Seraphor
Seraphor
About
- Username
- Seraphor
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,011
- Last Active
Comments
-
@VaporLion said:
basekit is 10s though since they buffed it, like sizzlingmario said.
Then in each case you change 55.64 to 56.24, and in the "discounting the first second" version it's 55.84, so you lose 0.4 meters.
This just makes that initial speed boost all the more powerful, as 117% is faster than the killer, rather than 110% for 5s followed by 107% for 8 seconds, which isn't faster than the killer. This gives you more opportunity to evade the killer in the initial 5 seconds.
This makes it even more conclusive. You're definitely asking for a nerf to Guardian if you don't want the boost to overlap with the 5s basekit.
-
@ReverseVelocity said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3414708#Comment_3414708
Kinda weird how they fixed that for the Basekit Endurance/Haste but forgot about Guardian.
It doesn't actually make that much of a difference. You cover the same ground in the same amount of time.
The 5 seconds basekit and 8 seconds Guardian overlap, because the speed increases are both in effect. Instead of running 7% faster for 5 seconds followed by 8 more seconds, you instead run 14% faster for 5 seconds and then a further 3 seconds of 7% faster.
To math it out:
Sequential (basekit 5s + Guardian 8s of +7%)
13 seconds of 4.28m/s = 55.64 meters covered
Stacking (5s combined, 3s Guardian, 5s normal)
5 seconds of 4.56m/s + 3 seconds of 4.28m/s + 5 seconds of 4m/s = 55.64 meters covered
If anything, having them overlap is more beneficial, because you gain an even greater burst of speed at the start, in which you match the killers speed so they definitively can't catch up to you in those initial 5 seconds, granting you a guaranteed lead for when the speed drops back 3 seconds afterwards. While a constant +7% for 13 seconds would be less noticeable and the killer would be able to catch up to you in those first 5 seconds much more easily.
Even if you discount the first second of Guardians speed boost and adjust the equation as follows, it's barely noticeable loss of less than 1/3rd of a meter, and you still benefit from that initial greater speed boost:
4 seconds of 4.56m/s + 4 seconds of 4.28m/s + 5 seconds of 4m/s = 55.36 meters covered
This is actually the more powerful effect, so I imagine the reason why BT and NOLB work differently was to prevent those perks being too strong when combined together or with Guardian.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3414664#Comment_3414664
As i said, i´m not against unlimited revives. It just feels weird as a solo.
But sure, Brutal needs all the love it can get. If those bases get only raided by co-op players, than so be it.
Maybe we´ll see a trend of normal and dangerous bases being run by solos only and brutal by co-op players. Would definetly help the base owners.
Wouldn't be a bad outcome, but we still need a more competent system of calculating difficulty to go with all this. Maybe if Brutal bases were truly Brutal, rather than simply large 'Dangerous' bases that have spent too much of sporadic trap placement, it wouldn't be such a big problem of co-ops burning through Brutal bases with little challenge.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3414574#Comment_3414574
Yes, they are dying more often anyway. Because they usually are less cautious or skilled. But since most traps are 1 time use, it heavily defeats the purpose if all are triggered by someone suiciding and then are useless. For example, traps that are not 1 time use, like the Flamethrower, cost more and impact the rating more than one time use traps. Same goes for the mods that allow repeated use. It makes bases more expensive.
So maybe, give bases against co-op players a lower difficulty rating or let traps recharge/be usable more than once without mods.
Just a thought. Probably not viable.
But yeah accolades are probably doubled, IF the raiders give accolades.
Does it matter if traps are one-time if you get more deaths for it? Wouldn't you rather have two co-op raiders die 20 times in total while bypassing certain mechanisms by expending limited use traps, than one solo raider die 2-4 times because they're being super cautious and memorising each trap combination in sequence?
Additionally, I've found a significant portion of deaths from co-op runs on my outposts are due to friendly fire, something that doesn't really happen in solo outside of the odd grenade to the feet.
They specifically mentioned that they intended for co-op to be an avenue for lesser-skilled players to partake in higher difficulty raids. Which is a very good thing considering the 'Brutal Boycott'. Besides, the difficulty of your outpost as it relates to the raider, doesn't have an impact on the rewards you receive. 1 death from a Dangerous base awards you as much as 1 death on a Brutal base, the difference pertains to the raider, with twice the genmat acquired from a higher tier difficulty compared to the one below it.
-
@Tsulan said:
I wouldn´t mind unlimited revives (like now) if builders get more points from co-op players. They´re playing brutal maps in easy mode, so the least thing they could do is reward builders more for it.
You're literally rewarded for deaths. Co-op players die more.
Also (I've not played co-op yet so I'm not certain) but don't co-op players each give up to 2 Accolades? The devs have flat out said that Accolades are designed to be the most rewarding metric.
-
You also get a nice 'sand' colour and a darker grey if you have both the Necropolis and DBD packs.
I'm sure the first DLC pack will give us a bluish-green to go with the marine theme.
Makes a decent selling point for future DLC.
-
@hastarkis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3412863#Comment_3412863
They have formula to separate maps and offer them to different people.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/A3PMSP9UJ2NS/image.png
I don't know if it contains rank in any way but I guess they pretty could use it to calculate things which could lead to smaller map pool for higher (less flooded) ranks (and therefore higher chances for every map here to be raided). Of course it's only my guess. But it makes sense if they try to show similar rank bases to similar rank raiders.
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3412779#Comment_3412779
I don't have time through a day to manage my maps this way :c I buy 9k maps only and keep them active 24 hours. Like I activate them at 3 am (GMT+3), go to sleep, to work, come back into game at 10-12pm, check everything, raid and later (at 3am) I prestige and reactivate. But I don't get any spikes like you described. My raids seem random, without any time consistency. One raid here, one raid there, that's it. Not like all four in ohe hour. That's why I stopped. All my maps are on hold now except one.
Well, I guess, if you can activate your outposts at right time for 2 hours, get value and turn the maps off till next time it's better than one long run. Sad.
But it makes sense if they try to show similar rank bases to similar rank raiders.
I don't think that makes any sense.
Your ability to raid is largely unrelated to your ability to build.
Maybe it would make sense if we had separate 'Raider' and 'Builder' ranks but...
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3392742#Comment_3392742
Thank goodness that’s less than 5% of the playerbase. Shouldn’t be something you or like 95% of the killers in this forum will ever need to worry about.
Actually 80% of forum users are in that top 5%.
-
With 5 gens left to repair? Probably. With 1 or 2 left to repair? Maybe not. With the exit gates power? Nah.
It all ultimately relies on the skill (or lack thereof) of the players.
For an extreme example, I once had a survivor match with a friend (not on comms), we ended up on Lerys against a Clown. The other two survivors got themselves downed and hooked relatively quickly (before the first gen was finished) they both took their chances and gave up on first hook. My and my friend then proceeded to tag team being chased by the killer, evading and/or running them for long enough to repair all 4.5 gens remaining between us, and escaped.
I haven't had a game quite that miraculously one-sided for a long time, but it nevertheless happened, and other similar turn-arounds have occurred on a slightly less extreme scale, which means it can happen again.
-
You can make arguments for why a given map is survivor or killer sided, but this is ultimately conjecture. Do you have evidence the maps are favouring one side too much? That evidence would be kill rates. A map that was truly survivor sided would have a significantly lower kill rate than the average, and vice versa. BHVR have this and have acted on them before when they reworked Eyrie of Crows. Unless you have kill rates to indicate a significant bias one way or the other, this is ultimately just "I don't like this map". You could say BHVR have a very loose margin for what is deemed 'significant' so as not to be constantly reworking maps all the time, but again, conjecture. I'm sure if one map being so survivor sided that it required a rework didn't result in it being killswitched before, then no current map in the roster is so imbalanced that it should be killswitched.
For example, most think Midwich is killer sided. The arguments for why that is are sound. However there's also the issue of hook placement, exit gate positions, and strong loops that require breaking down doors. There aren't really any 'weak' pallets either, besides the two in the chemistry lab and the library. These all serve to balance the fact that Midwich is a small map on two levels, but many may not recognise this due to confirmation bias. People are more likely to recognise unfavourable conditions (this map is too killer sided because I always die) than favourable ones (I survived on this map, must be an anomaly because it's killer sided), this is called confirmation bias.
This is also largely why I don't believe map offerings are a problem. Maybe they are at super high comp level play, but I don't believe the kill rates are actually that varied for the general playerbase. Most maps are generally fairly balanced, with different aspects favouring one side like strong loops or larger map sizes for survivors, balanced by different aspects favouring the other like potential 3 gens or close hook placements, not to mention that fact that different killers have different map affinities, ultimately resolving in relatively even kill rates.
Anecdotally (because after all that's all each of us have), I have died and escaped on every map, and I have scored 0 kills and 4 kills on every map. All maps are viable, which means the balance issues, which I'm sure exist, probably aren't that significant.
-
"My efforts as one person aren't enough to make up for the community-wide problem which is a result of faulty difficulty calculations, therefore I'm going to make more problems instead."
-
@cubanchris said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3412674#Comment_3412674
Completely agree. It is hilarious watching the one guy die to a trap then his partner die to the same thing. Hell, that happens to me all the time when I am playing with my bud. Then I am like "dude you were supposed to get that one"
Raider 1 runs past Impaler that activates behind him, leaving him unscathed.
Raider 2 runs into activated Impaler and dies.
Or even better.
Raider 1 runs round corner, aggros Warmonger, jumps back and shoots... Raider 2 right in the head as he passes by.
-
Hawkins
Night time on Coldwind
The mature attitude of other players and the ability to accept a loss without blaming everything except their own performance, and ability to move onto the next game without taking out their frustrations on entirely unrelated players.
-
Because there are too many perks that are too strong, and it's far more important to deal with those, which are actually affecting game balance, over the perks that are too weak, which are definitely not currently affecting balance.
I mean, it's a problem of their own making, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem.
-
Now I could definitely see the argument for using this in the cases of exploit use such as second wave corrosive cubes with incinerator death zones. Or when builders intentionally troll raiders with inaccessible forgotten tombs.
But when the outpost was just "too hard" and you died "too many times"... that just makes you sound like a sore loser.
You can abandoned an outpost you don't want to raid, if you find it too hard. But if you're already feeding it 20 kills, it's clearly got enough going for it to encourage you to keep trying.
-
@gcuesoterica said:
I don't think about it. I make a base that I hope would be fun and challenging for a player like me (I am potato at raiding and will never improve.) Some players speedrun them with 0 deaths, some rack up 9+.
My two active 'dangerous' bases have ratios of 3.6 and 2.0, and my 'normal' is at 1.8. This seems fine.
This is pretty much in line with how I think mine have performed, and how kill ratios should align with difficulty.
Something like...
Normal : 1-2
Dangerous: 2-5
Brutal: 5+
-
@MadMoeZel said:
i've handled this problem by adding long tunnels or mazes to the front of those outposts to discourage retreat
Excellent! This is the correct response. Instead of hoping raiders choose to sacrifice themselves to easily escapable traps and getting salty when they don't, build the outpost in a way that escaping them is significantly more difficult.
The map edge is not an exploit, it's a core function of the game. Like being able to survive grappling through 1 corrosive cube, or being able to poke around corners to scout out potential traps.
-
"Why won't you willingly walk into my poorly designed trap and die?"
-
@MadMoeZel said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3412608#Comment_3412608
i got mine running mostly brutals and refusing to ever leave a map.
Good for you, but its clear to anyone that has a Normal outpost from the replays, that rank grinders taking the easy safe route are the vast majority of those playing Normal.
That means Master isn't a badge of honour for being high skilled, it's just a grind reward.
-
Glitch or not, I haven't once had an issue with an outpost that kills harvey. I havent come across a 'maze' outpost that has taken more than 10 minutes to complete in total, and a few of the harvey killing outposts have been genuinely well made and fun.
-
@MadMoeZel said:
funny thing, you always have infinite revives, solo or co-op. the difference is co-ops don't get the traps reset. so what you're really saying with "Whoever requested to remove unlimited revives from coop. You are killing the game." is 'i need the traps to not reset and you limit respawns will make me not want to play cause i can't beat the base from start to finish even with help'
how many times are you actually getting revived in normal? and if you're needing this for brutal, maybe you aren't a brutal raider?
"Tell them to fix rank, it is currently too grindy. Reduce it to 20k instead of 34k. Master rank is what really matters since it is a ranking list with active player listing feedback."
so you want the rank climb to be faster. not everyone has the time or skill to dedicate to being a master raider, and the fact you want the threshold lower is rude and devalues the efforts every current master went through to get them. you want to be a master? perform like one.
"Performing like a master" = Speedruning the shortest, easiest Normal bases. Because that's how everyone who got to Master already did it.
-
Maybe find a better way of using guards besides ambushing the raider the second they load in?
If I can't kite the 20 Warmongers that immediately charge at me to the entrance to pick them off one by one, I may as well abandon the moment I load in and spot them all glaring at me.
-
@Darkyan said:
Wait doesn't the game pick up every dropped currency and give it to you when you return to the lobby?
I know building modes does it, so i just stopped caring about both drops and my currency is just kinda rising on its own.
Honest question, I'm totally not paying attention to drops anymore
You definitely have to pick it up when raiding.
I raided one outpost today where they signposted you to the tombs, but had them blocked up. I still managed to whack the corner of it, but all the loot was trapped in an impenetrable cube of windows.
Apart from that it was a tiny outpost with a poor attempt at a killbox so I grabbed the genmat and left.
I left the raid with nothing.
-
Yep, in addition to low raid numbers, Brutal bases get raided far less than Normal or Dangerous ones (though keep in mind Normals are full of speedrunners trying to rank up).
Looks like you have a tendency for massive Brutal outposts. You're better off building smaller outposts and keeping them in the Dangerous category.
That's not a guarantee though, you'll probably still only see about 5 raids per cycle, which still isn't enough if you happen to wipe out at a high prestige.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3412094#Comment_3412094
And that removes everything from the map?
Yes, try it
-
@sizzlingmario4 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3411977#Comment_3411977
I guess I didn't clarify that as well as I could have, I see what you're saying. I'm not disagreeing - hook grabs on healthy survivors are dumb and reward camping far more than they have any right to.
Vault grabs only working on injured survivors makes sense because it would go against the point of vaulting if it wasn't like that. If the killer is close enough to grab you out of a vault and you could be grabbed while healthy, you might as well not vault at all. Other grabs involve survivors staying still in one place completing an objective, vaults don't.
I completely agree with the reasons why Vault grabs don't work, while Gen/Chest/Locker grabs do.
I simply believe hook grabs fall more within the realm of Vault grabs than the others
-
@sizzlingmario4 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3411906#Comment_3411906
I mean by that logic if you wanted to make it consistent you’d have to remove healthy grabs from a bunch of other interactions too, such as chests, exit gates, totems, and even certain killer-related objects (alarm clocks, jigsaw boxes, etc.). I don’t think that’s really necessary. It rewards killers for successfully sneaking up on a survivor and punishes survivors who aren’t paying attention or go for risky plays. I got gen-grabbed yesterday for the first time in months with it being the last gen at 99% and I deserved it for being greedy.
Vault grabs are the only ones that have the injured requirement. They are the exception and it’s good that way because being able to vault-grab healthy survivors wouldn’t be good.
Hook grabs on the other hand, reward camping way too much in their current state.
"it’s good that way because being able to vault-grab healthy survivors wouldn’t be good." That's circular logic.
Why is it ok for Vaults but not Hooks?
Given the multitude of reasons why it would be healthier for the game, including removing undue rewards for camping and the stupid game of ping chicken.
-
@pseudechis said:
It adds an element of inherent risk to hook saves. All survivor activity should have some form of inherent risk in it.
You risk making noise and being found through actions.
You risk getting grabbed at vaults, lockers and hooks.
etc etc.
This creates the necessary tension to make survivor exciting and the killer threatening.
The fog is a scary place and you aren’t meant to feel safe in it. It’s your motivation to escape, it’s atmospheric, It’s a good thing.
There's no tension if the survivor can see the killer who can see them going for the hook save, safe on the knowledge that the killer can't hit them without risking a hook trade.
And that's the thing, a hook trade on a healthy survivor is already in the killers favour. Removing hook grabs would guaranteed hook trades and the killer is still in the better position.
Meanwhile there's no reason to reward camping killers with free healthy downs for not leaving the hook. Hook grabs just give every killer the same camping power as Bubba, providing everyone plays a ridiculous game of chicken with each others ping.
-
A similar synergy already exists with Nemesis + Rancor, it's just a different activation mechanism.
At the very least if you're healthy, then you will get prior warning Rancor is in effect when you get hit for the first time after the gates are powered, similar to how landing a pallet stun will give you the warning Rancor is in play with Nemesis.
-
This is a successful run for me, and it was still not enough to prestige. This outpost is also on the cusp of Brutal, so I can't even make any changes to it, just refill it over and over.
You can also see the sort of results my other outposts get.
Additionally, the raid count doesnt add up. 2 are missing, despite only one of the replays showing a 0 death 0 genmat result (which actually had 3 deaths)
The funny this is, it's not a hard outpost, as the kill rate from the replay menu would imply, despite the game thinking even one additional basic cube would make it Brutal. It has one room with nothing but 4 Enforcers, 1 Hornet and a couple of Impalers, followed by one surprise holocube-corrosive cube trap combo, after this is another holocube hiding three Warmongers, then a final holocube + claw trap and impaler combo, before the genmat. Second Wave consists solely of three additional Warmongers who approach the genmat.
-
@cbird2796 said:
Devs need to just limit those wedges pieces from going into that configuration. i would think it’s on their fix list.
This would probably be harder, and more limiting for builders, than simply tweaking collision settings to allow players to squeeze through. It's clearly very close if reports of being able to make it through with certain manoeuvres are true.
-
Sounds like the DBD generator prop. You need to buy DBD on the same platform as MYM to unlock it.
-
@Ilya_Lizard said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3409927#Comment_3409927
I tend to believe that the fast depletion still gonna be a problem, despite any social raids improvements. Social raids, as a whole concept, are not part of the game itself and do not feel rewarding, or important.
People run active raids for the rewards.
So give rewards for social raids, even in a limited capacity. Something like the Champion Outposts that you can run roughly ever 2nd or 3rd raid (depending on difficulty level), give us a similar pay off for choosing a social raid (of your choice, which would be have to be easier to find) once per day or something like that. Combine this with a lesser reward for having your social bases raided, and then outposts wouldn't be 'dead' once relegated to Social.
-
50% of the original purchase price would seem fair to me.
It's largely, if not entirely, not the builders fault if an outpost 'fails'. You can't make people raid your outpost, and everything you can do only affects what the raider does after they've entered it.
-
The first wouldn't be a problem if Social raids were more incentivised and accessible, giving a second and unlimited life to any truly 'good' raids. If Mastered outposts could be entered into a 'Social Pool' when they've finished their run, and there was some kind of incentive to run them such as a daily or weekly bonus, maybe with some kind of 'highest rated' filter as well, then it would be worthwhile. You'd get 10 prestige levels to develop your outpost, then promote it to Social afterwards.
-
Agreed. With the bulk of synthite gains coming from that sweet 250 dump on levelling up the Chimera, and a pitiful amount from actual raids varying between 0 and 100 (I've had some large outposts where all of the three tombs gave nothing but parts), going into raids with a goal of gaining synthite seems to be petering out. I've found that raiders don't even seek out my tombs anymore, they're too focused on the fastest completion so they can get the genmat and the exp as fast as possible.
-
@Darkyan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/comment/3409496#Comment_3409496
Sounds like a problem inherent to the game's core mecanic.
About 90% of the coop replays I've watched share the exact same problem, someone triggers all the traps and dies to them, while his exploring teammate comes back to revive him, experiencing absolutely nothing of the thrill. And then they both die. And the exact same thing happens, the coop teammate tries to progress with no knowledges of the trap, but his friend, who knows the path, triggers everything again until he dies to RNG.
We currently don't have any true coop mecanics, levers, doors, separate coop paths. All we have is infinite revives, which enforces that type of play style. The "I don't care about traps, my buddy here can revive me".
Now, i imagine getting 70 kills to two stubborn guys can be very thrilling to some builders, but lets be real, you guys wouldn't get 70 kills if it wasn't for that broken playstyle. You didn't design those traps for 70 kills, this is just your monkey brain going wild on pretty numbers for KD ratio.
This is just raw inflation. "Oh this outpost has 765 kills, must be very brutal" "Nope, just luckily had a lot of coop players killing themselves" The true average is 5 deaths.
It's certainly more interesting than watching a sole raider spend 20 minutes slowly inching around every corner, disarming every trap before they activate.
-
@NotJared said:
Just to add to my original thoughts:
I understand that the "rules" can be "broken" by setting bases to Social, but respectfully I don't think anyone wants to put our bases in "Social" just to make these kinds of bases.
Social raids and bases earn no progress, no accolades, and offer no discoverability to become visible and get played unless you know the specific name and creator ID of the base. With the immense amount of grind to earn all of the upgrades, traps, mods, augments, and rank points, it's nearly worthless to spend in-game currency and up to a dozen hours building an entertaining level only for no one to play it and no progress to be made on it if they do.
I would much rather either Harvey's movement capabilities be greatly increased, or even new interactive mechanics be added such as moving platform blocks to allow Harvey to traverse greater distances, or something to change somehow so we can build anything we've been advertised without being told that it's an illegal build.
The solution really is to make social bases more appealing.
With 'active' bases being the 'bread and butter' of the raiding that provides the most sustained rewards, you could still give a form of 'prestige' to social bases, by making them both more accessible and more incentivising to run.
Something like a daily or weekly bonus for completing a social raid, combined with some kind of 'highest rated social outposts this week/month' menu. It could showcase truly 'good' outposts instead of the potluck you get from your allocated active outposts.
-
@KenwanObinobi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3409514#Comment_3409514
I'm wondering the level you play at cause thinking you can win games against good survivors without camping/tunneling nor regression perks... is out of my understanding capabilities.
Can you end a chase in less than 2 minutes with a M1 killer against good survivors ? No, so what are you talking about ?
Ah the classic "I can't do it so you must be a low level than me"
Have you considered that you're at a higher MMR than you should be because you've been relying on crutch perks to carry you?
FYI, the 'top MMR' is comprised of the highest 5% of the playerbase. So what you're doing is trying to dismiss 95% of the playerbase.
-
@KenwanObinobi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3409505#Comment_3409505
A good survivor doesn't need to be healed to hold a chase for 30 to 45 seconds against most killers.
At high MMR they never heal and use resilience to boost the gen rush. They also use adrenaline to get a free heal when all gens are done. Pair this with communication (if SWF) and they can leave the generator they work on 10 to 15 seconds BEFORE the killer is there, drawing huge distances, enough that the killer needs 20 seconds to catch up.
Only noobs are looking for heal every time they are injured.
When a gen can be done in 40 seconds and when there are 15 safe pallets per map, the pressure is against the killer, not the survivors.
Survivors have so many tools to be invincible... Play killer, you will see it by yourself.
I do play killer, and I've never had to rely on meta regression perks. I literally never used CoB, OC or PR, so these nerfs have zero affect on me as a killer. Meanwhile survivors are less efficient at healing. Bonus.
Stop being a meta slave and maybe the world won't end every time they inevitably nerf the most powerful meta perks.
-
@KenwanObinobi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3409500#Comment_3409500
There is, patrolling and defending gens must be more efficient than camping/tunneling.
It is not the case anymore with the huge regression perks nerf.
If you play a killer that cannot, power wise, end chases in less than 30 seconds, the game is a guaranteed loss if you do not camp/tunnel the 1st survivor out of the game.
But it is absolutely the case with healing nerfs. Survivors have less chance to recover from your attacks, which makes directly pressuring survivors off gens (as opposed to say indirectly pressuring gens via Pain Res and camping) much more effective.
-
@Darkyan said:
"Infinite revives are fun for coop"
Must be nice being the coop leader...
cuz I get the crumbles of a biscuit in the back as my teammate speed runs through outposts triggering 90% of the traps while I sit behind him and revive.
Coop isn't fun as it is right now and, as subjective as "Fun" is, you can't tell me that it's genuinely entertaining at the same level for the both of you when outposts are so heavily balanced towards Solo objective and singular paths.
Coop needs balancing, just as much as exploits needs fixing.
"Learning through dying is fun" Yea. That's the entire game right there. You die, you retry. And in some case the outposts changes after death through mods.
The rest is pretty correct tho.
Rank sucks, rewards are totally unknown, apparently there's rewards?
Exploits needs fixing and need communication from the devs.
Syntite is fine, prestige needs a rework. Too costly, not rewarding and then base disappears forever, which creates a lump of bad copy-cat bases instead of having good spread out community builds.
cuz I get the crumbles of a biscuit in the back as my teammate speed runs through outposts triggering 90% of the traps while I sit behind him and revive.
Sounds like a problem with your teammate.
That said, a limit to revives before a forced reset, maybe 3 would be fine.
-
You can't 'prevent' camping any more than you can 'prevent' genrushing.
It's a valid tactic, and in some cases, the only tactic. During endgame when the killer has no other objectives to defend other than the hooked survivor, or when the killer can see all other survivors approaching the hook for the save.
The problem is exploiting this to bait survivors or force a sacrifice on first hook. Camping can't be 'prevented', but it should be 'punished' in the form of a higher cost for doing so, or not such an oppressive 'reward'.
One thing that could help is the removal of healthy hook grabs. It's not fun for either side anyway dancing around each others ping like that, and the killer doesn't deserve to score two hooks out of camping one. A hook trade is still guaranteed, so the killer will still have at least one survivor on the hook, so it's not 'preventing' camping. It just means it doesn't 'pay' as well.
Secondly is disabling certain killer powers by the hook. Most newer killers have this anyway, and you'd really only need to extend it to Bubba and Billy anyway. Make it so they can't charge up the chainsaw within 10 meters of a hooked survivor. If they want to use their power at the hook, they need to start their sprint further away from the hook and run in, giving survivors a window to react and dodge our of the way.
-
@Akumakaji said:
After tossing and turning and crying in my sleep for what they did to my precious SH:PR I made a thread here, cying some more, and the good people explained to me, how it actually isn't half bad. The perk is still very good, but now required a little bit of game sense and tactical accument of when to hook survivors on scourge hooks. If I could change one thing, though, it would be the double restriction of 4 tokens and each individual survivor. I think that just limiting PR to 4 tokens would have been good enough, BUT the difference isnt that big, so whatever.
CoB though got really wrecked. The info part of it was mostly just a welcomed add-on, 99% of the killers had it equipped for the regression, and now the regression is barely noticable. Thats a real shame.
The problem with CoB is that since OC was reworked in 6.1, these two perks do virtually the same thing and they stack. Making them impossible to balance.
If you put CoB in a good place with a healthy amount of regression, then it becomes overpowered when combined with OC and vice versa.
They should never have added regression to Overcharge, and instead doubled down on it's skill check mechanic. But I think what they wanted to go for was having two similar perks, one from an original (potentially free) chapter, and one better version from a later licensed (premium) chapter.
Personally, I would probably buff CoB to about 150%, and then remove regression from Overcharge, instead Overcharge would have new effects based on whether survivors hit or missed it's skill check. Hit = instant 5-8% regression with no noise notification, Miss = blocks gen for 10-20 seconds and provide info to the killer in the form of a white gen. This would prevent it from amplifying CoB and would instead compliment it. If you kept the survivor off the gen for 60s you get value out of CoB, if you didn't, then you got guaranteed value out of Overcharge.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
I honestly dont know how someone can look at the state of SoloQ and instantly jump to "SWF is the issue here".
SoloQ has always been in a rough spot, but BHVR pushing the game to be more competitive while also not providing SoloQ the resources to deal with competitive-based situations has left it in an even worse position than ever; even after the HUD changes.
One of the things that has hurt SoloQ the most is the inconsistent teammates, it's always been an issue (kinda). When BHVR changes SBMM to be less strict, it made the game significantly worse for SoloQ because you cannot rely on your teammates to do anything right.
But here is the thing, BHVR is in a catch-22, if the make SBMM more strict than people will complain that Killer is too stressful, but if you dont change SBMM, the game becomes miserable for SoloQ. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. SBMM/MMR has overall hurt the game in almost every way possible, and has made the flaws with the game insanely noticeable.
I could go on and on with hundreds of other possible factors that made the game the way it is but frankly I dont think people want to sit here and read a 10-page essay of anecdotal commentary involving the state of the game, regardless, I hope my point is clear, the issue is not SWF, it's BHVR's inability to make effective changes.
The thing is, these problems existed before SBMM as well. Old 'rank based' matchmaking was just as flawed, and doubly so at the top end, where the top 5% would be matched with middle rank 7-5 players more often than not, instead of being matched amongst themselves. I'm sure this was great for the top 5% as it meant they got easy games every now and then, but it was hell if you were an average player who always ended up stuck at rank 5.
Let's not forget rank reset, in which for about two weeks every months it would be sheer pot luck and if you weren't a top player you basically couldn't play without getting wrecked every other game. Or smurfing, where players who intentionally lower their ranks to bully lower skilled players.
SBMM didn't make things fundamentally worse, it just painted an ill-defined target on which to throw your misgivings. MMR is unknown, therefore it must be the problem.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3408633#Comment_3408633
I would expect that if survivors cannot heal (forget trying to reset to save against a camper), they’re going to prioritize gens / gates. There’s really no logical reason to do otherwise. And I would expect that killers who cannot efficiently manage gens will focus more on securing kills via tunneling and camping because that too makes sense. There are perk alternatives for both sides but none of them are sufficient, really. Killer is in a slightly better position than survivors because of patch 6.1 but both sides are desperate.
Survivors have a choice when injured. Either forego safety and play offensively by repairing gens, or play defensively and heal up, delaying gens.
Both have upsides and downsides, if you play offensively, that leaves you vulnerable to killers who take advantage of this and also play offensively by pressuring gens. If killers would play 'normally' this would result in a dangerous situation for survivors, where 'genrushing' is a legitimately risky move that will cost them the game as much as it would win it for them.
Sadly, killers take the same mirror image position, whereby losing regression makes them feel like they have to play more viciously by tunnelling out survivors. Instead of capitalising on the injured survivors who are repairing gens, they go for the false economy of chasing the survivors who aren't actively furthering their own objectives. This only makes genrushing more feasible.
As someone who doesn't do this, who actively pressures gens, and tries to play killer unpredictably, capitalising on info perks over regression or slowdown, genrushing does not pay off. I frequently snowball by catching injured survivors off-guard and out-positioned, and prevent gens from flying by simply being on them as much as possible.
Furthermore, the game used to be like this! CoH didn't always exist, and neither did CoB, OC or PR. There was a time were Inner Healing was a good healing perk (a severely limited form of self healing), and Ruin was a good regression perk (a severely limited form of bonus regression, the totem would only last a minute or two), both were less impactful than the most recent meta perks were a couple weeks ago. The game was not a tunnelling/genrushing mess back then. This is wholly a player attitude problem.
-
@verysleepy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3408373#Comment_3408373
It's honestly not better, survivor main.
It's utter trash. 25 percent regression on first hook on a gen 2 survivors are already on, that delays them by like 10 seconds and it's still done instantly.
Not talking about actually landing the scourge hook rng too.
Pain res needs fully reverted, period. It was the best healthiest regression in the game and rewarded killers for chasing and playing normally.
If they don't do something the killers gonna be quitting and bleeding out fast. Imagine nerfing gen regression but keeping all the gen speed perks and toolboxes etc. Absolutely just killed any non high pressure killers at remotely decent level.
Nobody cares about potato ranks where noone has good perks etc. New players get better and find out meta very quickly and will aim for that and in turn become better at the game this leading to survivor gen rush meta and killer tunneling because everything else leads to ding ding ding ding game over.
It's utter trash. 25 percent regression on first hook on a gen 2 survivors are already on, that delays them by like 10 seconds and it's still done instantly.
If that is trash, then so was Call of Brine before the nerf. Call of Brine requires you to 1. kick the gen 2. keep survivors off the gen for at least 60 seconds. If you did both of these things, CoB would provide an additional 16 seconds of slowdown (based on one survivor repairing, add a second and that's about 10 seconds of slowdown).
Meanwhile PRs 25% regression is 23 seconds of slowdown for one survivor (14 seconds for two), it's instant, and is accomplished by furthering your primary objective of hooking survivors, not by playing defensively and protecting gens.
-
SWF have been "killing this game" for 6 years now, and it's still not dead.
I'm starting to think it might not be the massive issue some people think it is.
-
- This game has a terrible problem with power creep. Each side has been getting more effective, more efficient tools with which to complete their objectives or hinder their opponents, and it makes the 'meta' even more oppressive against the non-meta. (for example, Circle of Healing wasn't always in the game, and before it was, Inner Healing was a good healing perk) That's why balance changes have to be nerfs at this point.
- Both killer and survivor have seen their most meta, most used perks nerfed. Survivors had Circle of Healing and Dead Hard, Killers had Call of Brine, Overcharge and Pain Res. None of these are unique options, survivors have other healing and exhaustion perks, killers have other regression perks, only the most oppressive were nerfed and there are plenty of entirely valid options remaining. Do not be a slave to the meta.
- Regression and Healing are complimentary powers, each undoing your opponents progress in their primary objective. By nerfing both in the same patch, you maintain a sense of balance and it shouldn't result in an unwarranted corrective response from either side. What you lose in regression capability is made up by survivors losing the same in healing capability. Sadly, players don't understand this, and both sides are furious that 'they' have been nerfed, completely ignoring the fact that their opponents have also been equally reigned in. Worse, they appear to see equal nerfs to their opponents as an additional threat to them, which is completely irrational.
- Killers are terrified that a nerf to healing means survivors will genrush, which should require greater regression capability.
- Survivors are terrified that a nerf to regression means killers will tunnel, which should require greater healing capability.
- Both are 'protesting' these changes by doing exactly this, instead of just adapting to the changes and playing normally.
- The irony of this fallacy flies over their heads, and the reliance on these meta techniques only feeds further into power creep and imbalance. If either of these actually happened (buff regression in response to nerfed healing or vice versa) it would be ridiculously imbalanced.
-
The problem with hook grabs is the game of chicken that it results in. Having survivor and killer just standing there by a hook trying to psyche each other out. It's ridiculous.
We removed hatch standoffs, we removed Eruption's stalemate, and with DH now not universally used in every chase that game of chicken is also vastly negated. Same needs to happen here.
Removing hook grabs wouldn't remove anything of value from the game. Instead of grabbing the survivor, you would smack them, and with the current hit cooldown, you would be guaranteed a second whack once the unhook was made. So without hook grabs, hook trades are still guaranteed. How is that not good enough?
As a survivor making the rescue, you are trading two of your health states for one on the unhooked survivor. The killer is still in credit here.
The bonus is that camping killers would not be rewarded with double hooks for camping, they would have to make do with a "mere" hook trade.