TAG
TAG
About
- Username
- TAG
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,205
- Last Active
Comments
-
@RoKrueger said:
LOL. That's such a survivor main in disguise. I, on the other hand, am a really real survivor main and I think that the gens get done too fast and totems get found too easily. It is not fun as a miserable survivor that I am to do that things so fast. The killer has to have more time to get me killed. Fun, fun, fun survivor fun.
This isn't me throwing shade on either you or OP or anything, but I imagine OP being Dwight wearing a potato sack like Nurse and holding Spirit's samurai sword, and you're the Trapper wearing a Meg wig and Dwight's glasses. :P
-
@AetherBytes said:
@TAG that is to stop people farming using BT, or otherwise unhooking in the killers face.
I get that, but to me, that seems to kinda just make BT unappealing overall.
-
@michaelrandom27 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/574910#Comment_574910
So because everyone else decided not to repair the generators, the last survivor has to suffer for it? Killers always find the hatch first because they don't have to worry about being seen by the survivor, and they move much faster. It's extremely unfair.
What about the games where the Killer does not find the Hatch first?
-
Where does Make Your Choice come into this? Do you mean that you are Exposed for the duration that Borrowed Time is active (until the Survivor gets hit)?
If so, that seems like it would make Borrowed Time not worth running because the correct answer would always be to hit the rescuer instead of the unhooked person, so if the Killer is close enough to proc Borrowed Time, the rescuer is almost certainly going to take the unhooked Survivor's place. I guess in all fairness, it could create a weird situation where the fact that it exists would compel the Killer to attack the rescuer anyways in hopes that they have Borrowed Time only to find out that they don't, but I don't think I'd want the best use of a perk to be not using it and hoping that the Killer thinks they have it.
-
@SeanLeo97 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/577216#Comment_577216
Maybe because my teammates are trash and I shouldn’t suffer because of their mistakes
Maybe it is the teammates that need a rework, then. ;)
-
I mean, the system already exists for those event items, as Peanits mention. They just need to implement that system across everything else.
-
@Ark_the_Bonsai said:
@TAG The OP's proposal doesn't effect the way tokens work at all. The only thing they wanted to change was to make it so that completely missing a skillcheck would count as a good skillcheck(Like how a good = a great), basically moving each layer of success down a notch. The wording is weird but it's weird on the perk description too so fair enough. It would still eat the stocked tokens every time you hit space so they'd have to replenish them, same as always.
Re-read the OP. They are saying for their idea that Good Skill Checks count as Great Skill Checks, Missed Skill Checks count as Good Skill Checks, and you lose a token if you miss a Skill Check. You don't lose any tokens if a Good Skill Check becomes upgraded into a Great Skill Check.
"When Stake Out has at least 1 Token, Good Skill Checks are considered Great Skill Checks, Missing a Skill Check Counts as a Good Skill Check and consume 1 Token."
-
@Kaelum said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/579639#Comment_579639
The perk as it currently is, already counters Hex: Ruin and that is it’s primary purpose. I run it because it forces me to be near the killer, and it helps with laggy skill checks. Stakeout doesn’t need any kind of buff, and is perfectly fine as it is. I wouldn’t be against adding a couple more tokens, but any other change would be way overpowering, and I am definitely against that.
I in no way support the combining of Technician and Stakeout into one perk, which is what the OP is asking for.
You're right in that the current version does technically counter Ruin, but in practice, not really because you would need to keep acquiring tokens in order to keep cancelling out Ruin's penalty on Good Skill Checks. With this proposed idea, one token would effectively cancel out all of Ruin's penalty on Good Skill Checks until you flat-out miss a Skill Check. It's a big difference in my eyes.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/579639#Comment_579639
The amount of greats you would hit wouldn't change. You might hit a good instead of a miss, though, although that would still be affected by ruin (also you would be a silly goose since all you had to do was hit a good and you still messed it up).
It basically wouldn't be any better against ruin that it is now.
I don't follow. Going by OP's proposal for Stake Out, all Good Skill Checks would count as Great Skill Checks as long as you had at least one token (as opposed to now, where you lose a token if you hit what would normally be considered a Good Skill Check). This means that if you just shoot for what would normally be considered Good Skill Checks while you have a Stake Out token and Ruin is active, because they count as Great Skill Checks, the net result for each Great Skill Check obtained via Stake Out is the equivalent of getting a Good Skill Check while Ruin is not active. This means that people who cannot consistently hit Great Skill Checks and would normally go for only Good Skill Checks can effectively play through Ruin with no penalty as long as they are able to collect at least one token from the proposed Stake Out and avoid missing any Skill Checks.
Is there something I'm not understanding here?
-
@Bravo0413 said:
I'm getting a really strong bait vibe from this...
Also----> if you're going to use it spell it fooking right!! It is "Git Gud" .... darn casuals..
Just for comparison's sake, OP is allegedly a red rank Survivor who believes Ruin is OP because they spend 15-20 minutes looking for it.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/579639#Comment_579639
How? You still need to get tokens. And for most people this still wouldn't be worth carrying.
You'd only need to get one as long as you can avoid missing Skill Checks, as you would only lose a token if you miss a Skill Check. From there, Good Skill Checks count as Great Skill Checks, which basically means it completely blanks Ruin's penalty for only hitting Good Skill Checks.
-
@Jdsgames said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/577165#Comment_577165
Honestly, if you can prove someone did this it should be simply bannable. Git gud really applies it is not hard.
There is no way such a thing can be bannable even if they admitted to it because such a thing is possible by just physically putting something on the monitor/screen to function as a crosshair.
-
Wouldn't this effectively destroy Ruin's ability to slow down the game, or am I mistaken?
-
Considering the threshold it takes to seemingly get banned for disconnecting, for your internet to be bad enough that you can somehow clear that simply due to bad connections means that you probably shouldn't be playing online games until you can find some way to get that sorted out (even if that ends up being difficult due to your specific circumstances), as your bad connections are both negatively impacting fellow players when the games get cancelled/ruined and eventually yourself when you end up getting mistaken for a deliberate DCer/lag-switcher.
-
Currently, no. As far as we are aware, there is no plans to implement cross progression.
-
Monstrous Shrine and Unrelenting. Tier Zero.
-
@Milo said:
And/Or add "When you close the hatch, last survivor becomes the obsession"? Maybe?
I actually like this idea a lot. You could easily revert Remember Me back to its pre-nerf state if this was implemented.
-
@OinkGirlMain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/578277#Comment_578277
Pig has 2 great perks and one trash perk. What do you mean with trash perkS?
To be fair, I'm not in love with using Make Your Choice on Pig. It's a solid perk on the right Killer, but I don't think she is the right Killer to use it. She at least has Surveillance.
-
Survivor: David King. You have to use No Mither with zero synergies.
Killer: It would have to be a killer with a bad power and zero useful perks (at least, in relation to that specific Killer). So...Wraith, maybe? Possibly pre-rework Freddy (since every single perk he has doesn't do much or anything until the Endgame, so you are going virtually perk-less as Freddy)?
-
@SpyMature said:
I feel like this conversation is going nowhere. This is gonna be my last message.
Here's my whole point:
You shouldn't be punished for your teammates being #########.
Hey, if you make the escape in spite of bad teammates, you aren't punished for it. Or, at least, I don't consider a black pip a punish. I still allow the potential to pip for a loss as long as you make the escape (either through the Hatch or through the Exit Gate if the Hatch is closed)
-
@SpyMature said:
1) I was talking about when everyone die and you don't make the hatch escape, but you still getting pipped if you do well enough in the game, black pick is not good enough for all that hard work
2) This specific play pattern lets EVERYONE have fun in the same game, without either sides feeling like they really lost as long as they did well during the match, or you could just be an ######### and camp the first survivor you found, stripping him of all his fun and making him depip, but you'll end up depiping as well.
1) I disagree about it not being good enough. I am under the menality that regardless of Survivor or Killer, if you lose, you should not progress in rank.
2) "without either sides feeling like they really lost" This is my problem with the system. If you win, you should be rewarded for winning. If you don't, you really shouldn't be rewarded for it.
3) "or you could just be an [BAD WORD] and camp the first survivor you found, stripping him of all his fun and making him depip, but you'll end up depiping as well." Under my system, that first Survivor could end up black pipping (and the Killer almost certainly still depips) if the other Survivors rush the gens and make the escape while the Killer camps
-
@rha said:
This sounds even worse than Victory Cube to me. I hated the kill-focus of the system. As killer I had some insanely fun and satisfying games full of tension for everyone where I depipped because I didn't kill anyone (intentionally, admittedly). Right after that, as survivor I had an ultra boring game against a Myers who didn't get anything done during the entire game and then in the end finally downed someone thanks to NOED, hooked him in the basement and camped him there. The other two swarmed the basement and boom - pip for him.
Last mentioned game is also why basing the survivor pipping on the whole group is something that'd be a big no-no for me. Imagine teammates like the above that you have no control over but you lose the game ... thanks no.
I am not even convinced if these kind of systems where killers must kill to pip and survivors must survive (here even 3 must escape so that a survivor can pip) can lead to a decent 4:1 rank distribution of killers and survivors. Especially as killers demand their 3-4ks literally all the time and the devs are tweaking the game towards that (remember: Devout emblem was changed because Iridiscent = 4k happened too often), because otherwise killer does not feel like the badass unstoppable monster, so no survivors could pip along with them.
I do kind of agree that the current killer pipping system feels very random at times, I personally think this is mainly due to Gatekeeper though.
As far as the first scenario, I'm not really sure where the ranking system comes into play here, as it kinda just seems like you were happy to have an exciting game and didn't care what your end result was (especially since you deliberately did not kill anyone). Would the game have somehow been less exciting or fun for you if it were the same game but with the proposed system?
Second scenario, under my system, assuming the other three got out while the Myers was busy hooking and camping someone in the basement, the three escapees would pip, Myers would de-pip, and the one who died would black pip at worst and potentially pip anyways if they did well enough over the course of the game through the Entity's Favor (which is possible if they were able to last the whole time without Myers getting anything accomplished). To me, that sounds like how it should go for a Survivor team that managed to escape with only one casualty at the very end.
-
@SpyMature said:
I'm very much sure that camping breaks your pipping system as your pip as a survivor depends on if your teammates are ######### or not, you could do 3 gens, save all of your teammates at least once, run the killer around for 5 minutes while your teammates do absolutely nothing, and in the end all of you would die and you would end up depiping, but with the current system, you'll end up actually pipping, as you did all your best, and got a red embem in every category, except for survival, you'll most likely get a golden or a silver either way as you did your best.
Basically the current pipping system is great for everyone, your teammates being complete megheads wont ensure that you depip, and going around and hooking different survivors each time as killer rewards you, as well as you'll lose your emblem progress if you stay next to the hook for too long to combat campers, no one likes to be found first and then get camped for the rest of your miserable game, isn't that right?
"I'm very much sure that camping breaks your pipping system as your pip as a survivor depends on if your teammates are ######### or not, you could do 3 gens, save all of your teammates at least once, run the killer around for 5 minutes while your teammates do absolutely nothing, and in the end all of you would die and you would end up depiping, but with the current system, you'll end up actually pipping, as you did all your best, and got a red embem in every category, except for survival, you'll most likely get a golden or a silver either way as you did your best."
This is where the Entity's Favor comes in at the end. If you do all of what you describe and make the Hatch escape, you can actually pip if you do well enough at emblems (black pip gets upgraded to a pip). Even if you do die, you can still end up black pipping if you played well enough.
"Basically the current pipping system is great for everyone, your teammates being complete megheads wont ensure that you depip, and going around and hooking different survivors each time as killer rewards you, as well as you'll lose your emblem progress if you stay next to the hook for too long to combat campers, no one likes to be found first and then get camped for the rest of your miserable game, isn't that right?"
I actually think the current system is bad because it forces people to basically follow a specific play pattern in order to be rewarded instead of being rewarded for bringing your side to victory. That's just me, though.
-
@SpyMature said:
I'm pretty sure the current system clearly tells you how to win, at least I never had any problems personally, also, what measures would you take against camping, if your pipping system literally suggest killers to camp, and survivors to drop what they're doing and somehow save that person off the hook with killer clearly knowing that if survivors won't save him, then they won't actually pip (I just noticed your suggesting about survivors pipping system)
Basically this whole idea is a big Pepega, you somehow want to combat camping, by suggesting killers to camp to win, with survivors HAVING TO save that person in order to win.
I don't really agree that the current system clearly tells you how to win. Otherwise, you wouldn't have people coming up with their own ideas of what "winning" in this game means.
Also, this kinda goes back to what some people argue about camping: it is very susceptible to gen rushing. If everyone else gen rushes and escapes while the Killer is camping the Survivor, they pip, Killer de-pips, and the dead Survivor black pips (as opposed to almost certainly de-pipping under the current system). That doesn't mean that things couldn't be improved to combat camping (which I think is a different discussion that can still happen even with the current system), but I personally don't think that camping breaks this system as much as feared if Survivors know how to play around it.
-
I'd want to see them be nerfed (along with a few other things). If I do find myself using one, I personally want to at least wait until someone is on death hook to use it. That's just me, though.
-
@SpyMature said:
Pipping System you're suggesting is literally what it was before it was reworked, rewarding killer for fully sacrificing survivors instead of their overall performance would lead to unfun experience for both sides, with killers being rewarded for camping survivors and making sure they die on their first hook instead of 3 hooking each survivors, as well as those survivors that are going to be camped.
Short answer: No
To me, this sounds like this should be dealt with by taking better measures to combat camping instead of by moving to a system that doesn't have a clear idea of how to actually win (which has been my biggest issue with the current system).
-
Why do you want a fourth chance of escaping alongside your third?
-
Absolutely.
-
I like adding it to Small Game.
-
Nice try, Ruin person. I know you're secretly Rank 20-15.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/575941#Comment_575941
"What makes it unfair for Survivors? Your proposed change makes it so hooking by Jigsaw Boxes is bad because they can get the first box out of the way super easily, and from there, there is a 50% chance that the time wasted is very minimal. That is not a good direction."
Don't hook near boxes then? Like that's pretty common sense. Or do and expect them to jump on it ASAP letting you come back and get another hook. The game shouldn't be balanced around you making mistakes.
"Uh, no, it's still RNG. "
If you artificially influence the outcome then no, it's not RNG. If I rig a deck of cards so that I always get an ace and 4 random other cards, that's not RNG. Your entire argument falls apart and I don't even need to address anything else.
"Don't hook near boxes then? Like that's pretty common sense. Or do and expect them to jump on it ASAP letting you come back and get another hook. The game shouldn't be balanced around you making mistakes."
It is not always possible to not hook them near a box. Plus, it is very realistic that you simply won't be able to go after them when they do that simply because you are preoccupied. You could break the current chase to go after the person on the box, but then the Trap isn't serving its purpose of stalling, is it?
"If you artificially influence the outcome then no, it's not RNG. If I rig a deck of cards so that I always get an ace and 4 random other cards, that's not RNG. Your entire argument falls apart and I don't even need to address anything else."
I think your entire argument fell apart the moment you said "4 random other cards," but that is just me. One result being guaranteed doesn't mean the other results are. The randomization is simply between three boxes instead of four. Arguing that it's overpowered or something is one thing, but you are arguing that the randomization is not randomization because it is changing the probabilities. Like, your logic just does not make sense. Exactly what do you call randomly putting a key into one of three boxes? Why does the randomness of the other three boxes not count simply because the game is waiting until you search a box to randomly generate a key?
-
I think I'd want to see this tested in PTB before being actually implemented. Also, there would need to be a clear indication in-game that Bloodlust is disabled on that map so that people don't think the map is simply bugged.
-
Obvious bait is obvious.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
"What makes that dumb? That sounds like a good thing.
But that is exactly the point with the proposed change: Making it so you HAVE to search at least two boxes to ensure that some amount of time is wasted. Less variance in RNG is good for the Pig."
So we remove RNG from the equation purely to the benefit of the killer? Why don't we make the adjustment on the far end of the equation and make it so it's always going to be the second or third box because it's unfair to survivors if they have to search all 4.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pig's power is RNG based, doing anything to influence that makes it not RNG, and if it's only to the benefit of the killer that's unfair.
Yea it sucks when a survivor gets the trap off the first time, but like I said for every survivor that gets it off the first time there is another that has to search all 4 boxes. As killer you only notice the former and not the latter.
And then what about when we start messing with the RBT timer or number of boxes? Should the RNG still favor the killer, because all that would do is result in more kills from RBT, which the devs have stated they don't want because RBT is not meant to kill it's meant to be a new objective for survivors.
"That would only hurt Survivors who are getting unlucky while doing almost nothing to mitigate the bad luck on the Pig's side. That only raises the variance."
No increasing the base search time makes it so that, even if they get it off the first time, they are spending MORE time to do so. And then it increases the need to optimize your path if it just so happens that you need to do every box. That's ultimately what make gear add-ons so good, that they make survivors spend more time at boxes even if it's just 1 box.
You are asking for RNG to favor one side and punish the other. That's not RNG, that's a rigged system. One that's ultimately unfair to survivors. Like, you could totally abuse this by simply making sure someone never gets to search a box. Once you get to a certain point, it's a guaranteed RBT kill because they won't have time to search 2 boxes. That is dumb.
Honestly a better solution is to remove the stipulation that a gen needs to be complete for the RBT to activate, and it's just active when you put it on a survivor. They did this because they thought that strategy would be to not finish gens so you have more time to do the RBT, but survivors just do gens anyway so the whole fact that the timer doesn't start until a gen pops is moot. There really is no point to have it that way. Not to mention, it's really stupid sometimes when you down someone and right before you put the trap on a gen pops. That's like RNG on top of RNG and it ends up punishing the Pig.
Then, during EGC, if someone has an active RBT it both resets the EGC timer and pauses it, so that you will be forced to remove it before escaping like in the past, but it won't be super OP at end game.
All this is way more fair to survivors while still rewarding the Pig with a stalling mechanic. You get pressure no matter what, and survivors need to waste time on RBT no matter what.
"So we remove RNG from the equation purely to the benefit of the killer? Why don't we make the adjustment on the far end of the equation and make it so it's always going to be the second or third box because it's unfair to survivors if they have to search all 4."
What makes it unfair for Survivors? Your proposed change makes it so hooking by Jigsaw Boxes is bad because they can get the first box out of the way super easily, and from there, there is a 50% chance that the time wasted is very minimal. That is not a good direction.
"No increasing the base search time makes it so that, even if they get it off the first time, they are spending MORE time to do so. And then it increases the need to optimize your path if it just so happens that you need to do every box. That's ultimately what make gear add-ons so good, that they make survivors spend more time at boxes even if it's just 1 box."
In the best case scenario where you just make Crate of Gears base kit (assuming you remove the actual Crate of Gears to compensate), you are only increasing the time wasted by 3 seconds if the trap is removed at the first box. What makes Gear add-ons good is that the ability gets progressively better with each box the Survivor has to search through. If they only have to search one box, Crate did very little for that Trap, and the Pig still lost a significant amount of stalling.
"You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pig's power is RNG based, doing anything to influence that makes it not RNG, and if it's only to the benefit of the killer that's unfair."
Do not agree. At all. A 33% chance to search in 2 boxes and a 66% chance to search 3 boxes is still RNG. This is fact.
"And then what about when we start messing with the RBT timer or number of boxes? Should the RNG still favor the killer, because all that would do is result in more kills from RBT, which the devs have stated they don't want because RBT is not meant to kill it's meant to be a new objective for survivors."
As long as the best case scenario (searching every box) is not unwinnable for the Survivors even with no input from the Pig, then this should not be an issue. If it was unwinnable, that would be a problem with the Pig fundamentally and something would have to be done to mitigate that regardless of whether or not anything else gets changed. If it is not a problem with the Pig now, I don't see how it would be a problem if the first box never produced a Key.
"Yea it sucks when a survivor gets the trap off the first time, but like I said for every survivor that gets it off the first time there is another that has to search all 4 boxes. As killer you only notice the former and not the latter."
The problem is that the low end hurts the Pig a lot more than the high end helps Pig (barring a Trap kill, which is both super rare and should not really be factored in). The low end means that the Pig lost a lot of stall potential while the high end means that one person gets temporarily knocked out of the game. The high end is not irrelevant, but only one of those scenarios can be flat-out game-losing.
"You are asking for RNG to favor one side and punish the other. That's not RNG, that's a rigged system. One that's ultimately unfair to survivors. Like, you could totally abuse this by simply making sure someone never gets to search a box. Once you get to a certain point, it's a guaranteed RBT kill because they won't have time to search 2 boxes. That is dumb."
Uh, no, it's still RNG. RNG more in favor of the Pig, yes, but still RNG. I do not agree that it is unfair to Survivors. And I believe that the needle needs to swing slightly more in the Pig's favor at least in the sense of mitigating the low end. Also, the situation you are describing is both extremely inefficient and not worth it for the Pig to attempt and still 75% (80% with 5 boxes, and 83.3% with 6) chance of working if you attempt it right not. It is silly to use such a bad strategy as a reason to argue that this is a bad suggestion.
"Honestly a better solution is to remove the stipulation that a gen needs to be complete for the RBT to activate, and it's just active when you put it on a survivor. They did this because they thought that strategy would be to not finish gens so you have more time to do the RBT, but survivors just do gens anyway so the whole fact that the timer doesn't start until a gen pops is moot. There really is no point to have it that way. Not to mention, it's really stupid sometimes when you down someone and right before you put the trap on a gen pops. That's like RNG on top of RNG and it ends up punishing the Pig."
That doesn't do much to improve Pig's stalling except in cases where the Survivor is ballsy enough to continue doing Gens with an inactive Trap on their head. In every other case, nothing is changed with regards to the Pig's stalling potential. I wouldn't say no to the idea persay, but it does not fix the Pig's problem in my eyes. If anything, all it does it promote more Trap kills, which is fixing the wrong area of the Pig.
"Then, during EGC, if someone has an active RBT it both resets the EGC timer and pauses it, so that you will be forced to remove it before escaping like in the past, but it won't be super OP at end game."
I've been on board with pausing the EGC timer for active traps since the nerf. I am not keen on resetting the timer, but to be honest, that is STILL a better proposition than the nerf that actually happened.
-
@ClogWench said:
Perk: Getting Wood
You're skilled at working wood with your hands. You can collect scraps of wood anywhere a killer has broken a pallet. After collecting 6/5/4 scraps you can reconstruct a pallet.
This is gonna sound mad picky, but how would this interact with broken wood bits that are being concealed by a dream pallet?
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/575443#Comment_575443
But if you have to search 1 box and that box NEVERS opens your trap, it's not RNG. That's what's dumb about it. For every time that a survivor searches 1 box and removes a trap, there is another time where a survivor has to search all 4 boxes. You're just artificially making it so they have to always search 2 boxes, which is just silly. Increase the base search time (adjust add-ons accordingly) and maybe make skill checks on boxes harder/greater penalty that would be just fine. It's just dumb to force them to search 2 boxes every time, no other way to say it.
And I also disagree with him about Huntress. Giving her a movement speed buff was something I thought would be a good idea a while ago, but have since come to realize that would make her way OP. Imagine a Huntress with 1 hatchet chasing at 114% speed. It'd be a guaranteed win for her. I think a better solution would be to make her lullaby only trigger when a survivor is within 40m, basically giving her Whispers 2 in her base kit. This would allow Huntress players to play without Whispers and mix up her meta a bit more. Also Shiny Pin should be base kit, and that add-on should do something else (what IDK). Those 2 changes would make her a lot more viable without actually flat out making her a stronger killer, which she is already pretty strong.
Like I can respect Scott for his experience and knowledge of the game, but that doesn't automatically mean his solutions are good. Top players like him are good at identifying the issues, not so much as solving them. The devs should listen to him to the extent that he is right stuff needs fixing, but they need to find their own solutions. What sounds good on paper does not always work right in practice, and vice versa.
"But if you have to search 1 box and that box NEVERS opens your trap, it's not RNG. That's what's dumb about it."
What makes that dumb? That sounds like a good thing.
"You're just artificially making it so they have to always search 2 boxes, which is just silly."
But that is exactly the point with the proposed change: Making it so you HAVE to search at least two boxes to ensure that some amount of time is wasted. Less variance in RNG is good for the Pig.
" Increase the base search time (adjust add-ons accordingly) and maybe make skill checks on boxes harder/greater penalty that would be just fine."
That would only hurt Survivors who are getting unlucky while doing almost nothing to mitigate the bad luck on the Pig's side. That only raises the variance.
"It's just dumb to force them to search 2 boxes every time, no other way to say it."
Disagree. I'd want either that or RSN2 being base kit. Both would assist the Pig in an area she needs help in.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
I didn't watch the part about maps, but most of his ideas for killer changes are good.
However I disagree with him on some points, specifically Spirit and Pig. While it sucks for Pig that people can get traps off on the first try, that's just part of her kit. If it was ALWAYS the case where you never get it off the first box well that can screw you over sometimes, particularly if she uses Amanda's Letter and there are only 2 boxes. I think they should just increase the base time to search and adjust the way traps work during end game to make her more like she was prior to EGC update. As for Spirit, well collision can both help and hurt her. It helps because it's obviously a bit easier to find survivors, but it also can hurt in cases where you want a particular survivor and others body block your phasing. Here is a good example...
https://xboxclips.com/thesuicidefox/f2f7d804-693a-4928-b239-70af791d4cfa
In the clip we are a 4 man. We decide to just yolo at the hook, and then after the save we attempt to body block her so she can't get Dwight. She still slips past us, but I'm willing to bet we made enough obstacles for her to slow her down just enough that she couldn't get him before he got to the gate. If there was no collision she could just phase through us and there's no chance for the Dwight. It's also something you can use to your advantage as survivor, since you can hover around a pallet and when you feel collision you drop the pallet and stun her out of phase walk. I honestly don't think Spirit needs any changes.
For Nurse, but I do agree that she should have 2 blinks and only 2 blinks. IMO those add-ons should be changed to increase her base speed instead, which would be strong but not completely OP if the limit is something like 108% speed. Range add-ons should have an actual penalty, like longer fatigue time or longer charge time (such that the extra distance you want to travel is that extra time to charge).
Amanda's Letter should not even have the penalties that it does, so those should be removed alongside the proposed change. Beyond that, the last-box issue is not really an issue except on huge maps (which, to clarify since you didn't watch the bit about maps, he proposes shrinking anyways). If people can get the traps off on time after searching all the boxes now, then that would not be negatively impacted by making the key never spawn in the first box. It it worth it IMO to prevent the blow-outs that can happen when Pig's stall pressure gets thrown out the window because of bad RNG.
-
For a second, my mind briefly imagined DBDMMO.
-
@White_Owl said:
Aside from his idea of increasing gen times (which would have the main effect of increasing survivor's boredom), I agree with all his suggestions.
Yeah, I think that is the one suggestion I'm a little sketchy on for this reason. You definitely have complaints that playing Survivor can be boring, and raising the gen time would risk amplifying those complaints. Maybe if they found some way to make working on Generators more interactive, the gen time increase could be more palatable.
-
@gantes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/575212#Comment_575212
I think the reasoning is to at least make him as effective as Billy up close, because he manages to be worse up close and have no pressure at the same time.
Eh, okay. I guess that is a step in the right direction.
-
The one thing that I am confused with is his proposal for Leatherface changes. Can someone ELI5 to me how this would improve Bubba?
Beyond that, I think I like the majority of these changes?
-
@Jdsgames said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/574099#Comment_574099
I simply think you don't know the purpose of ratios. If you added 4 perk slots to killer and one to each survivor you would have.
8/20 which would break down to a 2:5 ratio which if you compared it to a 1:4 ratio for every extra perk a survivor has the killer has double from the previous ratio rendering killers op. When you balance around a ratio you keep it consistent in terms of balance between the two. You are looking at the power of perks between killer and survivor which you are right in this 4v1 the perks of the 4 out perform the perks of the 1.
All of this is correct. The thing that you are missing is that adding one slot to each player would still throw off the balance because of the number of perks each side is effectively gaining, even if the ratio is still the same.
-
"Alright, the first generator popped. Now I can start putting active RBTs on Survivors."
several minutes later and a whole lot of tunneling later
"Boy these traps sure are taking a while to explode."
-
@Jdsgames said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/573918#Comment_573918
No, I don't think you understand how ratios work. It is currently a 1:4 ratio. Meaning survivors have 4x as many perks as the killer. a 5:20 which breaks down to 1:4 which means the survivors still has 4x as many perks as killer. As I stated earlier without considering who's perks are better. The survivors are still 4x the perks as killer nothing changes. Although, I would agree a 5th survivor perk would make more survivors god tier rather than making god tier killers. I am simply saying math 1:4 = 1:4 it doesn't change.
Similar if we only had the following perks:
1:4
2:8
3:12
4:16
5:20
They all break down to 1:4 they are the same ratio. Similar to fractions 1/2 cup is 2/4 cup equivalent.
I am not disagreeing that Survivors would still have 4x as many perks. What I am saying is that the impact of giving each player a perk is not equal on both sides because you are not adding the same number of perks on both sides (not that I am advocating that such a thing should happen).
-
Piiiig
-
@Jdsgames said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/573898#Comment_573898
No survivors have always had 4x as many perks. The change doesn't benefit the survivors more than the original ratio. (Besides perks being stronger/weaker is a different debate) If the ratio doesn't change its effects as far as the math goes doesn't change it is still a 1/4 ratio.
I don't think you understand how ratios function in this scenario.
-
@Jdsgames said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/573827#Comment_573827
Hey I just wanted to point out 4vs16 breaks down to 1/4 and 5/20 breaks down to 1/4 the ratio doesn't change XD. @TAG
Yes, so for every one slot the Killer gets, Survivors get four. So the ratio shows that such a change benefits the Survivor side four times as much as the Killer side.
-
@hahugow said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/571389#Comment_571389
it is not unbalanced if both sides have more slots, just give us 5 slots to start
It is. 4 vs. 16 becomes 5 vs. 20.
-
@Raidoku said:
I assume I upset killer mains I am rank 4 survivor as of today lost rank 3 for playing with randoms but ok I forgot that complaining about anything killers have in the game is considered toxic ill just deal with it even tho all low tiers use the skill with other OP perks
I don't believe you. Not if you spend 15-20 minutes searching Ruin.
-
One of the most broken perks in the game even if you can predict where it is going to be likely wont be where you found it last costing you a precious 15-20 minutues (4-5 generator could be fixed in that time) just to find it and by then you've all been hooked by killer likely twice by now or all least once for sure on small maps for sure.
"costing you a precious 15-20 minutues"
"every 60 seconds restore a random pallet"
"a perk that makes killer movement speed 15% slowing when chasing."
What rank are you?