Seraphor
Seraphor
About
- Username
- Seraphor
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,011
- Last Active
Comments
-
@MadMoeZel said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3428680#Comment_3428680
did that edge block maybe change the los of some traps so they overlap?
Nowhere near any traps, it was on the outside of the outpost.
-
@MadMoeZel said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3428648#Comment_3428648
"One thing I think they should do, is add an additional multiplier for same traps within proximity of other traps of the same type."
I can't quite figure out why, i'll have to think on it more but this doesn't sit right with me
"There's already a multiplier for trap proximity in general, but I mean if you stack dozens of corrosive cubes together, or line a room with sentinels."
"This would make "kill boxes" more costly in terms of difficulty rating, making them more likely to get into Brutal, and high Brutal at that."
I guess i just need to accept that i play in a way that what people call "killbox" in dangerous or normal doesn't register to me. i've never seen a "killbox" outside of brutal, the games difficulty calculations more or less force it to be brutal if there are enough overlapping angles. i think the most threats i was able to fit in a single room even trying to game the difficulty lower was 9 enforcers with maybe 12 or 15 acid cubes scattered around a room that was like 9x9x9
thats 24 threats, over half of which have no form of targeting and are stationary. that's a "killbox" in dangerous. after playing brutal dungons and dealing with 20+ things that TARGET me in a single room, i'm just not phased by things like the dangerous "killbox" if it really is an issue of stacking too many things in a single space then i guess sure, yeah increase the difficulty for duplicates more. but i already find it immensely difficult to make a normal dungeon that i think will be a challenge, fun, and artistic without it pushing over to dangerous OR leaving me with a disgusting amount of empty space which is boring.
"Then the threshold for Brutal could be raised, allowing more leeway for high capacity Dangerous outposts that are built more sparsely."
Raising the threshold for Brutal will help with the confusion caused by the wide margins on capacity, but it would then increase the availability for killboxes in lower difficulties, because any outpost that was in the low range of brutal before would be considered dangerous after that.
i've never seen a "killbox" outside of brutal,
Raising the threshold for Brutal will help with the confusion caused by the wide margins on capacity, but it would then increase the availability for killboxes in lower difficulties
This is why I suggest these changes together. Individually they don't serve much of a purpose.
- There's currently little need to push killboxes into brutal, most of them are already there.
- Raising the threshold for Brutal would allow more killboxes to slip into Dangerous.
But change both at the same time, and you get more generous ratings for non-killboxes, while keeping the killboxes where they should be.
Oh and for another suggestion; reduce the impact of HRV path length. It's largely inconsequential for actual difficulty, killboxes often have short paths, while longer paths tend to be easier because the traps are more spread out, but a long HRV path seems to be pretty impactful for difficulty rating.
My current outpost is on the cusp, and adding one wedge block so that HRV skirted around a corner a little wider than if the block wasn't there, was enough to push it over into Brutal.
-
@Samannoyed said:
I think you make a good point, I previously thought and posted about bases having another difficulty added to them within their current categories based on kd. I completely get where you are coming at when you can have a brutal base anywhere from 1500 to 4500 capacity.
There definitely needs to be some work to refine the difficulty rating system either way.
One thing I think they should do, is add an additional multiplier for same traps within proximity of other traps of the same type.
There's already a multiplier for trap proximity in general, but I mean if you stack dozens of corrosive cubes together, or line a room with sentinels.
This would make "kill boxes" more costly in terms of difficulty rating, making them more likely to get into Brutal, and high Brutal at that.
Then the threshold for Brutal could be raised, allowing more leeway for high capacity Dangerous outposts that are built more sparsely.
-
@MadMoeZel said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3428506#Comment_3428506
"Regarding the outpost with a single trap making it all the way to brutal, this is completely absurd."
you misunderstood me. i said what happens if you make a map you personally think is normal, and while you're offline sleeping or working, it gets enough murder to push it brutal. it can't be lowered back to difficult or normal without more plays. but to lower the lethality and adjust it back down you'd have to reduce the trap count. to quickly move it down you'd have to have no lethality, so you'd minimize your trap count to get back to the bracket you intended. but now you're in brutal, which has less total raids statistically, so you can't get your dungeon back down. death by brutal regulation.
We could use a simple kill ratio cutoff as a proof of concept. If it gets above to 2.0
how do you handle this?
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/U0IOKR8LNCG8/image.png
i'm intentionally providing an exterme example because we need to consider them if we are to make a truly balance system. i'm not against a reorganizing of difficulty. just want to make sure we're fully investigating it's effects before it gets 'mis-implemented'
To back this up a little. I've found it very common that my outposts initially get a high kill ratio, around 5-7, for the first couple prestiges, then it levels out at around 3-4 as it gains prestige levels.
So this would likely result in most outposts shooting up in difficulty initially, then dropping down at higher prestige levels.
This is the opposite of what should be happening, as you gain more capacity for traps and refine your design.
-
@TheShindig said:
Monitoring and adjusting outposts is the fun part of building, so I hope you're doing that anyway.
The current way the game works with its hard cutoffs encourages builders to push every outpost right up to the limit of its difficulty class. This is actually limiting creativity. Personally I would much rather see a game where people just build whatever experiences they're excited about, and let the difficulty fall where it may. If you truly do intend for an outpost to be easier, you literally have to watch replays to see what raiders are messing up. It's an iterative process. That's the only way.
Regarding the outpost with a single trap making it all the way to brutal, this is completely absurd. It would never happen. If you don't believe me, we could even construct rigorous simulations with the game in its current state. You could literally make an outpost with a single trap, then hide as many other traps as you need away from the harvester path to adjust the difficulty up and down. We could use a simple kill ratio cutoff as a proof of concept. If it gets above to 2.0 (which will never happen) hide more traps to move it up to dangerous. If the kill ratio falls back down (which it would immediately) adjust it back to normal.
The game needs a statistical sanity check for fixing outliers. There are way too many outposts that are only in "brutal" because they are big. This is frustrating to builders who just want to make something fancy and moderately challenging, and it's confusing to new raiders who are getting mixed signals about how hard brutal outposts should be.
Personally I would much rather see a game where people just build whatever experiences they're excited about, and let the difficulty fall where it may.
I agree, but this isn't possible as long as:
1. Raiders can choose their difficulty.
2. Outposts get far too few raids with which to calculate actual difficulty.
If instead of 3 difficulty tiers, we had some kind of matchmaking spectrum, like your outpost difficulty is scored from 0 to 2000, and raiders 'skill' is scored similarly, with raiders being allocated outposts within their range +/- 200 or something along those lines. If it was a hidden mechanic that couldn't be gamed, maybe then you could allow dynamic difficulty calculations.
Monitoring and adjusting outposts is the fun part of building, so I hope you're doing that anyway.
After every prestige cycle yes. Not after every raid, I don't play 24/7.
-
@MythicMikeneto said:
After being lost in an numerous outposts, I stick the the HRV path pretty strongly.
What you have going against you is other builders who do the same HRV path long/Non HRV path short, but the make the short path super deadly or really easy to get lost in.
I once had to wait 10 blanking minutes for the HRV because I tried the 'shortcut' and got so turned around and lost I couldnt find my way in or out. It took longer to try the shortcut and then having to wait for the HRV than just following the HRV in the first place.
Another time, I knew the short path was trapped to hell and back, but I thought I would give it a try thinking, 'Surely they made that route completable somehow.' After 6 repeateded (entertaining) deaths, it was back to the long HRV path to actually be able to complete the level.
Again, took longer to take the 'shortcut' than to just follow the HRV in the first place.
Once raiders experience and learn this, your 'shortcut' is seen as the 'long way' (even if it is in fact shorter) and the HRV is the best way to save time and lives.
From your description of you build it sounds like dying multiple times may actually make the shortcut longer than the HRV path.
Think of it like this:
HRV path is 50 long. Shortcut is 25 long.
Taking the short cut I die 5 times at increasing lengths.
5 die, 10 die, 15 die (0 rank gain for me at this point), 20 die, 25 die, 25 and get gen mat and head back for the return 25.
That total distance I covered was 100 taking the 'short cut', twice as long as the twice as long HRV path.
Now the raider thinks to themselves, if I had followed HRV, I maybe could have avoided those deaths, possibly saved time, and actually gained rank.
Raider conclusion: long HRV is better than any shortcut.
Its not always true, but it is usually a safer bet.
Condolences, my fellow builder.
The outpost in question is now a Social one. Lakota by TheSeraphor, if you want to see what I mean.
The player made it all the way through the path to the genmat, upon dying in the genmat room, proceeded to following the HRV all over again, multiple times.
It's not a real maze, once you know where the genmat is, you can literally see it from the starting point.
-
I find it odd how much cells are thrown at you.
- Every Chimera level up gives you 500 cells, versus 250 of the others.
- Tribute levels practically rain from the sky.
Sure this helps the initial grind a little, but then it becomes superfluous.
I think Chimera level up should only give your 250 like the others.
Tribute levels need to change somehow, it's odd that you get to level 7 then just refresh over and over again. I'd go so far as to cap Tribute at level 7 entirely, and raise the rewards for those limited levels. Instead of 40-75, make it 400 to 750, double the EXP required to make the grind take slightly longer, then cap it completely at 7. Further updates could then raise this cap to account for additional content to unlock, and perhaps come with lore dumps too, so the next DLC pack that comes out also comes with the base-game upgrade including Tribute level 9 and a bunch of lore.
-
While I'd love the difficulty calculation to somehow actually account for the difficulty of the outpost, rather than just the amount of traps. I can't see using performance metrics working out. You have no control over what raiders do, they can ragequit when they're missing the obvious strategy, or just because they don't like the format of your outpost, some can take 40 minutes and 30 deaths, while the next person speedruns it in 30 seconds. And with only about 5 raids per cycle, you don't have enough data there to derive averages.
As long as difficulty categories exist for raiders to choose from, there will be bias in the selection process, and a reason to tailor the difficulty of your outpost to a given difficulty. As it stands, you can fill it right up to the line, get it to the cusp of Dangerous/Brutal and delete one trap, to keep it in the Dangerous category while still having some lethality. Because the moment it ticks over into Brutal, your raids are halved and everyone speedruns it. You don't want your outpost just over the line into Brutal, because you're wasting so much difficulty allowance, as soon as it does, you want to invest everything into traps and pile as much lethality into it as your capacity will allow. A max capacity outpost that has just barely made Brutal is a lost cause.
So, if you were to make a Dangerous outpost, then come back to see that RNG has pushed it into Brutal... how irritating would it be to get screwed over like that? You'd have to be constantly monitoring your outposts, adjusting them as raiders complete/die to it.
-
I think being able to have multiple outposts active at a time is a big issue.
With five 'chances', and the pressure to build five outposts at a time, builders resort to lazy builds. Churning out 'XP' builds to farm points. This also waters down the raid pool, and means all of those outposts see fewer raids for it.
I considered dropping it to three, but now I think even having just one active outpost at a time would be better. You get your one outpost to submit to the raid pool, you can change it around and swap it out with others if you like, but only one is able to gather raiders at any given time. This would drastically reduce the pool of potential outposts, and means everyone gets more raids on their one active outpost, while giving builders the incentive to make that one outpost really count by putting more effort into it, and devote more time to actually raiding other outposts, because you're not having to spend all your time building multiple outposts.
Even with only one active raid at a time, you can still build as many as you like, test out different set ups, and assign them to social in the meantime, maybe even getting feedback before you make those outposts live. And those who do want to play considerably more and build multiple outposts and check the game multiple times a day, can rotate their outposts throughout the day to get maximum footfall. This could improve the quality of raids for everyone.
I largely gave up having five active outposts after the first week, because the time (and synthite) investment was simply too much, and the return was not worth it, getting about 5 raids per outpost. I went down to three, but this week I've stuck to just the one. Not only do I feel like this weeks outpost is more polished and artistic, and I've been able to fine tune traps, but I've had more time to raid and my synthite stocks aren't running dry every time I log in.
-
Agreed, I feel like successfully leaving with the genmat should give a baseline reward. Something like a minimum of 5/10/20 rank points and 10/20/40 of each currency, based on difficulty. Then you can increase the rank points based on number of deaths, etc.
@TheShindig said:
This is a really good point. The ranking system is in an awkward place right now because it's trying to be a seasonal progression and a skill rating at the same time. In addition to the point you made, I think it's also a bummer that it encourages people to try to scum out rating points in whatever way is the easiest instead of challenging them to actually get better at raiding.
Hopefully once everyone is a "master" they'll actually slow down to appreciate the game and try different kinds of outposts.
DBD does exactly the same thing strangely. Grades are ultimately meaningless outside of the monthly BP dump based on the Grade you reach. It's just a grind meter. But it still gives zero or even deducts 'pips' based on poor 'performance', which can occur irrespective of kills/escapes. You can 'win', but still walk away with nothing or negative.
-
@MadMoeZel said:
The "HRV<3" a single use object that protects HRV from 3 fatal damage events.
Love this
-
@Darkyan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3426963#Comment_3426963
"Major" cost?
Literally one of the cheapest kill trap in the game,
As the king of pitfall trap (Self proclaimed** ) y'all are gonna hate ground holocubes if this mod is a thing. You're gonna have to count your steps ahah.
I don't think so. It's essentially an instant corrosive cube, but for 55 cost instead of 15.
You already have plenty of time to hop out of the way of a disintegrating holocube. You can leap out before you ever touch the spikes. More often than not, when I fall into a corrosive/holocube trap, I never touch the corrosive at all.
Basically an 'always-on' Impaler + Holocube (65 capacity) almost like-for-like replaces the function of a single corrosive cube, but hidden until you touch it. The time it takes you to fall through the holocube space and hit the spikes, is comparable to the time it takes you to die by moving through a corrosive cube.
And I don't think it's unreasonable to make trap combos like this be more deadly and require faster reflexes. Once you die to it once, it's virtually useless as you know to expect it on subsequent runs.
-
Some good ideas.
I think the Ammo Restock would have to be a single charge to balance it properly.
Teleport is a neat high-risk alternative to Phoenix, after all you want to use it a split second before you die. It could have 2 charges because of that, but you'd also be able to combo them for 3 second chances. Not sure if that's balanced or not, on one hand, it would make Solo raiding a little more comparable to Duo. (maybe Duo raiding should come with a -1 hardware capacity as standard to balance it, so 2 grenades each, 1 shield, 1 teleporter, etc. but 1 capacity items remain at 1.) Or maybe just give the Teleporter 1 charge like Phoenix, you can use up both slots for 2 second chances, or just bring the Phoenix as default.
Impact/Sticky Grenades are a no-brainer, but would probably have a capacity of 2 rather than 3 due to their higher accuracy. Particularly as you can combo them too, and 6 grenades would probably be too much.
Cluster Grenade would be neat too. Single charge, but it explodes like a Bomb trap, potentially taking out a much larger group of traps/guards.
Not on-board with the 'destroying blocks' however, I think that's too far.
I don't think the Drone is a fair addition though. It's essentially giving you a free trial run of the outpost with no risk of death, particularly if it can explode and disarm traps.
I would fuse the Drone and 'RC Car', make the Drone follow HRV's path automatically, you can place it as long as HRV is dead and anywhere on the path too, so you can 'check' the path if you're on it, by whether or not your Drone is able to be placed. Once placed it follows the path once to the Genmat, holds there for a period of time, say 20 seconds, at which point you can see its 'aura', then deactivates.
-
Also even if you're not hovering, 'test in place' still sends you to the start most of the time. It seems if you're in range of any traps or the genmat, or in sight of a guard, back to the start you go.
-
If you want the 'Master Rank' to mean more, then you remove all tangible rewards from it, otherwise players are pressured to grind it out for content.
It's not a true ranking system anyway, it's only a measure of how much you grind, and that was the case before they removed negative rank points. DBD has the same system with it's Grades, you can lose pips, but it's still not a true ranking system. The fact that you can game the system by abandoning, or rerunning raids makes the entire 'ranking' part of it absolutely meaningless.
Ranking systems only work in games that have a defined "win condition", so that you can accurately gauge performance between players. This game will never have that, because it's not a true competitive game, any more than you can say The Sims is competitive if you decided to rank players based on Simoleons acquired. 'Good' Sims players would be able to acquire more Simoleons faster than 'bad' Sims players, but everyone could do it eventually.
-
@hastarkis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3426176#Comment_3426176
Every properly ended raid gives you this, correct. And MadMoeZel doesn't get this but get much much more for tomb hunting. That's what I meant. Normal raiding is less profitable than tomb hunting. Or maybe not less but also not enough to choose it.
Like, you say that traps and guards give you synth but do they with all corrosive ammo traps? I get my ammo back easily but all my loot is buried under acid and I get nothing. I legitimately remember outposts where all my synth was from tombs (smth like 20-30) and that's it despite several deaths and destroyed traps. Yes, I got genmat to get level reward later but I bet I'd got same genmat and spent less time if I abandoned this one after tombs and finished another outpost with no pits rather than this one.
That's sad too but apparently I, as a builder, need to think this through and avoid some fair trap builds just because raiders don't feel rewarded enough for beating them.
Every five properly raided outposts give me 250 synth from leveling. Tomb hunting gives more in less time. But boring af :/
@MadMoeZel my game is also in ssd and my loading time isn't much better than hdd :/ well, with this setup... Meh. Just meh.
Every five properly raided outposts give me 250 synth from leveling. Tomb hunting gives more in less time. But boring af :/
Does it?
I've finish raids where the tombs have given as little as 10, or even zero synthite.
Add on the 125 from completing 3 Champions, and I'm pretty sure it's more profitable to just finish the raids. Most don't take that long, and 'looking for the tombs' can be just as long-winded.
I've certainly felt no additional incentive to abandon raids unless they were genuinely a pain to attempt.
I can't disagree that an additional loot drop on successful completion would be nice though. Maybe a bonus 25/25/25 across all currencies or something like that. Could even take it out of the 125 Champion prize if necessary and reduce that to 100. After all there's nothing really special about champion bases, P5-10 still show up in the regular pool.
-
How about this:
Outposts fall out of circulation after they've received so many raids, currently seems to be around 5-7 raids before it dries up.
Instead of raids being the qualifier, a combination of Kills and Genmat stolen should be the metric by which outpost fall out of circulation.
This way, you either get a lot of kills, or you get a lot of successful runs, but abandoned raids with few deaths will have little to no impact, and your outpost would remain in circulation.
-
@MadMoeZel said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3426104#Comment_3426104
maybe one way doors are intentional and something to work around as a raider, if raiders can't get behind something i won't have to build it up.
As long as they dont force you to ######### for it, sure. I've used one-ways as alternate routes.
-
I'm gonna add a couple of mine.
User: TheSeraphor - Outposts: Conifer and Lakota
Why? Well they're both my attempts as a pseudo-non-linear outpost, without using tricks like second wave cubes to change the path. They're technically both as linear as any other harvester path raid, and if you play it boring and just hollow Harvey you'll have no issues, but if you lose track of Harvey by any of the distractions then they're deceptive. Essentially, these are to be explored, not speedrun. They're both Brutal, but neither are actually hard, merely at capacity.
Conifer: The Forsaken Town
Themed outpost. Try not to follow Harvey right off the bat, try and find the tombs hidden within the manor house to your right, and the pavilion to your left. Then head through the central archway and start off towards the church. I would have liked to have populated it with more guards but hit the cap, maybe I'll move some of the Enforcers around.
Lakota: or 'Kerplunk', a maze without a maze
This one is more conceptual. It's wide open, and it only has one linear path, but if you don't follow it all the way the path to the genmat is not clear. You can skip right to it, if you can work out which part of the outpost it's in. Harvey will lead you to it eventually, and if you follow the path it will take you through every part of the outpost. If you die on the way, and you know where you died, you can skip ahead.
-
I think it's more likely that there simply isn't a line of sight qualifier for reviving (and the same for magnetic link). It may be an oversight, because they thought the distance wasn't enough to be an issue, or it may even be intentional.
If it's intentional, then it's something to work around as a builder, if raiders can get behind something, build it up so they can't get close enough to draw in ammo or revive.
-
While proximity to other traps does have a difficulty multiplier, proximity to other traps of the same type doesn't increase that.
I'm not too bothered with the Plasma Sentinel. For 70 is provides area denial, much the same as an Incinerator.
-
Players can be both/all types.
I choose outposts based on genmat/guard type, and if the one I want is a Free XP raid, I'll still do it, and reap as much synthite as I can get out of it because I'm a starving builder.
-
Considering that replacing the holocube/corrosive cube with a regular block then makes the path invalid, I'm pretty sure the valid pathing is the bug, technically.
Although I would love for those low ceilings above slanted floors to be valid pathing to begin with. If the custodian can fit through then so should Harvey.
-
Maybe there should be a Boost that increases outpost visibility by 50% or something. (basically 'rolling back' and 'slowing down' your decaying raid priority by half) That could give you up to 6 hours of increased traffic, and you can refresh it every 6 hours. Seems like a decent middle ground to the 'clean up every hour' problem.
Considering the Guard 'Prestige' boost is now virtually useless because 100-200 points isn't an issue anymore (I got 1000 from one cycle so that outpost is set), so could replace, or be added to that.
-
On the other hand, as you're no longer penalised for dying more than 2 times, there's fewer reasons to abandon a raid after 1 or 2 deaths.
Also, does your 'lazy raiding' definition also apply to those who abandon maze outposts? People find different things, and different outpost formats 'fun'.
For example, I came across one outpost which was just an endless spiralling hallway, it took about 5 minutes just to reach the end, which was a room full of guards. After one death, I couldn't be bothered to repeat that 20 mile trek all over again. Maybe you would have found that fun, but I didn't.
-
This is everything wrong with this playerbase summed up in one terrible suggestion.
-
Makes sense. 1. you shouldn't be pressured to have to log in multiple times a day for a basic function of the game, and 2. more raids for the regular cleaners means fewer raids for others.
Still, being subject to the whims of RNG and going back to 1-4 raids per 24 hours is going to be sad. Luckily the prestige requirements have been decimated.
-
Increase by another 5 please, and add a "buy 100" option too, buying 10 at a time just takes way too long and I still have too many Parts.
Yet I still don't find the need to use much in most outposts, most can be completed without any grenades or shields.
Consumable fear is not related to the cost of equipment, it's related to your limited carry inventory, only having 3 grenades available at a time, means no matter how many you buy or how much they cost, you only have 3 chances to get it right.
-
I hadn't noticed, but it seems all of my available raids are PS.
-
But that's tunnelling, which is apparently the problem...
-
Today's changes to ranking may be enough to incentivise Brutals again.
You're no longer penalised for abandoning or dying multiple times, and Brutals give you more rank points. This should get the rank-grinders to leave the comfort of quick Normal raids and be free to tackle the challenges of Brutal.
And with second wave corrosive cubes no longer allowing trap detection, killboxes should be a lot less punishing as well.
-
I thought it was May 23rd?
-
Why are killer issues ignored by the devs?
Survivors are still rushing gens and powering the exit gates, despite the fact that this causes killers to lose kills. When are they going to address the very real issue of survivors being able to escape?
-
I've counted this a total of 29 times so far. That's 29 different raids across multiple outposts, in which deaths took place, but not countered in the command center, and the replay displays 0 deaths with no genmat collected.
I won't even bother with the screen shots due to the sheer number of them, and they're all identical to the ones above anyway.
-
@Darkyan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3423223#Comment_3423223
Touching on the lunge and compass issues ;
Compass ; there are 3, Danger compass appearing from previously detonated bombs, so you walk in on an empty space and there's a danger mark warning you even though there's nothing.
Yellow warnings killing you, there's not exactly a good visual distance ratio, I apparently carried a chaos bomb ejector shuffling it near my feets over 15 blocks in distance, always yellow even though it was under my feets. (That was the longest bomb shuffle of my life I swear to god.)
And there's also a lot of times when a red bomb indicator, with the bomb visually exploding 0.2 blocks from my face, ending up not killing me.
As for the lunge in the corner swipe ( without looking directly at the trap ) I've found that it's extremely inconsistent, with more than 40% rates of failure if you're walking forward as you swipe. Had a lot of raids where I just swipe my way in only to later realize I missed like 4 or 5 traps, even though there's a huge Gray swipe line on all of the traps.
Backward walking on the swing seems to work just fine, sideway walking is so/so mostly smashing the wall instead of the trap.
So I end up accidentally looking at the trap trying to guarantee a kill, and I get teleported straight in the middle of a working flamethrower
So I end up accidentally looking at the trap trying to guarantee a kill, and I get teleported straight in the middle of a working flamethrower
I'm in the habit of immediately jumping backwards after every melee attack because of this. Just play into it, expect the lunge will happen.
-
@MadMoeZel said:
i found an interaction that invalidates HRV path.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/25HNWBOGNWH3/image.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/JJNJE8WFQE1O/image.png
this one pyramid block is the only difference.
edit - this fixes it????
This is crazy.
I also found a similarly perplexing issue, where having a slope ceiling was fine, but replacing this with a corner piece (which technically provides more clearance above his head) was invalid.
-
Ooh, so that's why my HRV refuses to move on one of my outposts.
It's social, Merchantville by TheSeraphor if you're curious.
I believe I have a second wave holocube hiding a bomb trap, just above a quarter ramp. (it's at the bottom of the first main slope, if that makes sense) This outpost doesn't have real misdirection though, it has a couple short diversions, one for the tombs and one is just a minor dead end because I had space for it.
@MadMoeZel said:
this can also be used responsibly to create a second path for harvey over second wave blocks that is longer than harvey's path after genmat is touched. normally harvey only walks on top of second wave blocks if it's his shortest path. but yes, when not given an alternative route it freezes harvey. i personally like the ability to cause harvey to route-change without having to make a 800 block long maze just to hide the second access point. i don't like mazes myself so prefer not to build them but if i want to use a second wave floor along the path i want harvey to walk it's maze, or 2nd wave holo above pyramid block with a little obfuscation.
The route change is a fun mechanic, and I hope this doesn't get patched out (again, I use it myself on Paynesville, though not brilliantly due to the lack of space), but freezing HRV however does seem like an exploit, it's no different to killing HRV with a piston, which the devs have stated is unintentional and will be fixed, especially as this is now reproducible.
-
@DaddyMyers_Mori said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3422951#Comment_3422951
Not really, you simply want to encourage players to play "fill" role. It's for better queue times.
I doubt players would be against it. Most of survivors play soloQ sometimes, if they can play only SWF, I wouldn't really care about their opinion anyway.
"Why should I get less BP for playing with friends? We don't even use VC!"
-
- The survivor has made the choice to queue up for the game they were absent for, and is tantamount to DCing. If they get instantly killed, they deserved it.
- The other survivors don't deserve to have a team member quit immediately, just like DCers or those who give up on hook, and as the killer, it is within your power to keep them in the game a little longer.
Therefore what I usually do, is down and hook them immediately, but then leave them alone for a while. Other survivors get to farm an unhook and a heal off them. I will then continue to play normally, as if that AFK survivor isn't there, for a while at least until (if) the survivors gain a lead in gens, in which case I will go reap my AFK survivor for the hook, likely baiting another survivor out who wants to farm another unhook, and eliminate the chance of them returning late game for a comeback play. If the survivors don't gain a lead and I dominate because 3v1, then I'll leave the AFKer alone until it becomes a hindrance to the other survivors, e.g. there's two left, I'll eliminate the AFKer and give hatch to the last survivor. (unless I need the 4K for a challenge ofc, but that's rare)
-
Players who build impossible bases, basses with ratios averaging too high should no longer recieve rewards. Too many bases are buit with no creativity, but simply a smattering of traps in every direction that pound a play relentlessly. There should be a system in place to avoid rewarding players for that.
Soft agree, there should be a 'fall off' in rewards after a certain number of kills (I believe there already is in terms of parts/synthite, but prestige should as well), and accolades should promote outposts, so that those that receive more accolades get raided more (in conjunction with the negative feedback loop of outposts that get more raids are promoted less to balance out)
A player should have to be able to play and beat their own base before publishing. This way they prove it can be done.
If a player can't beat their own base, they should not be allowed to publish it.
Hard disagree. needing to re run your own outpost every time you make a change to it would be far too tedious. There's already not enough time for players to raid enough other outpost to offset the raids needed for their own (e.g. if you expect 10 raids on your outpost, you need to raid 10 others for each of yours) and if you need to factor in time to run your own outposts in order to publish them as well, that's going to make maters even worse, and the number of raids received will drop for everyone. In addition, not everyone has the same skill set, someone may be a good builder, but a bad raider, and they shouldn't be limited to what they can create.
Outposts are already 'possible' due to the HRV path. The only thing that can make outposts virtually 'impossible' is over use of second wave opaque corrosive cubes and incinerators (and even these can be beaten by shield use and speed running).
-
I don't know if there's some odd additional qualifiers for difficulty rating, or if it's a bug. But I've had two Dangerous outposts (on the verge of Brutal) suddenly jump up to Brutal rating after I entered and cleared them, without actually changing a single thing.
It's already a pain to have to gimp your own outposts to keep them in the Dangerous category, when they're clearly not difficult in the slightest. But if there is some system of recalculating difficulty based on actual kill ratios, that would be great, and should allow for the cut off values to be decreased to give more leeway to Dangerous outposts that aren't actually difficult.
-
I think this is over-complicating things.
A simpler but similar solution, would be to 'nerf' the top performing high mobility killers, by resetting their power charges upon being stunned, by any means.
Blight's power basically fully recharges during the stun animation as it stands, and Nurse is barely affected by it too. Spirit could also be a contender. (not too sure on Billy, and Oni is in a good place with his limitations, he already loses his power upon stun anyway) Not only would this strengthen the effect of DS against these killers (while leaving it less oppressive against regular M1/low-mobility killers), but it would also provide meaningful but fair counterplay to them in general, DS or no DS, as pallets are available to everyone.
This is just an adjustment of killer powers, and can be tailored to those who are most oppressive, without the need for a new power-altering effect bolted on to a survivor perk.
Couple this with a slight buff to the DS stun duration, to account for the time spent in animation, (not quite as long as 5 seconds though, 4 seconds maybe) and I think it would be the perfect solution.
-
@DaddyMyers_Mori said:
I would rather give BP bonus for soloQ.
I don't really care about playing against SWF.
Unfortunately this would serve to discriminate between SoloQ and SWF, and only result in 'penalising' survivors playing with friends, even when this confers no advantage, such as SWF without VC.
-
@ReverseVelocity said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3422004#Comment_3422004
I don't know, I think it would lead to killers immediately blaming a loss on SWF instead of considering how they could've played better. You see it pretty often even now.
That's assuming all the common preconceptions are true.
SWF aren't always super coordinated, some don't even use VC. And I've had some kick ass soloq survivor games and been accused of being in a SWF when I wasn't.
Currently, killers will lose and say "that was definitely a SWF" and then they'll slaughter the next game and SWF won't even cross their mind, based on zero evidence, all of which just serves to cement their own confirmation biases.
I would imagine that any killers who are hung up on whether or not they went against a SWF, will be eager to check it up in the post game, and will regularly have their assumptions broken.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3422004#Comment_3422004
This reminds me of the argument that if killers just had X (see patch 6.1) they’d stop Y (camping and tunneling). It never comes to pass. Killers shouldn’t see prestige or if survivors are in any variant of SWF. Cuz even if they did it wouldn’t eliminate any toxic or maladaptive killer behaviors.
That's a very absolutist stance to take.
I never said it would solve lobby dodging overnight. But dispelling paranoia around SWF by desensitising people to them with the realisation that not all SWF are unbeatable, would reduce how many killers routinely lobby dodge when they suspect the survivors might be SWF.
Similarly, if killers had [a reason not to camp and tunnel] then there would be a reduction in [camping and tunnelling].
That's just a fact. It's demonstrable, by the fact that killers camp and tunnel more now than they used to, which means there was a reason, something to do with how the game used to be built, that didn't encourage camping and tunnelling as much. If camping and tunnelling were just an immutable fact of the game with no hope of ever changing the prevalence of them, then every killer would camp and tunnel every single game, which they don't.
-
So my overall point here is I’d really hope they can find a way to tell if it was an intentional DC or not.
Unfortunately no. Anything that can cause an accidental disconnection can be reliably replicated by unplugging your router.
-
As for maps, I would hazard a suggestion of the Swamp maps. This is because it allows decent views for stalking and gaining evil quickly, and there are fewer/less regularly placed lockers in which survivors can jump into and avoid Tombstone. The downside is survivors can see you coming easier, but there's also the added benefit of you being able to secure potential 3 gens as it can be difficult for survivors to complete the gens near the center.
-
I think the 'reel in' effect (either you to other objects or other objects to you) sounds a bit unnecessary and a bit too complicated.
The idea of a weapon that has unlimited ammo at a cost (slow reload, short range) could be a neat idea though.
-
@TorQueMoD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3422173#Comment_3422173
WTH the forum just deleted my reply after I edited it.
When did they implement hook progressing pausing during camping? I never noticed that.
I don't understand how speeding up gens would not be abused? You would just bait the killer into camping and then finish all the gens faster. It could be abused just as easily.
Maybe they shouldn't stop hook progression entirely when someone is hook camping. They should just make hook progression go at 0.5x when the killer is nearby. Similar to how we all get Borrowed time for 2 seconds after being unhooked.
One survivor on the hook, so up to three free to work on gens.
It would be more efficient to have all three survivors repairing gens, than to give up one survivor to bait the killer into camping, in order to get a 5-15% buff for the remaining two on gens.
3 > 2+15%
-
@TorQueMoD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3421832#Comment_3421832
Actually, maybe that is exactly the answer. If the killer is hook camping then it stops your hook progression. That's actually a perfect and brilliant solution. Give every hook camped survivor Camaraderie (Steve Harrington's slowed-down hook progression). Then you're both punishing hook camping while also encouraging the killer to do something else because you're not directly punishing them with a debuff of any kind. The gen buffs are probably unnecessary because you don't really want to make gens faster for the survivors, you just want to discourage hook camping so if you make it pointless then killers won't do it.
Seriously BEHAVIOR - THIS IS THE ANSWER! Stop hook progression any time the killer is X distance from someone on a hook! There's really no downside to that implementation if you balance it correctly. And it doesn't have to stop hook progression forever, just for 30 seconds max. Then hook camping is still a strategy, but a less effective/risky one.
Actually, stopping hook progression is exactly what they tried, and that was abused by survivors baiting the killer into camping, so that the hooked survivor was never sacrificed. It's essentially unlimited Reassurance.
Increasing gen speeds however cannot be abused, because any attempt to bait the killer into camping would be less effective on gen speed than just repairing the gens when the killer is camping, and the killer can easily avoid it by not camping, AND it doesn't do anything when killers are most justified to camp, when all gens have been repaired.