoV value that will cover everyone with every setup, and this is a game that has both people who play on couches across the room and those who play on a monitor right in their face." In fact since you mentioned playing on console, you're actually playing on a setup closer to intentional with the game's inherent FoV than those who play on PC. And once again, the video i posted addresses this. Hell you can see it in the thumbnail.
Edit: also I just want to add, going through the amount of times I've had to ask if people have bothered to watch a 10 minute video explaining exactly how this works, and the amount of people whos arguments it directly answers, is a big part of why people get so fed up about having to ask for accessibility and become that much more emotionally charged in their discussion of the topic. Its always about people putting the risk of bad actors taking advantage of these things over those who actually need them, which comes off as dismissive at best. Then when people see stuff like the spine chill walkback getting an unrelated buff snuck in while using the "we heard you" message to virtue signal that they actually care about accessibility makes it pretty insulting. Why aren't the people in this topic fighting about that? Why aren't they fighting for it to not work on stealth killers when they have no TR, since that was the reason that was given for walking back the LoS requirement? I've said it before, but the majority of the userbase flat out doesn't care about actual killer only issues, nor do the devs. And this one isn't even killer only, since FoV CAN affect third person as well, its just much less prominent due to our inner ear being able to understand the perspective isn't our own more clearly.
-
@Alcuin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3189323#Comment_3189323
"The Entire Industry" is not an argument. It's false to say that an increase in FOV is solely about accessibility and not also a competitive advantage. It's true to say that too much of the DBD playerbase cries wolf.
Did you watch the video I posted? Its literally taught as an aspect of game design. Obviously some games it doesn't apply due to their perspective, but its universally a concern with anything first person due to its increased impact on how we perceive space.
-
@Akumakaji said:
This is a pretty interesting topic with no easy answers. On one hand I would want to include as many people as possible and offering them a nice gaming experience. On the other hand, stuff like this can be easily exploited by the non-handicapped playerbase, as nearly all competitive shooter players run FOV at its max.
DBD is an old game by now, we just had the 6th anniversary. I wholeheartedly believe that introducing basekit Shadowborn now would help a lot of players who have issues with the game, BUT at the same time topple its precarious balance. With this kind of changes there is always some kind of tipping point were you might tipple the whole thing by making it even more inclusive. I don't know if this is possible without some compensation of any kind or if its too much of an intervention into the core game mechanics, but it could very much be so. You always sound like the a-hole if you say "sorry, but maybe this game/activity/piece of media isn't available for you".
Catering to everyones tastes or special conditions also waters things so much down that its killing uniqueness. At some point you spread your content so thin, in an effort to reach everyone, that it hasn't any substance left. And again, I know that this might come off as pretty arrogant, being someone without all this restrictions, but I have experienced it in other fields before. Sometimes you can't eat or drink something thats on offer for everyone else, and then you can ask for everyone to find another place or you just accept this and find something sort of a compromise on the menu, even though thats not what you would want if you had the full range of options.
As I said: with topics like this there are no easy answers and the only thing thats easy is how you might offend someone in whoms situation you are not. All this people with FOV related issues have my sympathy, and maybe we could find some compromise and add at least a tiny slider at basekit? Maybe even 5° already help, without giving regular joes and janes a noticable advantage.
Not all competitive players run it at max, much like how not all fighting game players use a hitbox (which has superceeded even fightsticks as "the best" advantage in most people's eyes) and some will literally go on stage at major tournaments using standard controllers. The reason many competitive players run their FoV high is because they are generally sitting very close to a small screen, which is why Higher FoVs are always considered better for computer monitors than they are for TVs across the room (which is not what they compete on.) I understand why people think "why wouldn't everyone just take advantage of it?" but that kinda ignores the fact that its an accessability issue: there are people who need lower FoVs than others who need higher ones. The amount of external factors that tie in with it makes a big difference, and console players for example will generally prefer a lower one due to being further away as well as the size of the TV they're playing on.
As for the game's age, people have been asking for FoV accommodation for years. The fact that its been 6 means that they've been ignoring it for over half of the entire game's lifespan, so it is more an excuse than a reason, just like it was with colorblindness, photosensitivity, and the rest of the things that get ignored. Hell, the photosensitivity warning wasn't even added for years until it came up again after Sadako's release, while flashlight macros and the Doctor have both been issues around it for considerably longer... and thats a condition that can affect people's health pretty seriously. And even then all they did was throw a long overdue warning up.
I understand what you're going for with the drink comparison, but it doesn't exactly apply. If you've ever had to cater or organize an event, having dietary accommodations for people who require them is extremely important in that respect, and its a very common nightmare with organizing catering even simple workplace lunches all the way up to wedding receptions. Even when not having specific knowledge on each person's limitations, you don't get a big ol plate of peanut butter sandwiches or a massive bowl of sweet chilli because there could be people who have allergies or may be diabetic or vegan or any other range of things that you don't necessarily need to be made aware of otherwise. Thats why if you have those things, you need to have alternative options,. not tell them they need to buy their own lunch instead. Imagine doing that at a wedding reception "oh, you're allergic to fish? you can still eat with everyone, but you have to buy your own meal." is exactly what things like perk based accessibility do.
If your advantage or disadvantage is based off of an extremely common accessability issue that has been unanimously solved by the industry for longer than your company existed, its just bad design. If it has to do with affecting the health of the end user in any way, its extremely bad design. I think people are still having flashbacks to the whole stretched res thing and thinking thats the same as having an FoV slider in the game, because people were using it to take advantage of oversights in the game's design. Its not even remotely the same thing, but it would at least make some of the pushback people have more understandable.
-
@Alcuin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3189265#Comment_3189265
Competitive Fortnite players ask for a FOV slider but it's not framed as an accessibility issue. It's discussed as a competitive issue. The difference is in the playerbases. Not saying you are doing this, but the DBD playerbase frames aspects of gameplay as some sort of therapeutic imperative, emergency. Same thing with Leatherface's Claudette mask. A much too large portion of the playerbase claimed trauma, racism, or whatever else. It's bad faith. Not saying you do this, but a lot of the playerbase does.
Why are you trying to use "competitive fortnite players" for your argument when The Entire Industry considers it an accessibility one, and has for literal decades longer than fortnite has existed? You're going on completely unrelated points to try to justify denying accessability because you don't want it to be there. I get that most people didn't bother to watch the video i posted earlier, but at least pretend you did if you want to keep giving input like that.
-
@sulaiman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187582#Comment_3187582
Yes, but its the rich people that want more money in the first place, aka the killers, in which favor the game has massivly tilted since the last patch, and still they want more.
And yes, the survivors have a much better perspective, but the killer does have his fov for balance reason. Killers are faster, and survivors dont stab the killer back, so they need something to work with. And chases/pallets/loops are not the only thing in this game, stealth is a factor as well, if you like it or not.
And the consequences of your proposal is stealth is less viable of an option, aka you take something away from survivors. And thats what compensaiton is about.
So you're extremely biased and put that over other's ability to actually play the game. Got it.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187991#Comment_3187991
I said it was survivor sided although i then pointed out deficiencies on both sides and issues with it due to balancing based on matchmaking.
You completely disregarded where I said that survivors start weaker. The entire point is that their efficiency potential stays closer rounded to a value less than 4 but more than 1. Since they will be unable to apply extreme damage at the start of the match, the killer would only need to catch up if they were being outplayed, not because its a statistical eventuality.
And kills are... how you win as killer? I don't understand the hyperbole there. All it does it make it so that going for 12 hooks becomes just as much (if not more, depending on final values) of an efficient strat as tunneling 1-2 out currently is. Your pointless ranting about matchmaking has nothing to do with any of that.
-
@Loldino said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187612#Comment_3187612
Ahh DS2 pvp where you could make dumb builds before ds3 became r1 straight sword
Like others have said the most annoying thing is the very widespread auto DH or it basicly making projectile killers ussless
And thats absolutely an issue, just like it was before the change to the perk. The status quo regarding how they handle the cheating issue is something that continues to really need addressing.
But glad to see a fellow DS2 connoisseur, let one a pvp one :D
-
@VicRatlhead said:
All these people in thread talking about MMR when the original post was made on the reset day, smh. Failing up on MMR isn't the problem on the 13th.
My escape rates are smaller on solo but I still get eacapes. Big thing is aura perks. Bond gives a lot of info nearby. Even no auras tell you something if the terror radius is audible. Empathy is great because you can see the killer hurt people and how the run is going. Alert is decent too since killers frequently break stuff.
When I'm in a SWF I can drop those perks but in Solo they're a lifesaver.
MMR doesn't reset. Only your grade does, i.e. your bloodpoint bonus for how much you've played int the last month.
In fact, MMR doesn't even decay at all.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187687#Comment_3187687
Would you consider a 2k a win? What if we change the language, instead of kills the remaining survivors, it was removes the final 2 survivors forcing a draw?
My idea would reduce tunnelling because it takes away the payoff of getting 4 kills, and it creates a set parameter that can be tracked, and repeat offenders can be punished.
Imagine a repeat offender mid/low mmr tunnel every game killer being thrown to the wolves at top Mmr for 5 games, then next time 10 games, and so on.
It also changes the dynamic to force survivors into actually playing as a team in a 4 V-1 instead of having the option to consider the game a 1v1v1v1v1.
In theory your idea has merit although as you suggest it is very Survivor sided. I say that because in some games when the killer is outmatched the only way that he can make a comeback is by taking out a survivor to get a More even playing field. On the flip side if the survivors are outmatched by a strong killer that initial efficiency loss could cripple the match right from the get go. Not to mention the 3 man swf that would deliberately sacrifice the rando they feel isn't pulling his weight to gain an efficiency bonus. If the efficiency curve stays fairly flat regardless why even have kills? The new meta would become 4man slug builds with knockout.
It's a very utopian idea but there's one thing that would absolutely be required for it to work and that is accurate Match Making, Skill based matchmaking not like the garbage MMR we have now. This creates queue time issues. How do we fix those? 2 basic solutions shadow buff/nerf to try to balance the match (terrible because it changes the basic rules of the game in a way neither side can know), or a matchmaking cap ( Which is where we are now).
When did I suggest it's survivor sided? I literally outlined how its an approach that specifically addresses issues for both sides simultaneously.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187737#Comment_3187737
They didn’t want to split the player base in terms of opting out of SWFs, because it would cause SWF queues to skyrocket because it’s understood that it’s massively unfun for killers to go against survivors that are using voice communication.
Splitting the player base in terms of rage quitters is a different story, because it only punishes people that deserve to be punished.
And yet those people don't ragequit every game. When behaving, they are still an addition to the general matchmaking pool. I understand where you're coming from, but I also understand where they are as well. How much of their reasoning is valid and how much is excuse, they're the only ones who can answer that for sure.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187727#Comment_3187727
They really should split the player base though. Survivors that want to make an actual effort to play out each game don’t deserve to be matched with people that want to selfishly leave the game early.
And survivors that repeatedly leave the game early should be punished. They are one of solo q’s biggest problems, and it’s completely fair to throw them together so they can ruin each other’s games.
The same has been said regarding being able to opt out of matching with SWFs (on either side, but obviously mostly regarding killers) but the unwillingness to split the userbase has been one of their primary reasons for suggestions like that, having an "unranked" mode, and any other similar requests be denied. By their logic in regards to the people who quit ruining everyone's game, they just expect you to literally "git gud" and win often enough that you gradually adjust yourself away from being matched with people who continuously lower their own MMR through their tantrums. Theoretically better plays will run into them considerably less often, but thats also implying they can win consistently enough to climb out of that type of elo hell. It can take a dozen matches, or it could take weeks, or they might just be very unlucky and get put into unwinnable matches too often, so in terms of practicality it leaves a lot of people to fall into the cracks.
I don't agree with how they're handling it, and I think the game has outgrown a lot of their scope and philosophies with the game in general, but their reasoning isnt entirely nonsensical.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187696#Comment_3187696
Survivors that repeatedly DC or give up early should be matched with other survivors that DC or give up early. Many survivors will leave a match early because they want to bully the killer, and if they can’t bully the killer they want to move onto the next game.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187700#Comment_3187700
It isn’t fair that solo q has a much lower escape rate than SWF, which is why SWFs need their escape rate lowered. Solo q escape rate is being capped by SWF escape rates, because the overall escape rate is being controlled.
I do agree with the idea of a "ragequitter hell" like many other games do, but this is a game where they are desperate to not split their user pool to any degree. Its why even MMR matchmaking continuously expands its range to make sure it can get matches for people who might have little population in their MMR, as well as their approach to "matchmaking incentives." The other issue is that while obviously both sides have ragequitters, I feel it is considerably more common on the survivor side for multiple reasons, even the 1:4 ratio in a given match alone has a statistical relevance. You would need to have ragequitting happen at a pretty even 1:4 ratio to even be able to reasonably populate the pool (let alone the other factors like region, time of day, mmr, etc,) so it would probably have to be some type of hybrid where they start in ragequitter hell, then it would have a matchmaking leniency expand over time while waiting like how its MMR one does now.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187612#Comment_3187612
It's quite literally a skill issue. Because again, reads are a skilled play: You are committing to your opponent doing something before having any confirmation they are, in fact, doing the thing. You're straight up reading their mind and calling it out like goddamn Joseph Joestar.
Careful, old Spirit was all about guessing and making reads. 50/50 coins flips were considered unfair. In that same patch, they also weakened deathslinger who had 0.15 scope and you had to predict shots which apparently had no counter-play. Spirit was apparently bs and deathslinger was "If he aims well, he hits you, so it has no counter-play" almost as if the killer is suppose to aim and then miss every time he aims well. Incredible survivor logic.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187558#Comment_3187558
I activate dead hard around 2/3 of my chases against all killers, so I would not say it is luck based more so then being knowledge based. OP post is complaining about dead hard users that are good at using dead hard, though he does not explain it or rather he briefly mentions what bothers him. I'm going to take a guess that a lot of the comments are missing why he is frustrated by dead hard users. The comment section of the post suggests that you need to time dead hard and while that is true... it is only half true.
this perk is slowly becoming as frustrating to deal with as old dh, and getting robbed out of hits when using powers that don't allow you to wait it out like wesker's bound , trickster's knives or when survivors force a lunge by going to a pallet feels awful.
to focus on last part of his sentence, The way to use new dead hard against m1 killers is that many pallets in DBD are unsafe, for example RPD room pallet in the center of the room is unsafe pallet. Once you put this pallet down, If the killer respects the pallet and does not get stunned, The killer can go on the side of this pallet and the survivor is prompted to what players will refer to as panic-sliding. since the survivor is animation locked when sliding a pallet, you can generally get a hit by lunging at the correct time on one side of the pallet.
Since this situation forces the killer to lunge, this allows survivors to time their dead hard and get a near guaranteed sprint burst, therefore grants a second chance. In order for killer to avoid giving the survivor a sprint burst, you have to break the unsafe pallet but breaking pallets is slow for virtually all killers apart from 2 of them. The result is that your either force to give the survivor an extra-health state or to break the pallet giving the survivor an opportunity to go the next pallet.
this is how you use new dead hard vs m1 killers and OP frustrated by the second chance that dead hard provides. In term of killer powers, new dead hard is less versatile at dodging killer powers as a lot of killer-power have controlling properties such as Deathslinger, Trapper, Doctor and Pinhead.preventing endurance effect from being effective.
Dead hard is not really about dodging hits out in the open, Its about creating situations where the killer is forced to lunge so that you can press the button for an extra health-state. Dead hard never fell out of the meta, It was just changed to be less universally effective in all situations. Old dead hard was closer to 99% sprint burst that was activatable on demand. New dead hard is situational extra health-state requires precision timing and game-sense to utilize correctly.
I have the same stance with how spirit's mindgame worked as well, and have not been able to enjoy playing as or against her since the change. Slinger I absolutely hate how they handled it, but I at least understand why: they were trying to address his ability to option select interactables to create lose/lose scenarios instead of mixup ones. They have no idea how to prevent that so they added a clunky mechanical delay that just ruins how he feels to use, but i don't necessarily disagree with them removing the option select.
A lot of times these decisions, and people's logic surrounding them, can be both wrong and understandable at the same time. Most of the time it has to do with missing data or considerations that can have a reasonable impact on the situation.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187657#Comment_3187657
The overall survivor escape rates are being monitored and controlled. If SWF escape rates are lowered, then solo q escape rates could be raised, and still maintain the same overall survivor escape rate. But as long as SWFs are allowed to have inflated escape rates, solo q will suffer.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187643#Comment_3187643
BHVR admitted that SWFs have a much higher escape rate, which means they aren’t being matched properly. We have hundreds of forum threads where solo q wants to be more like SWF, because it’s understood that SWFs escape far more often than solo q does.
Those stats also mean nothing when they have admitted that they do not have any internal way of differencing hook suicides, nor their impact on a match. They only throw out games that involve a DC, either through connection loss or manually leaving the match. One of the biggest issues plaguing solo queue especially is how people will give up at the drop of a hat, and many people would rather get killed on purpose than DC so they can get into the next match faster with no penalty. The bonus is that the other 3 survivors are then considerably less likely to stand a chance, and are very likely to die and add to the pile. They know its skews their statistics but they willing allow it to do so.
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187588#Comment_3187588
And a TINY change in FOV is gonna make all that difference?
yes? Just like sitting 8 feet or 9 feet from your tv can make a difference. The video i posted explains it pretty well.
-
As was already mentioned, you're basically just giving the killer a win for tunneling asagdp. As I mentioned previously, a more clean and neutral solution would be to weaken the efficiency maximum of survivors at the start, while strengthening it as their numbers dwindle. It both discourages tunneling and camping, while also allowing survivors to retain more of a chance when there are less of them to spread pressure.
Survivors end up less likely to be prevented from being able to play in the first place, they have more of a comeback factor, survivors don't need to burst their progress at the start of the match, and killers don't need to damage control as fast as possible and are able to adjust their strategy to balance efficiency and "fun" for both sides. Most of these types of problems all circle back to the fact that efficiency caps are an extremely important aspect of what controls the pace of a match, as well as a lot of the strats people employ.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187672#Comment_3187672
The problem here is what if the killer wants to try to play it out and the survivors play to hide to force the killer to open the door, its the same issue with current hatch, but your giving the killer that control and then if they dont use it survivors will accuse holding the game hostage and stuff like that.
My solution is clean, simple, and neutral.
I'm sorry but your solution might be simple, but its certainly not clean or neutral.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187256#Comment_3187256
Tunnel 2 survivors and win every game! Yeah, very good idea lmao.
No, thanks.
To be fair, thats kinda how it is right now. Tunnel 2 is a pretty big universal strat right now, since it addresses the efficiency dilemma from the killer perspective rather well, and its generally more efficient than tunneling one out as it provides more pressure in exchange for taking a bit longer to get one out. The nice thing is that its also a bit malleable: You can relax a bit if you get a great start and since you've been applying more pressure than hard tunneling you have more opportunity to react to how efficient the survivors are being. Its still not the most fair strat nor is it perfect, but its the closest we have to a happy medium right now imo.
-
@Yamaoka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3186827#Comment_3186827
If anything it takes luck because 0.5 seconds of Endurance means even the smallest bit of latency will either make you get hit JUST before the game registers you Dead Harding or JUST after the Endurance ran out during the animation.
That's why many people complain about getting downed and being exhausted. It's unreliable as hell so people think it now takes "skill" when it's basically become a luck dependant perk that's still annoying to go against.
I will never understand this argument. The dark souls series is pretty notorious for extremely bad latency issues, and yet look at these parry windows in DS2:
Not only are most of them pretty damn small for their active windows, they don't even have uniform startup windows to boot. Yet people can use them online just fine in a game where you can be looking eye to eye then suddenly be teleported into a backstab. The absolute "best" weapon for parrying only has an active window of 18 frames, or 0.3 seconds. Bare fists and fist weapons are also some of the more popular ones, and they're only 4 and 5 frames respectively. after a startup of over 15 frames to begin with.
It's quite literally a skill issue. Because again, reads are a skilled play: You are committing to your opponent doing something before having any confirmation they are, in fact, doing the thing. You're straight up reading their mind and calling it out like goddamn Joseph Joestar. I feel like people who play fighting games take to this stuff a lot easier than others because its an overlapping concept with the genre (and obviously with things like fencing, as the DS series shows.) It's ok to not really be too familiar or skilled with these types of things, it just means you don't get as much value from the perk as people who are.
-
@WesCravenFan said:
I have actual diagnosed Motion Sickness disorder and I have a bottle of prescription Meclizine in front of me and I don't understand how the base FOV causes motion sickness. It doesn't for me.
And even if it does, how does a TINY sliver of increased FOV suddenly change that diagnosis? I'm not buying "accessibility" as an argument. This isn't like the colorblind issue or the Spine Chill issue at all.
Thats a weirdly dismissive take, considering the causes of motion sickness vary from person to person, as well as how they respond to various degrees of spatial perception. A friend of mine literally cannot play old shooters because 2D sprites in a 3D environment in fast motion induces vertigo. Its great that its not one of the things that causes issue for you, but I mean even games like Halo directly acknowledge it in their own support guidelines:
It can also have to do with your setup, it sounds like you might just have a good combination of distance and view size to match the game's FoV for you. Thats basically just testament to why a slider is better than not having an option at all.
Edit: Here's actually a very good explanation on how the entire phenomena works, and how it is approached from a game design perspective:
https://youtu.be/blZUao2jTGA -
@sulaiman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3185812#Comment_3185812
What has survivors haveing 3rd person perspective to do with compensation? Thats a design decission that basicly worked in because killers are faster and survivors cant hit back. Or should those be compensated too?
The fact that they already have a much better perspective, which massive benefits by comparison? You can look around corners, over windows, see the killer's red glow, does this really need to be explained? I don't know if you just don't understand the concept of compensation, but you don't give rich people money just because you gave some to help the poor.
-
@cburton311 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3185874#Comment_3185874
I think we're all better off acknowledging that this is what human nature is and shaming isn't going to change it.
The cycle can be broken though. The survivors just have to have hope that the match will end "well" whatever that means. The simplest thing would be radically increase bloodpoints for survivors on hook if they stick out to the bitter end. Seriously, give survivors 20k bloodpoints if they make every skill check and finally die when their hook timer runs out.
Or give basekit fixes for parts of the game that make the game feel terrible for survivors like facecamping and tunneling off hook. I get it there's a new perk, buried behind a pay wall, that only engages when another survivor abandons what they are doing to approach within 6m. This is laughably bad. I love how the killer community gaslit BHVR into think it was so powerful it needed to be nerfed. I have literally never seen it taken in a game. Nevermind see it change the behavior of killers... so predictably unhelpful.
Personally, if I were game developer for a day, I'd fix facecamping by making generator times accelerate the longer the killer was alone within 30 meters of a hook. You stand 10m away from a survivor for 30 seconds, all other generators get completed faster. And for all those camping is sometimes a necessary strategy folks, think about this, it would have 0 impact in endgame.
You... literally just got BT for 5 seconds basekit for free, then when people complained that wasn't enough, it got bumped up to 10. You have been given exactly what you asked for and still demand more.
-
@RonMan32 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3187001#Comment_3187001
Alright. Agree to disagree.
Honestly I'm unsure if FOV has historically always been an accessibility option. In my mind it was always a preference thing for first person shooters. Some people like high FOV to see as much as possible, some people prefer a lower one to have everything at a more immersive less fishbowl angle. If it was added into games explicitly to address motion sickness then I'm willing to concede that it should be an option in every first person game and mechanics should not be built around low FOV.
But that's not been my understanding up until this point.
The reason it has always been a preference with shooters is because it has to do with what you are watching misaligning with your internal balance. It was adapted to early fps in particular because of the speed of movement (especially in older ones) paired with the variety of display sizes and viewing distances making it a prime candidate for sensitivity in end users. And as that sensitivity leads to disproportionate affect in people's tolerance, it has been considered an accessibility issue since its inception. Technically most visual and sound options are considered accessibility related, since accessibility is usually what causes them to be options in the first place. Same with many input options as well. Its usually a matter of whether its due to how a user's imprairment or condition can be affected by a variable, and whether that variable can be adjusted to minimize or nullify said issue. Obviously some options are not that (including in the above categories,) but even things like motion blur or remapping controls are considered accessibility related.
-
@RoastedGarlic said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3186279#Comment_3186279
you misunderstood, in the situation I explained I couldn't take the L, I certainly would've prefered it but the killer refused to kill me. When I got close to bleeding out completely he carried me around, it was a 3 gen situation and he was an infinite myers. If I worked on a gen he would just grab me off and carry me again.
In that game I was unable to die, my partner was just sneaking across the map and the killer refused to even look for him. All he did was patrol the 3 gen. After over 20 minutes i was able to trick the killer into stabbing me instead of grabbing me off a gen and I finally died. This game needs a max time limit.
Then you played with the two most selfish players in DBD, and should have gone through the garbage report system and submitted evidence they were holding you hostage. If it actually went how you described that was 100% reportable.
-
@DEMONANCE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3186964#Comment_3186964
people waaaaaaay over exaggerate the supposed "skill" required to use dead hard
it's a game of who reacts faster, see killer lunge or use power? ---> press E or force a killer to lunge at a pallet and ---> press E if you can do it in time you win if you can't then oh well
it's very rarely where you actually feel a survivor outplayed you with it. its increasing popularity is probably due to survivors knowing how to force it imo plus it's good to know that you have a possible safety tool when you lost a chase, however it's not guaranteed to give you value as before.
I can see why you might feel that way, because reactions are not how you're supposed to use it. "its increasing popularity is probably due to survivors knowing how to force it" is how you use it. Believe it or not, being able to force those situations is actually skillful, because strategy is skill. You can't use it and vault mid animation or anything like that, it always has both its risk and its reward present: Its a mixup tool. You can use it to force your opponent into a situation where they need to make a guess to either fail or succeed, and refusing to commit to either automatically results in you winning the exchange. Its different from an unwinnable situation because there will always be a gap: you can't put down a pallet or vault or anything while it is active, so you need to time its duration and the defensive interaction to be as close as possible. Likewise, the killer needs to have a similar timing precision in order to land their hit after the active duration but before the pallet drop would stun them and prevent the hit, as well as the possibility of a trade in the killer's favor. The skill comes in being able to set that situation up, as well as the timing precision to reduce the killer's window to succeed.
You know how parries worked in street fighter 3? you pressed forward. There was no crazy button input or anything, you just took a small step forward and it came out if you timed it right. It was also used much more with hard reads on what your opponent was going to press rather than requiring 15+ frames of warning before reacting and then going for it. It was also arguibly the most skilled version of a parry mechanic that has existed in the franchise, and also led to one of the most memorable moments in fighting game competitions. All by something that involves pressing one button at the right time.