Skip to content
Avatar

Ryuhi

Ryuhi

About

Username
Ryuhi
Joined
Visits
0
Last Active
—

Comments

  • Actually I should mention, I legit have a hard time making use of MYC for that exact reason. There is no way to know who has it, you just have to be able to get back to the hook area ASAP (while still being out of range during the unhook) and happen to find someone not injured and hit them within 60 seconds. On the Hag it can be fairly easy, but on low mobility killers I can never seem to pull it off.

    in Dying Light with DS change Comment by Ryuhi

  • @thesuicidefox said:

    @Ryuhi To be clear, I'm not saying using Ruin makes you a bad killer. I'm saying that using Ruin is a very passive boost to killers. They don't need to do anything, they just equip the perk and it slows down the game. This is why I compare it to NOED, because it's very much the same. Equip NOED and if you fail to protect gens it's just given to you. Killers don't do anything to earn that power, unlike every other killer perk in the game. BBQ's power can only be used if you catch and hook someone. NC's power can only be used if you injured someone. Thana's or Sloppy's power can only be used if you injured someone. Remember Me's power can only be used if you find and hit the obsession. You could argue that something like Brutal Strength or Whispers is passive too, but they still require some action on the killer's part. BS requires you to get the survivor to drop a pallet. Whispers requires you to still find the survivor, you just have a better grasp of where they are. This is also ignoring the fact that these perks don't impact the game as greatly as NOED or Ruin do. They can't single-handedly win you the game as killer.

    It's just becoming more and more lame to play survivor and EVERY killer uses Ruin. It's boring and unfun. I want to play against killers using more varied builds. It is very possible to make strong builds without meta perks, it just comes down to strategy. And it shows your skill as killer when you can play like that too.

    There are other passive perks like you mentioned, but most importantly Ruin can be hard countered to the point of non-existance. And unlike NOED, it doesnt require either destroying 5 totems, not waiting until the end of the game and destroying the one it picks. It can be destroyed in as little as the time it take a survivor to walk 3 feet and start holding M1. There are times where the killer can literally sprint directly to it the moment they gain control, and still not reach it before its destroyed. Its absurdly transient and inconsistent, which makes it impossible to be considered a crutch since it would essentially equate to a crutch made out of glued together toothpicks. I understand your argument that most killer perks require a pre-requisite, but if you need to think of it that way, think of it like this: The killer needs to be able to defend Ruin, especially once a survivor finds it.

    in Lets discuss boosted killers Comment by Ryuhi

  • @fluffybunny said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/360863#Comment_360863

    I think @HatCreature means that if you were to accidentally down and pick up someone with DS. For instance if everyone was injured or the unhooked got healed, but you happened to find them and down them quickly. It can be easy to forget who you last hooked when you're pressured to keep the ball rolling.

    That is true (especially when people match cosmetics on purpose) which is why I usually try to go off of the status icons in the corner more than anything. That said, Its unlikely for someone to get unhooked, healed, hit twice, and picked up all in 60 seconds.... so it only really comes up when injured survivors with similar cosmetics/same character are going for the unhook in the first place.

    in Dying Light with DS change Comment by Ryuhi

  • low energy bait

    in 4-man SWF is balanced Comment by Ryuhi

  • is that right? needing 4 survivors queueing is why so many killers get burnt out on the game? It also means its ok for killers to constantly lobby dodge, a very large complaint in the community at the moment? Are you implying that it doesnt need killers at all?

    in Flashlights should have charges Comment by Ryuhi


  • @Fizz said:

    When I say they are crutch perks I am referring to the fact that a lot of killers struggle to find survivors without Nurses calling and BBQ. I know there are counters to them and a good survivor can counter but those perks allow the killer to have a general idea where someone is and using Ruin, BBQ, Nurses and NOED at the same time is completely a crutch build but again this is just my opinion.

    Tracking perks exist for.... tracking. Its the same as survivors who can't avoid a killer without Urban and Iron Will, can't escape a chase without Dance with Me and Lightweight, and so on. Survivors have much less telltale signs than the killer does in terms of presence, and they can be masked even more through things like cosmetics and lighting. To be honest, the biggest bonus that Nurses especially provides is the counterplay that survivors apply to it: it forces them to keep getting further away from the killer before they can try to heal. Obviously seeing someone sitting there healing right on the other side of a wall is great... but just through thinking and or knowing a killer has it, healing efficiency can go down a ton. And especially if they don't have iron will, it can straight up becomes the difference in hearing them moving or even trying to make a break for it.

    in Lets discuss boosted killers Comment by Ryuhi

  • @thesuicidefox said:

    @Ryuhi "You're ignoring the fact that, mechanically, they require set up time. If you have games where survivors cannot capitalize on that setup time"

    But they do, I even said that. They do 2-3 gens while I'm setting up or getting my first chase going. That doesn't stop me from stalling the mid game and getting a snowball going that I can still win. Even against good survivors. Yes, Ruin would stop that but it's not exactly necessary if I still have the ability to stall the game. It's definitely way harder to get momentum going without Ruin like that, but it's entirely do-able. Hence why I say Ruin boosts killers because it takes a lot more skill to play without it and still win.

    My point is that Ruin makes killers complacent with not protecting gens. They just put it on and get a snowball going before it pops, at which point gen protection is irrelevant. You can tell killers that don't know how to play without Ruin because when it goes down quickly the lose really hard. As I said, it's a stark difference when you play a killer that has the ability to control the pace of the game without Ruin. You can tell how good they are as killer. But when a killer has Ruin it's hard to say if they are a good killer or if Ruin just did the work for them. Especially when so many survivors can't (or won't) do gens when Ruin is up. It carries killers the same as NOED, the only difference is that it's early game instead of end game.

    Like if you get those 2 hooks before Ruin pops and no gens have been done yet, that gives you such a huge lead as killer that you very well might 4k just because survivors can't recover. Now the question is... did you get a 4k because you are a good killer or did you get it because Ruin neutered the survivors' early momentum? Considering you didn't do anything special to get that pressure at the start of the game, I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter.

    Your "its hard but doable" is why I brought up the perkless/addonless argument. Anything is doable, but there are factors beyond your control that will always affect their feasibility. The same can be said of nearly every addon and perk in the game. Are charge time reductions a crutch for billy? Are dead rabbit and/or M&A crutches for Myers? None of them are needed if the player is good enough, but they provide two important roles: lessening weaknesses in the killer, or promoting strengths.

    Your interpretations of how killers feel about using Ruin is incredibly anecdotal and presumptuous, as many killers still do maintain map pressure while also having ruin active. Thats not to say that every killer does, but to imply that it makes them incapable or unwilling to do so entirely is a bit foolish. If anything, the transient nature of the perk is the biggest contributor to your concern about its playstyle: Many killers feel like they need to snowball as fast as possible for it to not be a wasted perk slot. Again, thats less it being a crutch and more it being dependent on a very poorly implemented mechanic that (hopefully) will be improving.

    Like you mentioned, good survivors will be able to either bust the totem or work through it easily enough. So if they ARE good, and you DO manage to get 2 hooks before a single gen, then that scenario would likely require you to have applied at least some pressure.

    in Lets discuss boosted killers Comment by Ryuhi

  • @HatCreature said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/360846#Comment_360846

    Oh I was trying to say if another Obsession entered the match because you rehooked someone in 60 seconds, you'd have to tunnel that new Obsession to get your perk back. I didn't mean to sound like I'd just tunnel anyone/everyone lol

    The chase idea sounds really cool, Killers have a lot of perks tied to Gens which feels like a bad design choice but this also being tied to a chase sound really cool since it's the core feature of the game, chasing.

    The obsession doesnt change unless you trigger DS. If you hook someone twice in 60 seconds and they don't hit their skillcheck/don't have it/etc than the obsession doesnt change.

    Also I agree that a chase based mechanic would be neat. Even if not for Dying Light, having some kind of efficiency penalty for a specific person being chased would be a neat twist.

    in Dying Light with DS change Comment by Ryuhi

  • @HazeHound said:

    Who said not allowed. All i said its your fault by not trying killers before playing one to rank up high. Should have had couple of games as them after resets or where you were still low.

    Also you can delete one daily per day. Looking for issue where is none.

    You're acting like all killers are unlocked, with full loadouts, from day 1. Not only do you have to buy them (with money or shards) but you need to level them up and continue grinding them until you get decent perks and addons. Its literally the only thing I've been spending my bloodpoints on for months, and I'm still not even halfway there. How is that my fault for wanting to try said killers? Also I already mentioned that I do wait until after resets, but thats a terrible workaround, especially since it means I'm not allowed to play killers I DO know and accidentally rank up in the meantime.

    in Killer season rating should be per killer Comment by Ryuhi

  • @HatCreature said:

    While the argument is to not tunnel this shouldn't be a nerf to Dying Light. This perk was already hard to get and now it's hard to keep. No one likes tunneling but this perks requires you to tunnel, and now not only do you need to tunnel 1 but now you have to tunnel MULTIPLE Survivors, yay fun.

    I'm spreading my rework every time I see this---When the Obsession is injured all other Survivors receive a penalty to action speed, when the Obsession is hooked the penalty increases. This penalty is reversed when the Obsession is unhooked and/or healed. When the Obsession is Sacrificed/Killed all Survivors receive a permanent penalty to action speed of 25%.

    This means you can have a cheap penalty the entire match but earn the whole thing when the Obsession dies. Even if the Obsession returns you still benefit from this perk and tunneling isn't necessary.

    You only need to tunnel 1, the one that starts with the obsession. If anything, the changes prevent you from tunnelling anyone else, as the punishment is that your progress on the perk is reset. You should be glad you don't have to tunnel anyone else (unless you want to, then you get to tunnel even more! :D )

    in Dying Light with DS change Comment by Ryuhi

  • DS actually has counterplay now, so I don't think its that much of an issue. The devs basically wanted to make it so DS is much less common, and activated pretty much only when the killer puts themselves in its specific circumstances. Just don't tunnel, and if you have to because its all thats available, just slug and move on and enjoy the lack of pressure that downed survivor is applying. ez.

    in Dying Light with DS change Comment by Ryuhi

  • @thesuicidefox said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/360798#Comment_360798

    Sorry I don't really buy into this idea "X killers need Ruin". I've played Trapper and Hag without it and have still managed to win. My early game suffered, and survivors usually were able to get 2-3 gens done pretty quick. But if you play smart and take time to protect the right gens you can stall the mid game and get a snowball going. Ruin makes killer complacent with just chasing and not pressuring gens themselves. Sometimes you need to break chases and kick a gen, or slug a survivor if you have the chance to get another to get that sort of pressure going.

    Case and point, I play Freddy at rank 1 with BBQ/Nurse's/Surv/Rancor and I generally have no problem controlling the pace of the game. And that's because I don't just chase every survivor I find. I sleep them, protect gens in key spots, scramble them a bit so they waste pallets, and play strategically. If the weakest killer in the game can control gens that well, it's safe to say any killer can.

    Case and point part 2; My usual Spirit build is BBQ/Thana/Sloppy and now Stridor. At the time of this game I was using MYC because sounds were so bugged. Anyway, I saw 4 toolboxes in the lobby and decided to use Ruin instead of Thana just in case. Well guess what, as soon as my first chase ended Ruin popped, about 40 seconds into the game. I had to WORK for the entire rest of the game to keep them from finishing gens. They made a mistake of leaving 3 gens close together by shack (this was Thompson House BTW) so I protected the CRAP out of them. I managed to still 4k that game by taking the chases I knew I would win, slugging where I had to, and protecting the gens. Yes, they got to exit gates but only just barely then I won before they got the gates open. It was probably one of the hardest games I've ever played where I still 4k'd, but I did it.

    Playing without Ruin is indeed not easy. But it's also a valid option if you play strategically.

    "I've played Trapper and Hag without it and have still managed to win." is anecdotal evidence. You're ignoring the fact that, mechanically, they require set up time. If you have games where survivors cannot capitalize on that setup time, more power to you. That does not address the fact that it is an inherent flaw when paired with the amount of progress and momentum that survivors can generate during that interim. Like you mentioned, your early game suffered, which is exactly what Ruin is intended to alleviate. If you want to make the git gud argument vs using Ruin, then you should have no problem going perkless/addonless. after all, Tru3 was able to get to rank 1 with a rotation of all killers that way, and was able to rank 1 as survivor with only no mither. I guess everything is a crutch since he was able to do it?

    Freddy is a killer that excels only at creating map pressure and slowing gen progression, so he's not a great example. TBH the way you described playing him is the exact way TO be successful as him, its mostly when people try to just chase one person at a time that they complain how bad he is. He needs work to be sure, but he can be a beast at map pressure.

    You seem to be mistaking most people's stances on Ruin. Most killers are happy to even get 1-2 hooks before it pops. Everyone knows its horribly inconsistent due to how messed up the totem system is, but that only further lends to the fact that its very hard to call it a crutch perk. It's a high stakes gamble that rarely has a decent payout. The only reason so many people consider it so important is because of a bigger underlying issue, which is how fast gens can get done when done optimally. My argument is that different killers have different degrees of efficiency in their built in map control tools, which I'm pretty sure is a universal opinion. You have to admit that a killer like billy has a ton more map pressure than, say, the clown.

    in Lets discuss boosted killers Comment by Ryuhi

  • @HazeHound said:

    Wait, if you don't know killers but are on high ranks that's just your fault. Should have played couple of times with every single one by this time :p.

    So.... you're not allowed to get emblems and rank up at all until you buy every killer, and learn their mechanics and test perks/addons you should have bought in the bloodweb without playing games to have the bloodpoints to do so? Between 14 unique characters? I'm lost.

    in Killer season rating should be per killer Comment by Ryuhi

  • @HazeHound said:

    Killer is not for everyone. Just like in real life. Don't forget we need 4 times more survivors queeing at time ;).

    Now ask yourself: why is the "power role" the more stressful and less accessible one? In a horror themed game, no less?

    Killers can't queue with friends, so the queue imbalance issue is pretty much never a thing. If anything, so many people are tired of the game being tilted against them as killer they either just play survivor, or constantly lobby dodge anything they assume is a weighted game against them.

    in Flashlights should have charges Comment by Ryuhi

  • @thesuicidefox said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/360781#Comment_360781

    Ruin kind of is a crutch actually. You can see a stark difference in skill when you face a killer that doesn't use Ruin but still bodies you. While it is somewhat necessary to slow down the game, too many killers rely on it exclusively to slow the game for them and have no idea how to generate actual gen pressure. You can tell because they get completely destroyed in games where it goes down quickly. They especially do poorly against survivors that can just work through Ruin. They never take the time to kick gens or anything, they just let Ruin do the work for them. A truly skilled killer will still make you work for those gens even after Ruin is gone and can keep the game going.

    IMO Ruin is as responsible for boosted killers as is NOED. Especially when you consider that most survivors will just not do gens and look for Ruin instead.

    That kinda depends on the killer. Trapper and Hag in particular need that early time to set up any map presence, Myers can benefit from it greatly to get out of tier 1 and have actual move speed, etc. Its mostly the top tier killers who can generate stronger map pressure from the start without ruin, especially nurse and billy.

    The Plague's perk that locks 3 gens for over a minute from the start is an interesting idea as an alternative to ruin, I feel like on some killers it might be a more consistent alternative. That said, I wouldn't call ruin a crutch for the exact reasons you mentioned: it can be countered very hard by survivors who aren't clueless, or can even just not miss skillchecks.

    in Lets discuss boosted killers Comment by Ryuhi

  • Having to lay on the ground as survivor is the equivalent of a killer stuck in a game with open exit gates and survivors that refuse to leave, but one at least has a timer attached to it.

    I'll usually just open my 3ds and play for a few minutes if the killer refuses to hook me. that way i can keep an eye on the screen in case a comeback miraculously happens, but im not just sitting there waiting to die.

    in A fair/balanced way to #########. Comment by Ryuhi

  • @HazeHound said:

    If you get triggered by clicking or tbagging killer is not for you. Its just this simple. Getting mad will only make you play worse and if you actually chase guy who can loop you quite well you are wasting your precious time unless he is breaking pallets fast.

    However there is very simple solution. You need to realize that person actively mocking you is wasting time. In a game that is all about time. Just try to make them follow you as you chase someone else (don't break chases, but switch targets when have opportunity) and laugh at their 30 iq Mog brain.

    All kind of bm is like words: you decide if it has effect on you.

    Which is all well and good, but every person playing is human. People have emotions, they have temperance, and they have bad days. Its the entire reason why many people are opposed to toxicity: If everyone was a stoic robot, it wouldn't matter, right?

    Any gameplay mechanics that discourage bm within the community while not hindering intended mechanics is a welcome change and can only better the community overall. We saw killers get a big punishment to their ranking when camping (and the new DS rework is specifically targeting tunneling) and these changes should continue throughout the game for both sides.

    in Flashlights should have charges Comment by Ryuhi

  • Yeah when players force the game to lag to their advantage its referred to as lag switching. Its bannable, so since you've reported thats all you can/need to do. Happens sometimes (even survivors do it occasionally, though it feels far more common from killers) so after reporting all you can do is shake it off and move on to the next one.

    in is this even possable? Comment by Ryuhi

  • @HazeHound said:

    Its nice idea on paper but reality would be this: player has couple of favourite killers and plays them regurarly. Player plays a lot and is good, goes up ranks fast. Whenever he does daily for other killers he absolutely destroys lower ranks due to game knowedgle, raw experience and mindgames. No fun for both sides as killing way weaker survivors is just boring and unsatysfying and survivors just got literally rarped and they don't even know how did this happen.

    Or plays every killer and stays on lower ranks due to not having enough time to rank up every single killer. Results will be the same

    I get where are you coming from, playing perkless on higher ranks is just hard, but this is not the way to fix this.

    The alternative that we currently have is that the killer gets a daily on a killer they don't know, then has to flounder around while getting constantly taunted by survivors who refuse to leave and they still don't manage to get their daily unless they're even decent with said killer.

    Part of the reason its an issue is because of how perk and especially addon dependent most killers are, in addition to needing an understanding of their various playstyles. There is no way to practice killer mechanics/addon changes/perk synergy/etc without playing live games, so you have to get demolished constantly before you can git gud with any given killer: It actually discourages me from playing my main killers because I don't want to rank up too fast to be able to try learning new killers I'm underequipped/inexperienced with.

    The whole issue could be solved with an offline practice mode where survivors could practice loops/routing and killers could practice.... everything, but it doesnt look likely to happen.

    in Killer season rating should be per killer Comment by Ryuhi

  • Why not have individual ranks for killers, and have it weigh their actual rank?

    I'm not great at killer, but I sure as hell play them poorly when I first get them vs when I have a full build + decent addons + hours upon hours of experience with their power. Since it doesnt look like we'll be getting an offline practice mode anytime soon, that could be a good compromise if it could be worked into matchmaking s o m e h o w

    in Lets discuss boosted killers Comment by Ryuhi

  • @Condorloco_26 said:

    @p1ague We've already proposed that option in this thread, even mentioning that whatever color we choose for gen auras, should be the same for survivor auras with bbq, so at least they blend together.

    But I still don't understand why are there pink and yellow-esque auras for other perks and they won't let us customize them.

    With 2.4 I noticed an improvement at least, having brighter auras for hooks, totems and gens. Except for the Ormond resort map, which I guess it was too new for the changes.

    I'm colorblind to the extent of completely failing the Ishihara plates test, but at least I passed the green light/red light one. I play shooters and many different games with colorblind options. I don't think they give any advantage to normal vision people.

    tbh my issue is worse with scratch marks and blood, but i know each type of colorblindness will have different combinations that are better or worse. Every time I completely lose someone due to not being able to discern very obvious tracking visuals, its beyond discouraging.

    in Colorblind support needed please Comment by Ryuhi

  • @LegitAdventurer said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/359720#Comment_359720

    I'm a rank 1 killer lol. I can post a video if you'd like. This has gotten me too, and planted at 1-5. I honestly try and depip half the time so I'm not totally white knucling it every game lol. I'm not saying slug everyone and never hook anyone. But i definitely patrol gens over survivors, if i can get a quick easy down/hook I'll take it but most survivors will take their hit and go teabag at a pallet, I'll waste the pallet and leave to patrol gens. Sure, confident survivors won't even heal up, they'll just get right back too gen jockey status. That isn't always the case though, if i can prevent everyone from doing gens by forcing healing, especially with Nurse's Calling, that's a huge win. Someone is hooked, someone is going for the save, someone is being chased, someone else is healing.

    That means nobody is doing gens and progressing the game.

    TBH your advice is pretty specific to Freddy, as his strength in chases is non-existant but his ability to slow down the game CAN be very good when played the way you mentioned. Killers with no map pressure can't really afford to ignore survivors in favor of gens, at least not until they can force a 3 gen game (or a survivor or two is dead.) Its one of those rare cases where Freddy does something vital better than most of the roster, ironically.

    in Honestly it baffles me how killers are more stressful to play than survivors Comment by Ryuhi

  • @Chi said:

    It really disagree. I find killer to be relaxing after being tunneled, camped, slugged and legioned all day as a survivor.

    Do the survivors you play against not know how to play? Because unlike getting tunneled and camped, you are trapped there until THEY allow the game to end, while simultaneously they have the ability to rush the game to its conclusion. I would take everything you listed and still be able to die on the hook vs having a game where gens are powered in 6 minutes but the survivors refuse to leave for another 10.

    in Honestly it baffles me how killers are more stressful to play than survivors Comment by Ryuhi

  • @diamonddabs said:

    I understand it’s sometimes me, but the reality is that I’m tired of winning games via hatch because after I do 2 gens no one cares to do any and go down like flies.

    im going to have to record and post here another time to prove it.

    Just the other night, I double pipped in a game that I died. If you're having trouble climbing ranks, don't play to survive more than play to improve emblems, and make survival more of a secondary objective. Surviving is only a single point more than being alive for 9 minutes (2 points if you manage to never get downed) so it has a pretty low impact on ranking up overall... Even getting 2 safe unhooks is worth more.

    in Trash teammates Comment by Ryuhi

  • @Boss said:

    I BELIEVE this classifies as the Killer not doing enough.

    Like, patrolling's fine, but he hits someone and then doesn't care one bit afterwards.

    Idk, i didn't read up on that, i think a mod said that once on here though.

    Yeah not chasing a survivor to the point of downing them is not holding the game hostage. Juggling targets is pretty much mandatory for most killers to be able to apply pressure in the first place, let alone a 3 gen defense strat.

    As survivor its a good idea to try to lead killers away from pressure points (Other gens you know are being done, survivors getting unhooked, etc.) so expecting a killer to not be allowed to use the inverse strategy makes no sense.

    That said, as some others have said, you just have to be as efficient as possible in attempting to counter the strat. Don't miss your skill check (protip: you can actually do the skillcheck after a gen tap, the skill check can be done while running away for some dumb reason) and try to apply pressure on a different gen as others/tank hits for others/distract the killer/anything. Or just don't let yourself get into that situation in the first place.

    3 Gen games are an attrition battle. It might not seem like it, but the odds ARE in survivor's favor, as long as they're patient.

    in In 3 gen strategy is anyone holding the game hostage. Comment by Ryuhi

  • Simple solution: upon reaching the exit grid while asleep, players need to perform their own "wake up" action (similar to the one performed on other sleeping survivors.) If the survivor is downed, the amount of time it takes to wake up is twice as long. survivors are unable to cross the exit barrier while asleep., UNLESS they've freshly been hit (similar to how being hooked or activating adrenaline wakes the survivor)

    this would give freddy more post-game pressure, but not make him overbearing.

    in survivors shouldn't be able to crawl out of the exit when in dreamworld Comment by Ryuhi

  • @thesuicidefox said:
    I just don't get why they couldn't make it an obsession only perk.

    If it had these new changes, and was obsession only, that would actually be pretty great. If the player uses it but is NOT the obsession, just make it so they fill their struggle bar a bit faster or something. Then at worst case it would basically become what new players mistake boil over actually does :chuffed:

    in New Garunteed Escapes End Game Meta Incoming Comment by Ryuhi

  • @TAG said:
    This whole thing could be cleared up with a "Killer Wins"/"Survivors Win" screen.

    Yup. Instead all we get are the various stages of compliments the entity gives killers, and the comment confirming a survivors vital signs :chuffed:

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @TrAiNwReCk said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:

    @knell said:

    @Ryuhi said:
    Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

    Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.

    Mostly when someone said that because pipping is the win condition defined by the game (which it isn't) that it should thus be the metric used for balance.

    But yes this is a reply to someone saying that

    One would have to assume that if "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME" than with the removal of the RANKING system would then remove PIPPING.

    If you can't pip, by @knell description of a win . . well I guess you could not win or lose . .

    Brilliant.

    I.... pipping is the metric the game uses for the ranking system so yes, without a ranking system there would be very little use for pips. That is not to say there couldn't be a similar skill rating system that is independent of survival or 4k, especially as people can even consider simply bloodpoint accumulation to be an indicator of victory or defeat. Fact of the matter is different perspectives will always have different objectives, which is what extends the lifespan of a multiplayer game. I mean, its even how alternate game modes are born most of the time, with developers acknowledging said user created objectives and embracing and facilitating them.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @TrAiNwReCk said:

    @thesuicidefox said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:
    Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal

    "Patrol the area and find Survivors."
    "Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
    "Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."

    None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).

    @NuclearBurrito

    You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.

    Fact #1

    • If you die in a trial - You have lost
    • If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
    • If you don't die in a trial -You have won
    • If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won

    Fact #2

    • Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist

    P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.

    Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.

    Stating opinions as fact is why this topic has yielded nothing in the first place. many people could easily believe that:

    • If you waste the killer's time so badly that you are his only kill - You have won
    • If you are able to end every chase before getting bloodlust - You have won
    • If you are able to get any kills vs a very well organized SWF - You have won
    • If you are able to juke a p3 nurse and buy your team a ton of time - You have won
    • If you are playing with a friend in SWF and you are able to save them at your own expense - You have won

    for example. There is nothing in the game that tells them they are not allowed to believe any of that, just that they will be focusing on something other than a single metric in the game (survival/sacrifice)

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @NuclearBurrito said:

    @knell said:

    @Ryuhi said:
    Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

    Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.

    Mostly when someone said that because pipping is the win condition defined by the game (which it isn't) that it should thus be the metric used for balance.

    But yes this is a reply to someone saying that

    Pipping is the win condition defined by the community at large, and is enforced by the metrics of the game. It is not the penultimate definition of victory any more than survival/4k is, and both are equally up to interpretation. You seem to be confusing when people think that it CAN be a winning condition vs people who have the exact opposite of your obsession that survival/4k can ONLY be the winning condition.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @knell said:
    Let's make this clear - if you have your own definition of how to win in this game, I am absolutely okay with that. You enjoy your game the way you see fit. The problem I have is when others are saying, "No, surviving isn't the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." That not only goes against my enjoyment of the game - it also isn't what seems to be inferred from official sources - so yes, I do have a problem with that.

    If you don't like chess, then let's compare it to another asymmetrical game - like Werewolf or Mafia - a social deduction game. If you are the lone werewolf, it doesn't matter how well you do and how many villagers with roles (Fortune Teller/Bodyguard/etc.) you devour during the night in a row - if the villagers manage to point you out the next morning (even if randomly selected), then the game is over. Again, the performance really isn't indicative of the winning condition. But like I said earlier, as so long as you aren't saying, "Surviving isn't the winning condition in DBD," I'm fine with it. Go have fun - just make sure you let me have mine too.

    First, props for the mafia comparison. Granted, thats exactly what someone who WASN'T from TOWN would do.... :chuffed:

    While in terms of absolute win conditions that is true for the killer/mafia/etc in that game, it is not true of the townspeople. They can die early while paving the way for the opposing factions demise, thus losing as an individual (death) but winning as a faction. The way that a lot of gamemsaters craft their powers can lend to this reelly well and make some crazy matches :)

    I think that also fits our shared idea of individual win conditions pretty well too. Some people would define survival as the only win condition, while others would consider the success of their faction the win condition.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:
    Also you are forgetting that > @Ryuhi said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @knell said:
    When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

    When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

    If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

    But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

    The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

    Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

    Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

    Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

    I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.

    Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

    Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.

    Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors

    Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:

    Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

    This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.

    Definitions do not change based on the circumstances they are applied to. So if a win condition is a win condition despite being luck based then that means something being luck based never makes it not a win condition

    They actually literally do. Its why a definition can have multiple applications, aka why there is usually a numbered list of things it can mean and circumstances it can be used in. Definitions can even change over time due to the circumstances they are applied to, which is an evolution of language itself.

    This conversation is actually a pretty good example of the literal, the colloquial, and the evolving.

    Those are just different definitions.

    Or in other words the definition of a word can change but a single definition is static because any other definition is just not the same definition.

    Basically you can always substitute a word for it's definition without changing the meaning of what you said (the grammar might change however)

    Do you really not understand how definitions evolve, nor how they can change based on application? You don't need a linguistics degree to understand how something as simple as slang occurs within a language, let alone actual complete revisions to existing words.

    This conversation is getting pretty tiresome, so I'm just going to keep having my own win conditions and encouraging others to do the same. You're welcome to sit in your own corner wondering why other people are feeling any sense of accomplishment though.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @knell said:
    When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

    When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

    If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

    But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

    The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

    Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

    I would like to put in a distinction real quick.

    YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.

    Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.

    This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful

    Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?

    I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:

    Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface

    idk why it doesn't let you track your win's properly. But this both isn't the only game with that problem (Throne of lies doesn't either despite VERY clear win conditions) and even if it was such tracking does exist and I've sited it before when talking about survivor strength vs killer strength.

    Again, something not being actively tracked and shown to retroactively does not make it stop being a win condition

    Of course it doesn't. But its a very clear indicator that it is not the only possible win condition if its not even important enough to be tracked, no? There would be no reason to track anything else until AFTER that is tracked properly, if it were the only possible win condition...

    However the game directly stating that escaping/killing is the survivor/killer win condition is overwhelming evidence for escaping/killing being the survivor/killer win condition. Your minor circumstantial facts are not enough to negate the direct and clear word of the game

    Literally every time you see something that opposes your viewpoint, you plug your ears and cite an ancient tutorial screen. If you refuse to be open minded then there isnt really much of a point to this conversation (or topic in general)

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @NuclearBurrito said:
    Also you are forgetting that > @Ryuhi said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @knell said:
    When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

    When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

    If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

    But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

    The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

    Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

    Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

    Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

    I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.

    Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

    Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.

    Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors

    Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:

    Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

    This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.

    Definitions do not change based on the circumstances they are applied to. So if a win condition is a win condition despite being luck based then that means something being luck based never makes it not a win condition

    They actually literally do. Its why a definition can have multiple applications, aka why there is usually a numbered list of things it can mean and circumstances it can be used in. Definitions can even change over time due to the circumstances they are applied to, which is an evolution of language itself.

    This conversation is actually a pretty good example of the literal, the colloquial, and the evolving.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @knell said:
    When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

    When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

    If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

    But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

    The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

    Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

    I would like to put in a distinction real quick.

    YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.

    Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.

    This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful

    Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?

    I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:

    Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface

    idk why it doesn't let you track your win's properly. But this both isn't the only game with that problem (Throne of lies doesn't either despite VERY clear win conditions) and even if it was such tracking does exist and I've sited it before when talking about survivor strength vs killer strength.

    Again, something not being actively tracked and shown to retroactively does not make it stop being a win condition

    Of course it doesn't. But its a very clear indicator that it is not the only possible win condition if its not even important enough to be tracked, no? There would be no reason to track anything else until AFTER that is tracked properly, if it were the only possible win condition...

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @knell said:
    When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

    When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

    If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

    But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

    The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

    Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

    Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

    Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

    I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.

    Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

    Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.

    Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors

    Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:

    Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

    This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @knell said:
    When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

    When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

    If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

    But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

    The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

    Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

    I would like to put in a distinction real quick.

    YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.

    Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.

    This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful

    Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?

    I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:

    Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @knell said:
    When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

    When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

    If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

    But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

    The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

    Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

    Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

    Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @fluffybunny said:

    @knell said:
    When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

    When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

    If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

    But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

    DbD isn't chest. I see it more as creating the story. The more you do, the better plays you make, the better the story is. It would be considered a "win" if you do a lot 'cause you're contributing to the "finale" and you won't "win" if you don't contribute to the end. When it comes to the "pipping = winning" mentality, it's about making the plays and doing what you can in the horror story so that what you do matters and it isn't just "they hid and therefore escaped" sort of scenario, though I do think it's still considered a win if you hid for most of the match and was able to get out? I haven't tried that tactic as I prefer a more active role, but getting out without being downed would be an iridescent and stealthing does count towards a pip now. I think what the game director was saying is that there's multiple ways to win, so there isn't a clear-cut win/lose condition.

    I like the story analogy: Who will be remembered in a story... the valiant martyr, or the random civilian who was just eating a loaf of bread in a nearby tavern? I mean, he lived to see the conclusion after all!

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @Ryuhi said:

    @knell said:
    When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

    When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

    If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

    But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

    The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

    Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @knell said:
    When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

    When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

    If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

    But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

    The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @fluffybunny said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @fluffybunny said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @fluffybunny said:
    For survivor, the more you have present, the easier it is to do objectives and get out. It's ideal to help out your team. For killer, "Meanwhile, Survivors will be attempting to repair 5 generators... Killers should do everything in their power to stop them." If you do what is required to pip, you'll be doing everything in your power to stop them.

    One could even say that the pip conditions are the actual objectives, and the "main objective" is merely the result of accomplishing said objectives. When you accomplish your "main objective" without progressing your emblems, it means you did little to actually get your victory and were handed it on a silver platter.

    Yeah, the main objective would be the door and what you have to do to get there would be the staircase. It's fun to change the objective sometimes, though, like when you get bored and what additional difficulties lol.

    I've had games where my personal objective is just to get better at looping, or to try to practice red stain mindgames at places like T/L walls. I usually won't get a 4k or survive, but I'll have improved as a player for it. And since there is no actual training mode in this game, thats about the only way to git gudder.

    A couple of times while playing SWF, we played protect the president where the president was basically useless (wouldn't do anything) and any time the president would be found, we'd take aggro or use our insta heals and go down in their place. Some of the killers played into it and it was great. If the president died, it was a fail state. XD I actually lived at one point and the Huntress was gonna give me hatch, but I shook my head 'cause the guard doesn't deserve to live if they can't protect the president. I think we did it as a joke 'cause everyone else was red and one person was green. There was another time I was playing with a Bill and someone else and their mission was to protect the Dwight. It was funny.

    I don't usually live either, tbh. Lately I've been practicing with DH, though that also means I have a perk I'm not super familiar with. I need to do more of that as killer, tbh. Practice mind games and not worry so much about points. I know recently I pulled a friend into KYF recently to practice DH with the perspective of like a high ranked killer. I kinda wish there was a practice mode where you could practice perks and that sort of stuff.

    I know the game can't really afford to split the base for it, but man there's a lot of potential for alternate game modes like that. Also tbh don't feel too bad about not practicing new tech, the hardest part is having to deal with the gloating from the other side as a consequence so it can be more daunting than it should be.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • There isn't really cheating very often from what I've encountered, just exploits. I've grown particularly tired of 4 man SWFs where one person has decisive, an instaheal, adrenaline, and OoE to basically be an untouchable UAV the whole game for their team. Stuff like that is kinda hard to not call cheating, but its not actual wallhacks so its fair game I guess.

    in How bad is the cheating problem in this game? Comment by Ryuhi

  • I get the feeling console survivorss would not be fans of PC nurses in their games :chuffed:

    There are a few things that would need to be streamlined between each version on the backend that would potentially decrease the quality of some aspects of the game, especially in regards to the framerate.

    in Can we have cross platform capability? (This doesn't sound like a bad idea) Comment by Ryuhi

  • @fluffybunny said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @fluffybunny said:
    For survivor, the more you have present, the easier it is to do objectives and get out. It's ideal to help out your team. For killer, "Meanwhile, Survivors will be attempting to repair 5 generators... Killers should do everything in their power to stop them." If you do what is required to pip, you'll be doing everything in your power to stop them.

    One could even say that the pip conditions are the actual objectives, and the "main objective" is merely the result of accomplishing said objectives. When you accomplish your "main objective" without progressing your emblems, it means you did little to actually get your victory and were handed it on a silver platter.

    Yeah, the main objective would be the door and what you have to do to get there would be the staircase. It's fun to change the objective sometimes, though, like when you get bored and what additional difficulties lol.

    I've had games where my personal objective is just to get better at looping, or to try to practice red stain mindgames at places like T/L walls. I usually won't get a 4k or survive, but I'll have improved as a player for it. And since there is no actual training mode in this game, thats about the only way to git gudder.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:
    I've never seen someone get this flustered over other people having a different definition of victory.

    When people start saying I can't balance around the in-game wincondition is when this kind of thread becomes necessary.

    And what balance would that be? I can't think of much that would be anti-emblem progress but pro-win condition unless it specifically caters to being exceptionally scummy and griefing other players. Maybe thats why people would be opposed?

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @fluffybunny said:
    For survivor, the more you have present, the easier it is to do objectives and get out. It's ideal to help out your team. For killer, "Meanwhile, Survivors will be attempting to repair 5 generators... Killers should do everything in their power to stop them." If you do what is required to pip, you'll be doing everything in your power to stop them.

    One could even say that the pip conditions are the actual objectives, and the "main objective" is merely the result of accomplishing said objectives. When you accomplish your "main objective" without progressing your emblems, it means you did little to actually get your victory and were handed it on a silver platter.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • @NuclearBurrito said:

    @Ryuhi said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:

    @thesuicidefox said:

    @NuclearBurrito said:
    And this isn't really a team game. Each survivor has a slightly different wincon

    No but you would be wise to keep others alive because the more survivors there are the greater your individual chances to escape. It's in your better interest to do it to meet your other objectives.

    @NuclearBurrito said:
    Hell you can even get iridescent lightbringer without completing a single generator

    LOL who is even saying this?

    Indeed it IS wise to keep others alive. That is why the game counts it as skillful and wants people who do that to rank up. That does NOT mean it is part of the wincondition anymore than cleansing totems are. Speaking of which to your other point:

    I am. I did the math and if you cleanse 4 hex totems and do 87.5% of a generator then you get iridescent lightbringer. Since it is possible for that to be all of the progress made in the entire course of the game this means you can get lightbringer without completing any generators.

    You can even get gold without anyone even TOUCHING a generator

    Why would you even base a scenario off of a killer having 4 hex perks, and a single player clensing all of them? Thats kinda on the far end of hypothetical, especially when pairing it with nobody else doing a single gen or even 12.5% of the one you also did.

    Doesn't matter. It can theoretically happen and we could assign that situation a win/lose status. And if you won every chase but 1 and they lasted a very long time and you also got a lot of unhooks ect then you can get irridencent in everything but unbroken which you can get silver in

    Grounding the theoretical into the realistically probable absolutely matters. Otherwise you could come up with some crazy scenario that has almost nothing to do with the game itself but results in your "win" as a sideffect. The entire point of trying to be realistic with possibilities is to narrow the x factor into something actually related to your average game experience.

    and yes, in a game where you carried the hell out of your team and got almost every single category as iridescent, you won because you outperformed what was expected of you to a large degree. There are multiple factors that are beyond any individual's control in this game, which is why people are more accepting to the shifted nature of victory. Without that mentality, every single game would be survivors too scared to even touch gens, just hiding in corners and moving just enough to not attract crows. It would be a boring game that would die overnight.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi

  • I've never seen someone get this flustered over other people having a different definition of victory.

    in For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping Comment by Ryuhi
1 … 77 78 79 80 81 … 87
Avatar