Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Jog_Og said:
I would've disagree with this 5 years ago, but DBD has gotten so gamified (BT off hook, Gen regression events, Anti camp) that this stuff needs to come.
I'll never understand why people line up to dismiss such a simple option request. It seems like the biggest arguments against it are just apathy more than any actual valid reason. Probably why the topic keeps popping up from newer users and then is promptly ignored every time.
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
You can equip Calm Spirit to disable the screaming if you want.
Or just hit the pause menu whenever you are about to get hooked, to muffle the sound a bitGive killers the ability to "calm spirit" individual survivors on demand then. Or just make an option for all players that locally cuts the dB of hook screams in half or something. In fact I seem to recall that we shouldn't be locking basic options behind perks. idk.
@poinepp said:
its one of the core gameplay designs if you are personally too uncomfortable with it just alt+tap for a split second then ur fine
How is it a core gameplay design when they used to be less ear piercing? Killers have been smacking survivors immediately after hooking them for years because of this, which in turn many survivors take as BM if the scream doesn't bother them personally. Mute focus has been bugged to not work at multiple points in the game's life, and its a luxury console players don't really have aside from dropping their controller and grabbing their remote to quickly adjust the volume or mute it in time.
People can make arguments for the immersion, but they'd be selectively pretending the game is still 2016 DBD. I'd prefer engagement on the issue, but I am now ready for the flood of downvotes without any actual arguments as to why having the perception equivalent of excessive volume peaking is quintessential to the DBD experience.
-
@cestoda5 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4006571#Comment_4006571
People not agreeing with others is toxic now?
Its about how people disagree.
Disagreeing respectfully is perfectly understandable, and a good thing. We learn more through dialectics than we do through echo chambers, having opinions challenged reasonably is the foundation that we use to expand our perspectives. Many people don't like to be challenged, and instead curate their interactions down to those they agree with, and those they refuse to find common ground with. It gets worse the more people hunker down into us vs them and refuse to understand any perspective they don't agree with. And what better way to show disapproval without actually bringing anything to the table than just hitting downvote and walking away?
People should be able to have reasonable discourse. They should want to. But unfortunately many are so used to seeking validation and disregarding opposition that discourse just doesn't really happen that often anymore.
Edit: The fact this got a downvote and no response kinda proves my point.
-
@BbQz said:
In a video game you are playing for the experience. When you watch a movie or see a imagine you do not see or know the ease or difficulty the artist went through to create that you see simply the end result. You as the consumer should be looking forward to the results not the journey to get there. Valid complaints are AI still struggles with certain details which I'm sure will be fixed over time. Just like you wouldn't want your door dash driver to show up 2 hours late on a skate board you shouldn't be cheering for an artist to spends days on an imagine he could generate in 5 mins and touche up in 20. If the results are completely equal.
And before you claim it's killing artists and people will discard the arts because of this change. People still sew knit, they plant and grow food. Almost everything that is a hobby that has grown obsolete by just going to a store and buying something with higher quality that was made in a fraction of the time and priced lower then the labor it would cost you to do your self. Is still practiced by people who just enjoy it.
its a shame the other topic got removed, there was a very insightful comment about the sheer eco waste generated by AI usage, its rapid growth and lack of foreseeable plateau. Its an interesting point that never seems to get brought up, especially when hyperbolizing legitimate arguments to attack. If you actually want education on the topic, start your research there. I'm getting the feeling this isn't being seen as the platform for the discussion, so probably best not to force arguments on the topic here.
-
@BbQz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4003716#Comment_4003716
Using chatGPT in a argument about AI I can only clap.
This is where we're at. Seeing structured or nuanced arguments as generated text is going to be the witch hunt du jour.
-
Not necessarily. You can blame every company forcing Ai into everything ever for people's knee jerk reaction to it. People who understand the dangers of how AI is currently being used in multiple ways by multiple companies find themselves agreeing with luddites who think its the devil. Thats just kinda how opinions work sometimes, people can come to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.
That said, its a nuanced situation. It is completely fine for automating mundane functions to increase efficiency. It is not ok for automating human labor in a way that creates excess and/or redundancy, especially due to its real world impacts. Most people have been conditioned to see the latter more than the former.
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4003521#Comment_4003521
It's trained off of data to replicate an art style. It's transformative. The only difference from the art world is that it's a script doing it and not a human.
Thats about as transformative as a kid copying someone else's answer in school and just wording it differently to avoid being caught. Artistic expression in any medium is just that, expression. When someone writes a story, it has been molded by their life experiences. Same with movies, music, paintings, any medium of art. In many ways, it is a view into the creator's mind.
There will always be people who just do it for the paycheck, but the entire point of expressive mediums is to expand your perspectives based off of what was conveyed. When you automate or devalue that it becomes bad enough, but when you do so with a model that learns off of how it is programmed to perceive that expression it becomes downright insulting. Anyone who genuinely appreciates a piece of media wouldn't care if it was made with crayons and paperclips if its impact is profound and its perspectives genuine.
@BbQz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4003521#Comment_4003521
You would call a tattoo artist a thief for using a style he didn't create American traditional or new school despite them learning those styles by completely copying people who came before them.
Christopher Paolini. The author of Eragon wrote that book at age 15. His book is about dragons and a coming of age story that if I'm gonna be honest is a blatant rip off of star wars yet it's popularity grow to even get adapted into movies.
People have no problem with " blatant theft" they have a problem with technology and fear of obsoletion.. no one is crying that every anime for the last 20 years uses all the exact same character art but a computer doing it?!? "It's a thief !! It's plagiarizing!! It can't do that!!!"
Huge false equivalence. A tattoo artist is still an artist, they are working on emulating an existing piece, but their creation of it is personal and unique. It would be closer compared to a cover of a song, which can sometimes meet or even exceed its original. AI learning would be closer to creating a way to detatch a style from its creator by way of attempting forced obsolescence, treating creativity and lived experience as a piece of technology to be replaced in a more clinical yet brutalist fashion.
Christopher Paolini. The author of Eragon wrote that book at age 15. His book is about dragons and a coming of age story that if I'm gonna be honest is a blatant rip off of star wars yet it's popularity grow to even get adapted into movies.This is known as inspiration. We can only convey our own perspectives, but we can use the perspectives of others to bolster our own. Plato preached famously on this, as when our perspective is challenged by contradiction, we adapt our original perspective to the new information that is introduced. We then adapt to an understanding where both are equally valid. Its the foundation of critical thinking, and the reason why many stories share many motifs and even tropes.
Things like "The Hero's Journey" tie the foundation of stories together throughout history. Its also where the saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" comes from, and why many artists who draw genuine inspiration are happy to discuss it. The only thing that makes it morally or ethically incorrect is when that inspiration is denied, or the idea is passed off as original, which people rightly call out.
AI does none of that. it is the equivalent of asset flippers on platforms like steam.
no one is crying that every anime for the last 20 years uses all the exact same character art but a computer doing it?!?Animation has trends. Since you brought up anime, you can see common styles ebb and flow throughout various points in time. People often equate it within decades, but there are also specific artists with specific styles, even when they share commonalities with others within styles. Mangaka like the late Toriyama are a great example. The same can be said for western animation as well, from the styles of the 80's and 90's saturday morning cartoons to the more modern proliferation of CalArts graduates. That said, there are plenty of people who dislike many of the technological injections into the field, especially when it would come at the cost of things like animation fluidity (aka less rigid and more expressive) and even framerate to cut down on animation cels and instead overemphasize key frames. Another famous western example of the former would be the evolution of The Simpsons, with very clear visualization when comparing even the intro across seasons.
And again, AI animation then creates the worst of all of the above, with a superficial appearance emulating the work that those people dedicated their lives to.
-
@BbQz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4003408#Comment_4003408
I'm gonna reply to this post instead of your longer one. Because I'm still tired and haven't fully digested your other one lol.
But that sounds like a strategy working as intended... That Ada escaped because of a direct action another did.. and it's hard to say if your impairment had anything to do with that most people would struggle to discern directional sound while a louder sound is being played. Unfortunately your impairment may strengthen the effectiveness of the strategy but it sadly just means you won't be a top 1% player in this game. Just like how an injury can permanently make a peak athlete not be competitive with other peak athletes it's sad and unfair to some extent but changing the rules for them isn't the call.
Ps..you did mention flash light clicking and seizures has been changed most likely due to UK law where warning and intentionally clicking lights at some one to trigger one is a criminal offense. So easier to just reduce speed and compile with the law.. obviously I can't know if that was the reason.
Throwing sand in someones eyes in sports is also effective. That doesn't make it acceptable. Sensory exploitation in competition used to be universally reviled for a reason. Also, its not about me being "the best," its about my ability to reasonably perform basic functions of the game. Please stop trying to downplay and rationalize just straight up being a bad person.
PS to the PS, if you need consequences to do the right thing, or even to not do the wrong thing, you are not a good person.
-
@BbQz said:
Thing I don't like is toxic is the most exhausting thing to ever spawn on the internet and shows that most people shouldn't be engaging with it as a whole… your playing a game vs other players they are going to do things you don't like or enjoy lower you sound volume if it bothers you. Don't try and bring people with disabilities into this argument as a weapon to prove a point that is a super low blow that unnecessary for any debate.
If you want them to stop hook them. They clearly are trying to get your attention and it is definitely working this one thread no doubt spawned at least 10 more people into doing this during there matches as you opened the door by letting them know this bothers you. Just like dancing at the gate or any other of the myriad things I see people have have issues with on these forums.
I mean I'm happy to bring people with disabilities into this argument because I have a hearing impairment that is directly impacted by noises overlapping each other, which makes them difficult to discern quickly, if at all. And when they vary in volume, especially substantially, it can range from obscuring information to outright disorientation.
your playing a game vs other players they are going to do things you don't like or enjoyAnd people used to spam click flashlights to trigger photosensitivity reactions ranging from migraines to seizures, or even just outright crash people's client. Clearly they were just doing things those people didn't enjoy, how dare they remove it.
lower you sound volume if it bothers you.This is exactly why we need either audio normalization or at least options to hem in the extremes. Preferably in both directions, but at least lowering peaks so that they are less overpowering vs quiet, necessary audio cues. That would allow people to not have some sounds be EXTREMELY LOUD while others have the volume of a baby fart. The quiet audio cues, which are again very important, are why people need to wear headphones and have their volume up in the first place. Even if they refuse to do anything with normalization, allowing audio ducking on offending loud noises would be a very simple fix as an option. This is the main reason anyone who plays either side ever complains about how loud hooks screams are, btw.
If you want them to stop hook them.Loud noise notifications are global. They can be on the literal opposite side of the map, in a corner away from any hooks or generators, just spamming fast vault on a random Z tile. If you honestly believe dropping everything to go after someone in a position like that is the smart play, you have never played killer in your life. And I hate making those kinds of assumptions, but it should be extremely easy to understand why that would be a terrible idea.
this one thread no doubt spawned at least 10 more people into doing this during there matches as you opened the door by letting them know this bothers you.And how is this any different than any behavior related complaint ever made about the game ever? Honestly it might even turn out like things like tunneling/slugging/etc where people doubling down ends up being the catalyst for BHVR to actually attempt to do something about it.
-
@BbQz said:
I mean it's a strategy if your to busy tunneling some one out the least you could deal with is some notification spam. It's hilarious that LITERALLY anything survivors do is problematic and it's gets nerfed into the ground. Then when all that is left is doing Gens it is now evil Gen rushing
If you have hearing issues, it makes it just a tiny bit hard to hear that ace or ada you lost LoS with mid chase, and can have absolutely nothing to do with tunneling, but sure. Maybe the reason people are opposed to "LITERALLY anything survivors do" is because in this case, it is something that actively impacts people who have impairments they can't exactly improve? Maybe take it on a case by case basis instead of trying to undermine arguments with blanket us vs them?
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3999817#Comment_3999817
Any ideas on the unique effects? I feel like it could be a fun way to utilize the killer's various powers rather than just "he kicks a gen" or something. Maybe reset Freddy's teleport if its on cooldown and make it so the NEXT teleport spawns fthe bloody Freddy shape on every gen to fake out survivors.
I was thinking more like categories that would be consistent across killers. For example, [1 gen regression event, 1 tracking assist, and 1 personal modifier] would mean that it might have each change in potency and/or application method between each killer. So they would overall have the same core principles, just adjusted to each killer in a way that hems in the top and bottom performers. Having a factor be unique to each killer's power could be pretty neat way of approaching it too.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3999764#Comment_3999764
Because its complicating an already complicated game. I don't understand how you don't understand that. The point is that we shouldn't be balancing certain things in the game like perks and basekit mechanics differently for different killers because it makes the game impossible for newer players to deal with.
Thats the fault of unintuitive design more than anything. When designed properly, even complex mechanics can be presented in ways where the assumed process is the most effective. You can also design things to be very easily recognized without paying attention, like how the RBT's make it very clear they activate as soon as a gen pops. Having something like the unique hook system be on a per killer basis allows the devs to apply balancing considerations specifically in relation to each unique aspect of each killer. Its a lot of work if just a superficial system, but its foundation building for entire balancing freedom going forward. Think of why we even have differences in things like movespeeds and TRs in the first place, you're extrapolating on that in a foundational way in order to have a strong framework for adjustments in the future. The amount of future efficiency it would provide in aspects of balance and adjustments would far outweigh the initial effort required to create it. Think of it like the current variables are stats for each killer, and you'd just be adding another one.
I get what you're saying about mental stack and how unintuitive much of the game already is, but its something that can be done right.
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3999801#Comment_3999801
I just see this as a great opportunity to give the weaker killers a boost while at the same time promoting healthy gameplay. People like to talk about killer imbalance, but get really vague about exactly how they're going to change anything. The "keep kicking the killer until the survivor community says they're fine" approach is how we got current skullmerchant.
I agree, I think it would make a great avenue to normalize between the strongest and weakest killers, as it could be used to adjust strengths and weaknesses inherent to their kits, while also avoiding blanket changes that still make the strongest killers stick out just as much. In another topic I talked about a potential idea like having the effects themselves be adjusted based on the killer, so a gen regression event might vary from a strong kick bonus on a mobile killer like Billy, or a weak map wide kick on someone territorial like Hag. There's a lot of potential for a system like this to have per killer considerations.
That lack of normalization is also something that keeps people from having real plans. People thinking about how oppressive the strong killers are will end up having different perspectives from people lamenting situations where the weaker killers encounter lose/lose situations. All anyone can really do is consider the "opposing side's" considerations evenly with their own to get the big picture.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3999181#Comment_3999181
We know that isn't true because of the Eruption meta.
If it was true that Killer players did not want to tunnel, but needed to, we should've seen tunneling go extinct when they could use Overcharge, Call of Brine, Eruption and Pop/PR/Corrupt. This was a huge amount of regression for very little effort.
We saw tunneling go up because it isn't about needing to, it's about ease of use. The reduction in Survivor power-level, while necessary, allowed tunneling to become more and more effective. Whereas in the past, some truly busted things kept it in check, now they are gone and tunneling is basically a free win against most teams.
Remember that "killer players" aren't one person. The thing with a change this core in the game's mechanics is that it affects far more than the intended cases in relation to virtually necessary aspects of the game (hooking and downing survivors will happen in nearly every single game, theoretically) regardless of the condition of the game around them.
You can't use the intent of those who refuse to change as punishment for those who honestly want more healthy alternatives to be viable. Punishing [someone who avoids tunneling like crazy but ends up in a situation where it is the only reasonable play at that state in the game] the same as if they were [a blight hard tunneling from the word go with a lethal pursuer build] is why people don't see eye to eye on these types of balance considerations. Thats why us vs them rhetoric causes discordance in these types of discussions. A lot of times LCD strats can be reactionary as the power dynamic starts in favor of survivors, while shifting to killer over the course of the match. If survivor resources remain (hook states, pallets, viable "safe" gens, etc) the onus on the killer to catch up and start building momentum goes up the longer they are less efficient than the survivors. Thats why I like the idea of a reward for subsequent unique hooks, it addresses the fact the killer has been purposely operating at an efficiency deficit, and can easily be used as a means of preventing tunneling from becoming a fall back strategy when the survivors have a strong start. This then also goes well with measures to discourage and even punish the LCD strategies, as their reasonable application becomes obsolete.
Nobody needs to tunnel all the time, but there are absolutely situations where actively avoiding tunneling is directly putting yourself at a significant disadvantage. We have no way of knowing how many people will voluntarily adjust without being forced, but we do know that a combination of reasonable incentives and disincentives absolutely adjusts behavior on average.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998739#Comment_3998739
So then more on the lines of Dashes, M1, Slowdown, Slugging and stuff like that.
Exactly. Just measures that are as objective as possible toward their mechanical strengths and weaknesses.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998732#Comment_3998732
Doesn't that get sort of personal?
Like, we can broadly agree on the S-tiers, but putting everyone else into tiers?
Thats why its not about tiers or arbitrary measures like that, its about focusing on how each killer gets impacted by removing viability of LCD strats. By categories I meant more like [ranged] [stealth] [m1] and so on. It would have to be centered around the most objective categorizations you could apply across the roster, which would then need a sort of hierarchy in their values/effects for when they clash on a per killer basis. There are just too many blurred lines to categorize the whole roster cleanly, so thats why it would be best to better utilize that effort and just make the whole thing be on a per killer basis.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998707#Comment_3998707
So would it be completely individual or more categorical like the actual anti tunnel we saw?
That would depend on how much effort they'd be willing to put into it. Dividing killers into categories would certainly be in the right direction, but having each factor be on a per-killer basis would allow them much more control on how underwhelming or oppressive things would be in their extremes. Too many killers blur too many lines in regards to categorization at this point, so I feel like it would be a bit of a wasted opportunity to leave it there.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998696#Comment_3998696
So this would be individual for every Killer?
Yep. What works for Twins is going to be different for what works for Nurse, especially since the penalties similarly effect every killer differently. These types of changes have far reaching ripple effects, so universal applications only further destabilize balancing. Conversely, these types of restructures make a very good opportunity for normalizing power creep within the roster, and even maintaining balance with further additions.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998627#Comment_3998627
Since you failed to even attempt to start a dialogue after I said you wouldn't get something to replace tunneling, I spoke to other people and further refined my ideas.
I am not opposed to a stacking bonus, or a permanent bonus.
I wouldn't mind discussing it a bit. Create categories for buffs for the system, then apply a few of them at a rate based on the killer. You could approach it by either starting with one buff and then adding more with each subsequent unique hook, or by having multiple and having their potency increase with each unique hook.
For example, lets say we go with the first approach, where the first hook might be a gen regression effect. Then when there is a second unique hook, it would have the same gen regression effect but then add a detection one, while a third might some type of survivor debuff, and so on. The idea would be to have the first effects be less impactful than the later ones, and their potencies/effects would be designed on the killer specifically to work around their strengths and weaknesses regarding macro play in their kit. This would help address the fact that no matter what bonuses they get, different killers will get different mileage out of them.
With the second approach, you would similarly center each effect combination to be tailored to each killer's kit, but they would start with underwhelming values which then scale into much more impactful ones. It doesn't even have to be direct number scaling, effects could also have milestones that affect their application. Take the gen kick bonus as an example, it could start at something like 10% of current, then go to 20% and 30%, then drop back to 10% but make it based off the total instead of current value, then scale it up to 20 and 30 from there. Then you just apply that logic to whatever effects are used, with the core idea to have them start weak but ramp up to be very strong at high counts.
Edit: Realized I forgot to clarify, but by "categories" I meant that they would vary based on the killer. While one killer's gen regression event might be a buff to their next kick, another might get something like a localized effect with lower relative potency (think surge) or even a much lower potency global effect. You would tailor each aspect to suit the killer specifically.
It would be hard to come up with something that directly matches unchecked LCD strats, but if removing them, the most important thing to address is how they interacted with the core power dynamic of the game via attrition. The idea is that if a killer is going to be punished for macro efficiency if they take shortcuts, they need much more motivation to go to the opposite extreme. Basically even if the end result ends up being less impactful than removing a player outright, you want your motivations to be centered around providing a comeback factor in exchange for sacrificing that potential.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3996712#Comment_3996712
typically i only see this brought up when asking for killers to be able to abandon after the gate is opened (which is a very easy to toggle state within the games code)Sure, but that's why I said there are three conditions.
Easy to code: Check
Virtually no chance of a comeback: No, killers securing kills after the gates are opened is not at all unusual
Not easy to circumvent: No check, they can just not open the gate
Let's look at another possibility, all survivors standing at the exit line:
Easy to code: Check
Virtually no chance of a comeback: Check
Not to easy to circumvent: No check, toxic survivors could just move slightly past the line and tbag there.
to be clear i dont side with adding an abandon feature for thatTo be clear, I'd expand the abandon options on both sides. But I don't think the scenario people lay out for killers is anywhere close to one that can be drawn for survivors.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3996655#Comment_3996655
is there even a period where survivors have no chance of a comeback anymore BESIDES during the sacrifice animation?It narrows the examples, but we're talking virtually no chance, not no chance.
If one survivor is dead and three are slugged, maybe one can get back up before the killer picks them all, and maybe they can reset, and maybe there is enough gen progress that you can finish the gens and open the gates.
It's extremely unlikely (which is a step up from virtually impossible). It's definitely more possible if the changes go live than it was before so we'll see if they reevaluate their stance on when the abandon option should come into play.
To be fair, it could probably be easily circumvented: Once the exit gates are powered, give each survivor a buildup meter. Have actions like standing in/around the exit gates build up the meter (at different rates depending on factors like distance and whether it is open, of course) and have the meter be affected by other actions like 99%ed exit gates also slowly build the meter as well. Once it procs, some combination of gate blocking/exposed/hindered/Killer Instinct/whatever debuff(s) would essentially secure they get punished for letting it build up for its full duration. How much/little visibility is provided to the survivor themselves could be adjusted in relation to how harsh the buildups are.
Tension gets added to survivors weighing staying for a save vs leaving, survivors who are actively seeking the exit or being chased to an open exit are unaffected, people who leave promptly are unaffected, only people who hang around and refuse their opportunity to leave get punished. All by creating a simple "scoring" system while adjusting and monitoring the growth rates for different methods of circumvention. And since it would be tracked specifically on a per survivor basis, it would be easy to have up to 4 instances running concurrently without having to worry about variables like which killer is present.
My only concern would be how badly a system like that could be fumbled.
That said, I think the best solution is for neither side to have the option after the anti slug changes get ironed out. For every "survivor whack a mole hostage" scenario, there will be plenty of ones where people will be able to use it to just go next if 2 slugs is really enough to trigger it. A better solution would just be to make that type of slugging reportable under hostage taking, especially since the server should theoretically have plenty of timestamp evidence to corroborate reports. The anti-slug and tunnel changes do a lot to the arguments for why it was so forgiving for survivors, so the arguments will need to be restructured around where they land.
-
@4thdslip said:
i love how schizophrenic this community is it reminds me of my time with people who believed mk ultra still existed in 2010
There is always wisdom to be gained from even lunacy. While I don't agree with most of what was said, concepts like this happen in negotiation all the time. Companies in the past have done things like double the MSRP of a product or service, then put it "on sale" for a higher amount than its previous value. The sticker shock from the MSRP hike is lessened by the FOMO of the "sale," and thus consumer pushback lessens. Its a form of appearing to present a compromise when the "sale" might have been the original target price to begin with.
I don't agree with this applying to everything that the PTB did, but I certainly don't discount that type of tactic from being possible in one or more of the changes. It could just as easily be a simple case of "we didn't realize the extent of the impact" and be genuine reevaluation. BHVR are the only ones who know for sure, but their intent tends to become more transparent over time.
-
@CrowVortex said:
Seeing how they can have different / reduced stat percentages between all the killer's, example being the mobility killer's only getting 10% of the spreading hooks 'Reward' buff vs 20% for other killer's, I don't see how they can't put killer's into their own Anti-tunnel / Slug balancing catagories when it comes to adding new systems or even perks. I mean let's be honest, majority of tunneler's are mobility killer's and the ptb anti-tunnel changes would have been more ideal for them vs non mobility m1 killer's.
I think this was one of the biggest takeaways from this PTB, actually incorporating the various strengths and weaknesses of killers into elements of the game, especially when they will affect all of them in every match. The most we've seen of this are things like cages not following (un)hooking rules, or nurse having stuff made into special attacks to prevent being able to utilize M1 perks. There is potential for more elements to have variable strength based on specific factors like that, and using it as a means to help the weaker killers more while reducing exploitation potential on the stronger ones would be one of the single biggest normalizations they could do to address the game's balance. Then again, survivor audio has been coming along "great" so it could very well have just been a fluke.
-
@tjt85 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3997155#Comment_3997155
Oh yeah, it was absolutely crazy to think they could reasonably act on all the feedback from this absolute chungus sized beast of a PTB. It was always looking like a very ambitious update to me, so I'm not at all surprised the more controversial changes have been pushed back to a later release.
The anti-tunnel / anti-slug updates were obviously going to trigger a massive backlash and I get the impression BHVR might have been surprised by the strength of feeling and push back they're received. You wouldn't pack so much into one update unless you're not expecting such resistance. Honestly don't know what they were thinking.
I don't want to sound pessimistic, but it might have been a kind of "release it in an overbearing state, that way it can be later released in a toned down form with less backlash" kind of approach. That would be the Easy way, while working out all of the issues and refining/polishing the systems to be both fair and functional would be the Right way.
-
@MoZo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3997180#Comment_3997180
how long did it take you to type this? be honest
I dunno… 10 minutes? Wasn't exactly counting.
-
I'm more concerned people in charge of the game looked at the changes, how ambitious many of them were and how far reaching their consequences would be, how many interactions they couldn't possibly have tested and prepared for that the community would figure out before the content was even in our hands, and still went ahead with it in that state.
Then I'm more concerned with how things like the anti-go next feature went. Both in how it was designed in a way that led to almost as many false positives as genuine applications.
Then I'm also considered with how the feedback went toward it. Some was for refinement and fixing the system's accuracy and cutting down on false flagging, while the rest was a resounding "Just throw it out entirely" because of how many people who would be satisfied with nothing but removal of such an extreme system that could potentially affect them in their minds.
Now we look at changes that affect the entire killer role, not only not fixing killer balance but making it even worse, punishing killers for getting kills that don't involve tunneling because there was a possibility they potentially could, making changes to slugging that effect the entire macro game focus of both sides decidedly in one direction, applying both the carrot and stick simultaneously (which is good!) but doing so in extremely uneven measure (which is bad.)
Then people are surprised when so many killers want everything thrown out instead of refined. They should have seen this outcome from a mile away, there is no way they could hope to make this many sweeping changes at once and expect to land on the right values and oversights for everything. This is to be expected. But that makes it that much more important that the community is both fair and honest about all of it, regardless of how any changes affect them individually.
A lot of feedback has been dismissive since the moment the patch notes dropped. A lot of other feedback has been alarm bells at the slightest shadow. But a lot of people have been addressing foresights since the moment that the first details were revealed, mostly because of the amount of details that weren't, and how these things go each time they try to make ambitious changes.
Don't give up on making core experience improvements. That is a good focus to have, as player experience is very important. Not to go on a tangent, but the history of Final Fantasy 14 is a very good example of how important customer satisfaction can be for a game's success and longevity. All they did was strive to do better, put pride (and in some cases, even career security itself) aside and focused on addressing player issues in a way that impacted other players as little as possible, and went from being cancelled to the biggest game in its genre with an even longer lifespan.
The biggest difference with an asymetric environment is that both sides need to be treated evenly obviously, but they also need to be considered evenly. Not as a "devs favor X!" kind of excuse, but more of a "If I make a change to X survivor thing, it will affect Y and Z survivor things as well, but also C and D killer things." People theorycraft and doompost because they have little faith that their concerns will be addressed, and the pipeline for some fixes has been notoriously slow.
There will always be hyperbolic feedback that is self focused instead of being about the game on the whole, and there will always be people who want to throw out anything they see as a threat to themselves. All we can do as a community is be honest with our feedback, and all they can do is be willing to sift through the rubble and learn how to improve the game from it.
I just want everyone to remember how the anti-go next went. Both in the community, and how it was handled behind the scenes. We obviously don't know the latter, nor necessarily should we, but its crucial that the RIGHT steps be taken in regards to how to handle these changes going forward, regardless of whether they are the EASY ones. Many of the changes from this PTB have the potential to "save" or "kill" the game, depending on how they are (or aren't) revised and/or iterated upon. More than anything my personal concerns are how much dissonance is going to impact changes on this scale, whether the devs and leadership will be up to the task of handling things properly, and whether the community on either side will essentially sabotage them with bad data.
This isn't bandaid fixes, its actual core adjustments. Its important that the community acknowledges this is a shot at the devs doing more than throwing perks or numbers adjustments at problems and calling it a day, and its important that the devs realize that making changes this integral has amazing potential to both improve or ruin the game.
-
@CLHL said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992176#Comment_3992176
My intention was not to accuse him of anything, but it becomes very confusing when I have seen him argue against console players from having aim-assist on the Singularity, defending Made For This on release, or not show a single complaint about survivor perks that have been in a bugged or game breaking state for months. I mean, he mostly play as a killer, he suffers through all that but never has nothing to say. While, on the other hand, he has long discussions throughout the forum defending the concerns of survivors. It's just weird, and even extremely annoying.
I get it, but again, I don't see reason to consider him disingenuous. People often engage more with opinions they disagree with than ones they agree with, and when you play both sides its completely valid to focus on a side you don't play as much if you see opinions about it that clash with your own. There are certainly people who pretend to play one role while being disingenuous about it, but even when you think thats the case, better to just ignore than drag it out into discussions.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992319#Comment_3992319
Twins need a rework anyway and they'll probably get it. I think the three people who main them just weren't heavily considered over the health of the whole game.
I think killers need to see hook states now, with the most recent hook highlighted. The whole reason it was hidden was, I assume, to avoid targeting. Now it would be the opposite: to help with spreading hooks. I also think different color auras for different survivors that reflect a border color on their HUD image might be a good idea. The game is gonna have to be a but more handholdy if they want killers to spread, because expecting people to remember anything is too optimistic.
But I think we'll see a ton of changes before things go live, and a ton more after. It's going to be an evolving process but people are already mad and it doesn't even exist yet.
The twins do need a rework. They had one, and it was full of oversights like the ones that will affect them with this update. Their rework was so bad that it needed to be rolled back.
The Twins are one killer. That makes them easy to ignore, since the game functions without them. These changes affect Every single killer if non-linear ways. They will all have varying impacts from these changes, so much so that many of them are allowed to be disabled in customs to prevent an exodus in areas like comp play. They know these changes are going to affect a LOT of moving parts, so much so they've even coded in a contingency in case they need a shutoff. They are basically acknowledging that there will be oversights, so honest feedback from all players, regardless of side, is going to be extremely important once people have their hands on it.
As for why I have so little faith, look at your aforementioned hook counting. The excuse was always that a hook state counter would encourage tunneling. Now that they are actively punishing killers for tunneling, regardless of intent or even how strictly you define it, they instead put in a little notification of the last person you hooked. In exchange for removing the hud info and notification regarding their unhook. They had every opportunity to appease both sides with such a simple consideration, but they instead gave a lesser version while removing internal organs as compensation. Even if they keep the notification removal stuff, they have absolutely zero legitimate reason to not give killers a hook counter on the hud with these changes. They would only prevent accidental tunneling in cases like repeat cosmetics or just losing the mental stack. But its just not the type of consideration to expect.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992338#Comment_3992338
But it's a temporary band-aid. And a poisoned one. Leave it on too long, it'll kill the game.
I don't disagree. The business world is constantly filled with decisions that front load the short term vs the long. Its about understand opposing positions regardless of how you feel about them.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992326#Comment_3992326
The game is already getting review bombed on Steam, both for the WD dead update and this snafu
Oh, its not meant to please everyone. Just approximately 4/5ths of the userbase. I'm not even saying its not a smart move, just that it would line up with how things are playing out currently. Its not even about "the devs are survivor biased" as much as it is "Directly appeasing survivors restores their reputation with the most people in the shortest amount of time." It would just be a very business focused decision, regardless of how anyone feels about it.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992324#Comment_3992324
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992326#Comment_3992326
Trust me, I don't have a ton of faith in them. But I really highly doubt they'd overlook something like Tenacity, which wasn't mentioned, or Killers like Sadako or Myers. Not that I'm claiming to know what they'll do, but those are very huge oversights for a system they seem to have spent some time working out. It's not like individual perk interactions where it's easy to miss variables because there's damn near a million of them now.
And that's true. All of it's gonna depend on how the PTB plays out.
but those are very huge oversights for a system they seem to have spent some time working out.I only ask you remember these words. People have made this assumption multiple times in the game's past. Honestly reflect on whether they end up ringing true or not. For what its worth, I hope they are, even if I doubt it.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992246#Comment_3992246
Perks are a variable I assume they left out until the PTB, just because it's a lot of details to work in. Same with Killer powers. I don't see them neglecting all of that in the long run. I agree that being transparent upfront would be better to do on BHVR's part, but I also think the end result would be roughly the same.
They have a notoriously bad track record for overlooking individual interactions when making sweeping changes, let alone ones that affect the core gameplay loop this drastically. Its easy to assume they will do everything right, but its crucial for them to allow themselves to be corrected when they don't. Considering the concern is generally around their lack of foresight, that basically means people are going to form their own conclusions and need to be corrected from them when they experience the changes personally. And unfortunately when people have preconceptions but only experience sweeping changes from one side, they tend to be more willing to ignore the concerns of "the other side" than they are to objectively assess them. We saw this firsthand during the overbrine meta, so many survivor players should remember the justifications they saw at the time.
This update is very likely going to fuel Us vs Them far more than it needed to, both in discourse and personal perceptions themselves.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3991953#Comment_3991953
My killer experience is about the same as yours. It's generally 0k or 4k. There's little in between and I kinda hate that. My ideal match is a 2k or 3k. That feels like an even and fair game. My main is also at the target 60% which also feels right for a fair player.
I believe the finisher mori has absolutely increased kill rates. Before it was implemented, I got a good amount of mercy hatches and killers who wanted to goof around. I still give a lot of mercy as killer but if I want it myself, I have to be very endearing or funny. It's become super rare and that's kinda depressing. I like when those barriers come down. I think it's addition was one of the worst changes for the general vibe of the game. And yeah, it's absolutely altered the stats.
I also think the survivor changes probably won't do much against the most misery-inducing killer-players, despite the loud voices crying ALL KILLERS WILL QUIT THE GAME. For the killers I play, the basekit changes are a buff and I do actually expect them to help me, a mid player using mid killers with fair tactics. But I don't think the survivor stuff is going to help as much as I'd like it to. 90s is a long time on the ground. I've had killers who've hovered over me and waited for me to bleed out for four minutes and maybe it will help those extreme scenarios, but more likely they'll just hit me again. And people who tunnel at 5gens will still do it. I don't know how you change them, and they're the real problem.
I imagine they want to see what happens with kill rates and then address more killers after, like how they're reworking Myers. I know everyone lacks faith but they're doing a lot here, and they're always doing a lot, things just get rushed with deadlines and squeezing money out of IPs. I'm looking forward to seeing future reworks for lower tier killers.
They are indeed doing a lot, its very ambitious. The issue with overambition is, like you mentioned, things like
deadlines and squeezing money out of IPsexist. Looking back at the comment about 90s being a long time, think about killers who have slugging built into their kit, like Oni or the Twins. The timer has been presented in a way that assumes it will be consistent in both growth and a lack of resetting, which means people are assuming that it will count up every second a survivor is on the ground, and cumulatively build up regardless of number of times downed. This would essentially put a "down limit" on killers like the Twins or Oni, because they generally need or want to leave one survivor on the ground for a short period of time. This also gives the killer yet another thing to mentally track, as they will need to know whether a survivor could potentially pick themselves up before they can reach them, with a growing potential as the match goes on and more downs are secured.So now your average Twins player needs to keep track of: each player's amount of time being downed throughout the match, in a presumably non-resetting fashion regardless of not slugging any more than their kit is designed to force. Victor can situationally help with keeping track of where they go while beelining to them, but they can recover while crawling without even needing to try so they will pretty much never stay in his proximity even when someone is there to kick him. The Twins will have to keep track of hook counts for everyone mentally (like usual,) but now will be punished for killing anyone before 6 hooks, making mentally tracking hook states arguably more important than it was when people purposely used it to tunnel players out, yet the best they get is a notification of which Ada or Ace was the last one they hooked. This is on top of everything else, just the changes (as they have been presented so far) and how they apply to that specific killer when introduced all at once.
When changes like that affect a single facet of a role, that can be a bit more forgivable. Mess up a perk or killer with an update? Sucks, but there is still plenty of game to play without them. But once you start messing with things like the act of hooking and killing survivors, you need to be extremely careful with those changes as the game relies on them to function. This is why the importance of getting things right on the first try is so high, and why I compare it to 6.1 when many people found the game outright unplayable due to oversights with specific changes amongst a tidal wave of other ones.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992259#Comment_3992259
honestly, another big mistake was not having those numbers ready at the same time.
I really feel this should've all been dropped just before the PTB went live.
Yeah, but they needed to winback as many people as possible as soon as possible, and what a good way to do so at the risk of putting the rest into a state of uneasiness, to say the least. People have been hungry for solutions, and this patch theoretically provides solutions to many problems the community has been vocal about. It absolutely should have had both less time before the PTB and had more details about the other stuff, but having a few days to simmer means that people will again hunker down on their preconceptions, making them less likely to consider the overall impacts of the changes without being forced to experience them firsthand.
The people claiming the stuff like the "last hooked" notification and the token buffs to "not tunneling," are going to offset everything else are the same as the people who claimed things like basekit bt were going to offset the entire overbrine meta. Its too early to tell both in terms of raw numbers, adjustments to the surrounding mechanics, and their overall implementation.
Thats why I hope people don't get into their own heads before we even get everything, and stay out of there after we do. I'm in the pessimism camp more from distrust and pattern recognition than out of bias, if I'm honest. Maybe thats why changes that objectively pander to the role I play most still feel like they will inevitably cause problems.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992275#Comment_3992275
I do understand my "opponent." He's a self proclaimed killer main that has never, not once, sided with killers in literally any balance changes that I have seen during my time here. He has literally taken the survivor side every single time I've seen him post.
I'm aware of his focus, we've had multiple discussions over a very long period of time. Many people feel the same about me as you do about him. I've seen how genuine he is with many of his concerns over the years, even when I don't agree with them. His dedication to console players and their performance issues lasted longer than most of the people currently playing have been on the forum. If you were to ignore everything he ever says based on that preconception, you would also be ignoring the issues with performance he has brought to light for years. If you still think he's disingenuous, at least don't clap back about it, as there's no point in doing so. Even discussing this is pretty off topic, so probably best to leave it at that.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992265#Comment_3992265
Well, I can safely ignore someone's opinion when they have repeatedly shown that their opinion will always favor one side.
You certainly can, but that doesn't mean you won't miss out on a perspective that would give context to your own. I swear I reference art of war on this forum too much, but knowing your opponent objectively makes you better as a competitor in any context. This used to be pretty understood when disagreeing vs arguing.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992254#Comment_3992254
No offense, but they could give every survivor a gun that insta-kills the killer, and you'd still probably defend it.
Look at the current series of votes between our posts in the discussion. Presuming you'll disagree with someone based on the username above the post is just as bad as outright ignoring whatever side you play less. As long as both sides are genuine, you should generally learn more from people who you routinely disagree with than those who constantly mirror your own sentiments. There's no reason for hyperbolie, even when you don't generally agree with a person. Just take their perspective into consideration if they're genuine, and disregard it specifically if they're not.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992232#Comment_3992232
I think these changes are necessary, and have the potential to be exceeding good for the game.
I am awaiting the PTB, however, for final judgments. There's just so much we don't know that affects what I think.
Its definitely too early to say, which is part of the problem with discourse surrounding it. People have already made their presumptions based on the info we have and the assumptions they have extrapolated about what we don't. There's going to be a metric ton of dissonance in early feedback depending on how each individual changes their perspectives with the rest of the info. People are going to hunker down on their opinions through validation, while many won't even bother experiencing both sides of the update fairly, let alone actually take the effect on their opponents into consideration.
Thats why it feels more like an appeasement reaction than a carefully thought out series of changes. Ambitious changes tend to be the most volatile, doubly so when they single out roles in a game. Thats why I jokingly referred to this as potentially an inverse 6.1, we have seen how much that level of ambition vs consideration can disrupt the short term for a not-so-short term for one side especially.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3991111#Comment_3991111
Plot Twist is a unique case as far as I know. It's like a pseudo dying state (for instance, it doesn't affect the Abandon feature).
This is exactly why these details are important to include if they don't want a doom focused reaction. How perks like plot twist and soul guard interact with this mechanic would create a wide variety in whether they will (or won't) have exploitable interactions, which is something that happens to both sides all the time. People who want to defend the mechanic will not think about things like that, while people who are concerned with it will, but people who want to take advantage of those oversights will do both. Leaving these interactions to speculation while admitting that many perks on both sides will be adjusted to suit the overall changes tells us next to nothing, and leaves people to make their own assumptions, then time to hunker down on them by the time the rest of the info is released.
People both defending and criticizing such sweeping changes with so many missing details are both correct, it is a matter of perspective with what we have been provided so far and what we both assume and extrapolate from that info. I only hope that both sides are able to break up early preconceptions and be honest about what they end up with when we have it to test, instead of looking for things to simply validate said preconceptions.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992215#Comment_3992215
There were several legitimate concerns with fog vials, but like you said, they got lumped in with the whining and BHVR decided to take the easiest path.
Just kill the item and then it wont get used, issue solved, apparently
They wont do that, because bad ideas that require manpower and resources tend to be harder to roll back. Especially when they involve player inventory and a resource investment from the playerbase. They opened pandora's box by putting it into the live game, so removal becomes less of an option than reworking. This is exactly why so many things get reworked into an undesirable state, then readdressed up to years later. I'm not even going to get into more subjective aspects like pride or willingness to accept criticism, but just logistically, removal is a bit of a nuclear option at this point.
The overall issue precludes the specific ones. The way they handled that situation, both in pre and post release, leaves me next to no faith that they prepared adequately for how ambitious these changes would even be consecutively, let alone congruently.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992201#Comment_3992201
I'm not even sure how to adapt that, honestly.
But stuff like the flashlight flicking changes should've been done way earlier. It was easy to fix and they took their sweet time on it.
Thats why its especially disheartening when legitimate concerns like this get lumped in with unrelated whining. It basically encourages the devs to completely ignore them by creating a false equivalence between them and people who are being unreasonable. Its also why many people have a sense of urgency about them, because they know these issues will take years to be addressed if BHVR is allowed to ignore them, exactly like the clicking example.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992164#Comment_3992164
Or the visual terror radius that ended up being a big buff for all survivor players, then ignoring killer players who asked for something similar.
Honestly, I'd just like the workaround that was deemed "unfair" to necessitate taking up a perk slot first.
I'm sure I'm not alone in that either. The fact they haven't even done anything like rework a perk like shadowborn to help in mitigating or working around the effects shows the thought didn't even cross their mind.
-
@CLHL said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992148#Comment_3992148
I don't remember the killers doing stupid things such as abandoning the match because someone used a Fog Vial. Anyway, are you really comparing removing infinite uses from an item (that were never justified) to rendering a large part of the killer roster unusable?
I know you claim to be a killer main based on your comments, but I don't remember seen you give in to their concerns a single time, quite the opposite.
To be fair, I get accused of being a killer main constantly when I barely play the role due to tracking issues. I just focus on the game overall more than my personal experience alone, even though I wish the game didn't try as hard to exclude someone with issues like myself from half of it. I get what you mean considering the pattern, but I don't think that means he's doing some kind of double agent posting or something. It tends to be pretty obvious when people are being disingenuous.
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992157#Comment_3992157
I said we should fix the bugs with fog vials then reevaluate.
Instead, BHVR gave into the demands for them to be gutted and destroyed an item less than a month after it came out.
That said, again, the "demands" were concerning completely different elements than the ones that were changed. The item was designed poorly to begin with by focusing on introducing an accessibility issue, but charges don't matter if a single use can completely ruin a game, and the opacity is the last thing to adjust because its the primary point of the item. Their reaction isn't about giving into demands, its about realizing they messed up and trying to appease the players in a way that saves face. They still haven't even addressed normalizing the effect between variables like different maps, something everyone agrees should be adjusted before touching opacity. If they gave into demands, the item would be removed and all BP would be refunded, because the current form is arguably worse than not existing for survivors.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992158#Comment_3992158
BHVR doesn't really care about accessibility. That's kind of the thing. They only care when they get bad PR about it, see colorblind settings.
Exactly. And that becomes a problem when its a game you've been playing for years, and why its universally a bad idea to ever knowingly introduce one into a game's existing lifespan unless absolutely necessary. You front load all potential accessibility issues so that people can make an informed decision up front, and won't suddenly not be able to play the game 9 years into its life. Thats why its particular egregious, but pointing it out is apparently equivalent to people crying that the item does anything at all.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992138#Comment_3992138
I mean, isn't that exactly what happened to Fog Vials?
Its always interesting to me that fog vials making the game literally unplayable for some people gets lumped in with "tantrums," but this never seems to apply for something like, say, the overbrine meta and how much that absolutely destroyed the survivor experience. Can we please stop supporting this rhetoric that either side's valid complaints get lumped into whining in an attempt to discredit lived experiences? Asking for a friend since the nerfs to fog vials didn't even address the accessibility issues around the item, and just ruined it for both sides and turned it into web clutter.
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3992136#Comment_3992136
Personally, I think they should've separated the slugging and tunneling changes into different patches.
I just think it's better to focus on one major change at once, rather than multiple.
Yep. I don't necessarily have an issue with the theory behind most of the changes, but BHVR are notorious for overlooking things the community experiences regularly, focusing their efforts on a unilateral approach instead of considering the butterfly effect they create, doubling down on unpopular changes if they refuse to scrap their work on them (though this one goes both ways, as they have thankfully reverted things like the twins rework,) and take long periods of time to fix things if they require more than a simple adjustment. To put it frankly, I want to have faith they would be able to incorporate changes on this scale cleanly, but their track record does not instill a lot of faith, and the oversights already provided (90 seconds total enabling basekit UB for the entire match?) don't leave me with a lot of hope.
There's still room for a lot of this to change, but its going to be interesting seeing how long it will take for players to break aspects of these changes, and how much of a one sided effect it's going to have on the player experience. I want to be wrong but I don't think I will be.
-
@Pulsar said:
Even if you disagree with the changes, I think we all had a sense that BHVR had to do something.
True, but you don't throw water on an electrical fire. These changes have been teased for a while, but the severity of things across so many elements instead of trying any of the changes independently and seeing how they affect player attitudes and adjustments in stages absolutely reeks of appeasement. They still have a PR disaster very close in the rear view mirror, and if you can get 4/5 players to get enthusiastic about the game very quickly, thats very effective damage control.
I actually like some of the ideas in the patch, some are even reminiscent of suggestions I've made in the past, along with many others who articulated them better. As things stand, there is tremendous room for abuse in some of the systems, and I don't trust them to have closed those loopholes before presenting them. And I hope they won't refuse to work with the community when problems come to light.
This patch looks like it could be survivor's own 6.1. And we all remember how many oversights caused that patch to be absolutely miserable for survivors for no short period of time. Like usual, I'm just praying they learned from their mistakes for once.
-
@4thdslip said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3990913#Comment_3990913
There is nowhere in the dev notes where it says its infinite after being achieved, so I'm not too sure you're correct on this. I do see the implied wording of the 90 seconds being possibly over multiple sluggings, but it may just be a poor wording issue. We'll come back to this discussion on Tuesday.
Not sure if I misread this, but to me it looks like the 90 second timer only needs to fill once for the whole match, and the rest of the time the only limitation is the time it takes to pick yourself up. Which can be sped up in multiple ways to allow even more self pickups regardless of the bleed out timer putting an overall potential cap.Edit: damn, looks like I was too slow to put that all together D:
Honestly I have to keep my thoughts to myself on the matter, because it really feels like another case of taking the easy route vs the proper one, and its going to cause a lot of problems. I only hope they at least did their diligence with how this change affects every related perk/item/addon/mechanic (including the ones being changed specifically for this,) because if people start doing stuff like using plot twist to safely activate their timer while waiting out corrupt intervention or allowing soul guard to apply to it or flip flop recovery speed builds to create lose/lose scenarios or other obvious oversights, I might finally give up on the game.
-
@ReverseVelocity said:
This is incredibly annoying. One of my favourite perks from the chapter and it's been out of action for weeks.
We need some kind of compensation for this. This is unacceptable.
This is exactly why they are so hesitant to use the killswitch with new content, because people tend to be less forgiving regarding not having access to new content.
We all paid for any licensed content that gets killswitched ever. This logic always applies regardless of how new or old it is. Only thing that can be done is to hold off on purchasing new content on day 1 until they can restore faith that it will ship in working condition, or continue trusting them to release things in a state that's ready for live.
-
As a fallout fan, I really hope not, and I feel the inclusion of anything from fallout (much less a deathclaw) would be even more divisive within the already fractured fanbase. The only time Deathclaws were actually resembling a horror icon would be when they were an urban legend that terrified people before actually being true. In modern interpretations, they're just iconography of a difficult and deadly enemy that looks scary.
If you really want to dip into the vats of fallout lore, look into the body horror/grotesque abominations that were in the original games. Some like centaurs would make appearances in later games, but deathclaws kinda encompass how the franchise gets handled anymore: Focus on the most blatant iconography but miss the meaning or even consistency behind everything in the process.
-
@Coffee2Go said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3987752#Comment_3987752
Ooh i get it now while in tier 2 he has number of hits that he can do before his undetectable runs out, sorry my bad i fully miss understood you on that one.
That would be way better yeah, since he can fill it up and get it back to like full EW2 and gain undetectable at certain meter maybe as well.
Yep gotcha that would for sure be really nice so he cant just trade all good hits.
In the example I meant more like this: He would build up EW like normal, and his ability to use T3 would be the same as it is now (preferably with it force stopping at 100% and requiring a second tap activate it, instead of 99ing being at the mercy of lag) but he would be able to "channel" his current incomplete EW bar to activate undetectable at will. This would require a lot of details to be ironed out (Can it be disabled before fully draining? Active while held? Minimum cost? Cost to maintain? Does spent EW "return" to survivor limits? If so, how is it distributed? My personal pick: can only be done when not in LoS of a survivor? etc etc) but would be an example of a way they would keep an idea like that relatively consistent yet different from things like how GF currently works in his limitations to the status.
-
@Coffee2Go said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3987745#Comment_3987745
I get it yeah, i mean the thing is people can already distinguish him in tier 1 even and run away if they listen to audio cues, its really really easy as it is now, if they do give him undetectable at tier 2 outside of chase then his breathing should intensify, make it so in tier 1 it echoes around map and players cant know if hes near one or the other, in tier 2 it will be silent for those who hes not near so its way easier to detect and increase his breathing?
Like generally i think it wouldnt be too strong and it shouldnt drain his EW2 to do so since ghostface and pig can go on demand, pig for example has a audio que too, so does ghostface with his own breathing as well.
But yeah we will see im hoping that tier 1 and 2 become more viable since people kept saying if u playin him without tomb u aint winning so that stuff has to go as well.
His breathing can be a difficult audio cue (especially for people with hearing issues) when there are other noises like gens or healing, so it shouldn't become the primary way to know where he is in a mindgame scenario. The speed debuff that it currently coincides with is kinda necessary to allows survivors reasonable time to react in mindgame scenarios, and actually lends well to his more jumpscare identity. The main thing to remember about undetectable is that it removes most counterplay the survivor has when in mindgame scenarios. Just hiding the red stain without needing to moonwalk can secure a good number of hits, on top of all the other benefits. It can have a very high "moment to moment" impact.
Edit: If you ever want a good example of this, try a haste focused scratched mirror build and hope you get an indoor map. You'll have zero map pressure, but you'll rarely have people react in time when you're zooming around corners.
I threw the example of draining EW as an example of a limitation that would be introduced in a similar vein to GF's while not just being a copy and paste of elements of his cooldown/reveal systems. The overall idea is that undetectable on demand needs to either have a very clear warning for players to make last minute reactions to, or it needs to have a system that limits its use via a resource (which time is a resource, so cooldowns fit here.) Those types of limitations can be difficult to develop in an ideal fashion for both sides, which is why undetectable generally has conditions to apply.
-
@Coffee2Go said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3987741#Comment_3987741
To be fair yeah this would rival ghostface since he can drop it on demand but ghostface is generally more human than pure evil in lore.
I do feel like since both the pig and ghostface share similar undetectable mechanic but michael is still "outdated" and BHVR did say the game has evolved since release a lot and they want to make the game more chase oriented and stuff.
This just kinda points at the direction to undetectable at tier 2, it would fit the other stealth killers and michael being kinda on the top of them all due to him being the first of the first and all that.
I mean generally speaking the community stated hes only been viable at tier 3 and i think devs want to shine light on tier 1 and tier 2.
I do hope as u said to keep michael as michael and not ruin him.
The biggest thing with Myers is that he can attack straight out of undetectable. Remove that, and he falls in line with killers like Pig and Wraith, where they need to give a "warning." Keep it, and you need to have counterplay or limitations to prevent overbearing inability to read in chase like Ghostface. Either way, the biggest detriment to Myers' design in terms of undetectable is that it can't allow him to get near free hits in most mindgame scenarios consistently. They could find ways around this of course, maybe something crazy like giving him an ancillary ability to drain evil within in T2 to toggle undetectable, but that would also require a lot of testing and fine tuning to make sure it doesn't become either too strong or wasteful to bother using.
There are ways they could pull it off, but it would have to be a lot more limited and explored than just T2 carte blanche.
-
Whatever it ends up being, I sincerely hope they don't make yet another change that is wildly unpopular with both sides. Or so broken it needs to be scrapped and/or reverted immediately.
As for undetectable in T2, I think that would be a bit too strong. It already has some necessary limitations when GF can drop it on demand, and other killers that can apply it usually have things preventing them from being able to capitalize on it without a chance at counterplay.
-
@BbQz said:
Make an extra offering slot designed for maps so that more people bring them. Disallow duplicate map offerings in lobby. So every game you go to one of the 5 or less maps people brought or if less random.
TBH at that point, just remove the offerings so people aren't wasting BP/web clutter and just introduce a map vote system where all 5 players can blindly vote for a map, with duplicates being discarded. The problem would still be that survivors would be able to "hedge bets" to pick different survivor favored maps (then bring loadouts assuming it would be one of them,) so it would have to come with an unfortunate caveat like weighing the killer's vote to equal the weight of the combined survivors'. Not exactly ideal, and wouldn't really solve the issue of indoor vs outdoor and the effect that has depending on the killer, nor guarantee specific maps required for specific achievements.
Cutting down offerings near guaranteeing maps was a start, but there are still legitimate issues for both sides that should be addressed with any further changes imo.