Skip to content
Avatar

TAG

TAG

About

Username
TAG
Joined
Visits
9,205
Last Active

Comments

  • Watery said:
    I’ve got a fat one mill.
    As do I.   Not sure I'll blow it all to rapidly upgrade whoever comes next (I didn't for the Legion or Spirit, at least).
    in Is anyone else storing bp for the next chapter? Comment by TAG
  • SecretX said:

    Approved.

    Thank you.

    Thought I had since re-looking at this whole list again: I might consider switching the names/descriptions of "Amanda's Secret" and "Amanda's Letter".  I think it makes more sense for the one that "awakens the senses" to allow Amanda to see Auras and the one that "fills the reader with rage" to involve an Obsession.

    My original plan was to scrap Amanda's Secret completely and replace it with an add-on called "Jigsaw's Puppet" (the icon would be the puppet sitting on its signature tricycle)  because that would be a better fit to an add-on affecting RBTs than...a black medkit, I guess?  Reason I didn't was because I know that license holders have control over the flavor aspects of the character, so I worked under the assumption that they wouldn't give permission to make new material for their character.  If they could, it would maybe look something like this:

    Jigsaw's Puppet (Very Rare)

    A ventriloquist dummy fitted with mechanical parts.  It delivers the rules to Jigsaw's deadly games.
    -You become obsessed with one Survivor.
    -Obsession starts the trial wearing a Reverse Bear Trap.
    in Time to throw my hat into the ring with Pig ideas Comment by TAG

  • Pig Lunge distance: This is just my opinion, but I think if you make the actual set up for the Ambush better, you don't really need to make the actual dash longer. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Who knows

    Amanda's Secret: My thought was to have it start inactive, mainly under the idea that being able to potentially shut someone out of the game from the very start with no real say on their part by having the trap start active wouldn't make for a great experience for that person.

    Thank you for the comment. I do appreciate it. :)

    in Time to throw my hat into the ring with Pig ideas Comment by TAG

  • @HatCreature said:

    @TAG said:

    @HatCreature said:

    @TAG said:
    RoKrueger said:

    I don't know :,( Why is that Amanda can not see the timer in the HUD? She made those traps!!!

    The argument I've heard against that idea (that I don't agree with) is that it would allow the Killer to aggressively tunnel a Survivor.  When writing down ideas for how I'd buff the Pig, I initially planned for the Pig to be able to see the Timer and the Survivors to not (needing to rely on the beeping instead), but eventually I decided to compromise and make add-ons out of them instead (one at Common that prevents Survivors from seeing the timer and one at Rare that allows the Pig to see the timer).
    PigNRun said:

    I think there are three types of beeping. Slow (recently activated), medium (halfway through) and fast (almost done). I am somewhat sure they are equally split, so (using default time);


    * Slow: 150-100 seconds left (2m 30s to 1m 40s left)
    * Medium: 100-50 seconds left (1m 40s to 50s left)
    * Fast: Less than 50 seconds left

    These numbers make sense, but I'd admittedly like to be more certain that the numbers are indeed correct.

    I remember commenting on your rework for Pig but don't remember the add-on that let you see the timer, that's a cool add-on. But recently I've been thinking that it could be ok to see the timer. Pig can't force the head pop even with the timer, you don't know which box it is so you can't camp it unless you actually do and if you do you're wasting time, like normal camping. It's the equivalent of Legion following blood you can do it but it's a waste of time and scummy.

    Huh, I certainly don't remember anyone commenting on my big list of Pig ideas, but I like that it's being mentioned at least once. :)

    I'm not going to lie: The main reason I made two add-ons based on letting you see the timer and preventing the Survivors from seeing the timer was because I was desperate to come up with new ideas to replace the three add-ons that care about the Jigsaw Box skill-checks. Truth be told, I don't actually have a problem with giving Amanda the natural ability to see the trap timers, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut I'm willing to compromise and make an add-on out of it if it means we can get rid of the Skill Check add-ons. I'm sorry, but those add-ons are just terrible, even if you try to cheese it using Unnerving Presence. I'd rather use a Rare add-on to be able to see the clock than a Rare add-on that does literal nothing against decent Survivors.

    Well if it wasn't your rework it was someone else's I watch out for those <3 But that's a good reason to replace those add-ons, they are trash and I never use them. I love going against Pig and to be honest they are no threat at all and can actually help the Survivor get the trap off faster, and since I use Stake Out a lot it's especially true for me.

    If the skillchecks were just naturally smaller like with Unnerving Presence but all the time then those add-ons could be useful. Hell Huntress Lullaby doesn't work on those skillchecks so there should be an add-on for that, it's bullshit.

    If you link me the rework I'll totally look at it, I love reading Pig reworks.

    Sure, why not. If you wanna give it a read, by all means:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/45749/time-to-throw-my-hat-into-the-ring-with-pig-ideas

    in Question regarding beeping from active Reverse Bear Traps Comment by TAG

  • @HatCreature said:

    @TAG said:
    RoKrueger said:

    I don't know :,( Why is that Amanda can not see the timer in the HUD? She made those traps!!!

    The argument I've heard against that idea (that I don't agree with) is that it would allow the Killer to aggressively tunnel a Survivor.  When writing down ideas for how I'd buff the Pig, I initially planned for the Pig to be able to see the Timer and the Survivors to not (needing to rely on the beeping instead), but eventually I decided to compromise and make add-ons out of them instead (one at Common that prevents Survivors from seeing the timer and one at Rare that allows the Pig to see the timer).
    PigNRun said:

    I think there are three types of beeping. Slow (recently activated), medium (halfway through) and fast (almost done). I am somewhat sure they are equally split, so (using default time);


    * Slow: 150-100 seconds left (2m 30s to 1m 40s left)
    * Medium: 100-50 seconds left (1m 40s to 50s left)
    * Fast: Less than 50 seconds left

    These numbers make sense, but I'd admittedly like to be more certain that the numbers are indeed correct.

    I remember commenting on your rework for Pig but don't remember the add-on that let you see the timer, that's a cool add-on. But recently I've been thinking that it could be ok to see the timer. Pig can't force the head pop even with the timer, you don't know which box it is so you can't camp it unless you actually do and if you do you're wasting time, like normal camping. It's the equivalent of Legion following blood you can do it but it's a waste of time and scummy.

    Huh, I certainly don't remember anyone commenting on my big list of Pig ideas, but I like that it's being mentioned at least once. :)

    I'm not going to lie: The main reason I made two add-ons based on letting you see the timer and preventing the Survivors from seeing the timer was because I was desperate to come up with new ideas to replace the three add-ons that care about the Jigsaw Box skill-checks. Truth be told, I don't actually have a problem with giving Amanda the natural ability to see the trap timers, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut I'm willing to compromise and make an add-on out of it if it means we can get rid of the Skill Check add-ons. I'm sorry, but those add-ons are just terrible, even if you try to cheese it using Unnerving Presence. I'd rather use a Rare add-on to be able to see the clock than a Rare add-on that does literal nothing against decent Survivors.

    in Question regarding beeping from active Reverse Bear Traps Comment by TAG
  • This doesn't even seem terribly interesting.  It's kinda just "Dead By Daylight: No Balance Edition".
    in Enhanced mode for rank 1 players Comment by TAG

  • Does crouch tunneling count?

    in Confession Time! Describe Your Maximum Pettiness Comment by TAG

  • @Eveline said:
    Pizzaman said:

    What if the staircases were wider,

    so that bodyblocking wouldn't be a thing anymore?

    Only if Bubba's chainsaw can mow down anyone trying to pass.

    I imagine as long as you strafe left and right on the stairs, you'd still probably be able to do that pretty easily.

    in What if the basement had longer stairs? Comment by TAG
  • Maelstrom10 said:

    @TAG said:
    I'm not opposed to re-working Dying Light, but this doesn't seem like it solves the problem of Dying Light strongly promoting tunneling.

    In my opinion (keep in mind this is just my opinion) the tunneling portion of dying light isn't a problem. a killer wishing to kill their obsession should be normal, and while yes juggling multiple survivors around works for some obsession perk ideas (ie PWYF, STBFL) Others do promote tunneling and should (Remember me is a good example of this, especially since it doesn't drequire your obsession being dead, but does require you striking them.) Rancor is another good example of an obsession perk which works within the idea of what an obsession is. (Rancor does promote tunneling at endgame after all)
    My version of dying light simply promotes you wanting to target a player, which would be chosen at random unless someone brings in an obsession perk.. at which case if your actively choosing to be the obsession you should expect the killer to well... treat you as their obsession?

    I think the difference between Dying Light and Remember Me is that Remember Me doesn't necessarily want your Obsession dead ASAP whereas Dying Light (both the current version and your propsed idea) does.  Same with Rancor; it doesn't promote the idea of completely hating someone out of the game as soon as possible (it does at the end, but at least they got to play most of the game).
    in A true Dying light rework Comment by TAG

  • I'm not opposed to re-working Dying Light, but this doesn't seem like it solves the problem of Dying Light strongly promoting tunneling.

    in A true Dying light rework Comment by TAG
  • I'm all for anything that makes it easier to get the usable Pig add-ons.
    in A crazy idea to help balance the game. Comment by TAG
  • Melda said:
    This was on PS4... we destroyed the poor Pig, he didn’t even put a single person on hook, I felt really bad. How can this happen?


    How dat Pig get more points than you (and one other person)? :P
    in How does that work? Comment by TAG
  • Since it was put on PSPlus.
    in How long have you been playing? Comment by TAG
  • powerbats said:

    It's only considered an exploit is a survivor does something like climbing terrain remember? 😜😜😜😜😜😜

    I'd say a more appropriate comparison would be that it's about as much of an exploit as bodyblocking a hook, which is to say "not really."
    in R "Exploiting"? Comment by TAG
  • Mister_xD said:

    i dont have any exact numbers, but this is my experience with the traps:
    slow beeping: when the timer is in the first quarter
    medium beeping: when the trap is in the second quarter
    fast beeping: when the trap hit the 50% mark

    Er, isn't the 2nd quarter the 50% mark?

    EDIT: Never mind, I see where I misinterpred you. :P
    in Question regarding beeping from active Reverse Bear Traps Comment by TAG
  • RoKrueger said:
    I don't know :,( Why is that Amanda can not see the timer in the HUD? She made those traps!!!
    The argument I've heard against that idea (that I don't agree with) is that it would allow the Killer to aggressively tunnel a Survivor.  When writing down ideas for how I'd buff the Pig, I initially planned for the Pig to be able to see the Timer and the Survivors to not (needing to rely on the beeping instead), but eventually I decided to compromise and make add-ons out of them instead (one at Common that prevents Survivors from seeing the timer and one at Rare that allows the Pig to see the timer).

    PigNRun said:

    I think there are three types of beeping. Slow (recently activated), medium (halfway through) and fast (almost done). I am somewhat sure they are equally split, so (using default time);

    • Slow: 150-100 seconds left (2m 30s to 1m 40s left)
    • Medium: 100-50 seconds left (1m 40s to 50s left)
    • Fast: Less than 50 seconds left
    These numbers make sense, but I'd admittedly like to be more certain that the numbers are indeed correct.
    in Question regarding beeping from active Reverse Bear Traps Comment by TAG
  • Da Pig.  I like chasing the dream of death by Reverse Bear Trap.
    in What's your favorite killer, and why? Comment by TAG
  • thekiller490490 said:
    Weederick said:

    Enduring doesnt reduce the stuntime by 75%, it increases the recovery by 75%. And there is also a 1s animation at the end. The new stuntime with enduring is
    (3s/1.75 = 1.71s) + 1s = 2.71s

    Also known as reduction of stun time?
    #########?
    Not necessarily.  I used to think that too, but then I realized I was wrong after examining the wording.  Increasing the recovery time by 100% means that you're doubling the recovery speed (as opposed to completely eliminating the stun time), so increasing it by 75% means the recovery speed is 1.75 times faster.
    in (DS changes) I did the math. Comment by TAG
  • The ski resort offering. :P
    in Is there a counter to Claudette with dark clothes? Comment by TAG
  • SlickSal said:
    I think I should clarify what I meant, if you find an addon in the middle of a trial, you don’t equip it. It would end up being shown in the endgame screen, like how survivors have it shown at the end of the game.
    or if you want to be really spicy, maybe have the chance to equip it or not mid trial.
    but i was initially thinking of it showing in the endgame screen. 
    My apologies for misunderstanding.  This idea I do like.  Equipping them mid-match, much less so.
    in Give killers a way to gain addons in game! Comment by TAG
  • Piggers.
    in What killer do you play best with? Comment by TAG

  • A Survivor can be banned for bodyblocking if they are deliberately holding a fellow teammate in place so a Killer can hit that trapped teammate.

    A Killer can be banned for bodyblocking if they are deliberately holding one or more Survivors in place without attacking them to keep the game going indefinitely or until people decide to ragequit.

    Bodyblocking to prevent hooking or to let the timer on a Reverse Bear Trap expire is not bannable.

    As for the number of times needed for the above stuff to happen, I don't really know. It probably just depends on how quickly/frequently the offenders get reported.

    in When does Bodyblock become bannable? Comment by TAG

  • @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    Here is a quote from someone who did the math:
    "I ran some stat tests and it turns out the distribution isn't 1:1:1:1 nor does it seem to be 4:2:1:1 as you claimed but rather it seems to be 8:4:2:1.

    If we look at the people who got it off (ignore deaths and DCs) we get the following from a chi square test:

    p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance.

    p-value assuming the distribution is 4:2:1:1 was .0276, a 2.76% chance

    p-value assuming the distribution is 8:4:2:1 was .2716, a 27.16% chance.

    Given those results the last model seems the most likely, but the second one is possible. What this means is that you most likely have an 8/15 chance the key is in the first box, 4/15 on the second, 2/15 it's in the third, and a 1/15 chance it's the last one. I spent more time on this than i should have but it was really interesting. If it turns out I am right then I hope they fix this ASAP."

    For the second question, i would say that this is very much typical for the devs :D

    Apologies, but I am not well-versed in statistics to understand any of that. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I don't get it at all.

    What is typical for the devs? Being completely wrong about how they fundamentally programmed an entire killer, announcing the fundamentally inaccurate information on a Q&A session, and then having no one correct them on that fundamentally inaccurate information for months on end? That's typical for these devs?

    "p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance."
    Thats the chance, that an even distribution, as the devs tell us, ends up in the test results. Less than 0.001%. And that goes for two tests. So less than 0,00000001% chance, that it is an even distribution.
    If the test results are true, then it is a coinflip after searching a box, until the last one.

    They said its an intended feature for doctor to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, when they added that feature. After legion, they removed the doctors ability to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, because it was a bug. Two devs, two contradicting statements.
    Dont take their words for granted. Believe it when you see it. And here you see a coinflip for the trap rng.

    Fair enough, I will trust that what the person in the Reddit thread said is accurate.

    Considering something intended or not is a HUGE difference from declaring "We programmed the boxes to function so that only one of the boxes is the correct one." when the reality is "We programmed the boxes to function through RNG so that each box has an X% chance of getting the trap off." The sheer difference in execution there is not something that both a gameplay programmer and gameplay designer can just get wrong.

    Yes it is. It only takes half the time its supposed to take to remove a trap. There has to be misscommunication somewhere between the devs. Either the info was wrong and traps are supposed to be 50/50 or the programmer did not programm what he should (Or the person on reddit made up the stats, which i find unlikely)
    Only a statement from the devs can clear things up wether its supposed to work that way or not. Anyways, for pig players, this is bad news.

    The devs issued a statement already, though. It was a statement they issued in response to all the people who misinformed with how the RBTs were programmed. I linked you their statement in their Youtube video. They said that the boxes are pre-determined when you get an RBT placed on your head. When you search a box, you don't have a 25% chance of getting it off or a 50% chance of getting it off. You either have a 100% chance because you picked the right box, or you have a 0% chance because you picked the wrong box. You find it unlikely that the stats the person gave on Reddit are inaccurate/falsified? Well, I find it unlikely that the devs in the video somehow did not realize that they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes to function on a percentage-based system instead of a "Only one of these boxes is the right one" system, never realized that they could have it be affected by luck despite the fact that they said that the thing about the Luck Mechanic was that they intended for it to function with RNG systems they implemented but they just never actually ended up adding any since the game was young, still decided to announce to viewers at large that the RBTs was not something that was affected by Luck because of the mechanics behind it, and then were somehow never corrected by someone(s) who knew that they were actually mistaken on that claim despite the fact that this was a recorded video that they probably had to have gone over before they uploaded it to Youtube.

    I honestly dont understand the sentence, that makes up the second half of the text.
    For the first half, if you mean their Q&A at 29:36, i'm exactly referring to that as the current problem. They say its linked to one box. But the tests show, that it's <0,00000001% chance to actually be that way. Its possible that the stats are made up, even though i dont see any reason or motive to do so and the poster seems pretty honest and casual. Not a conspiracy type of person who wants pig buffs. He just "sad oinks"

    Maybe the devs communicated it wrong. Someone missunderstood it and it spread around. Maybe it is supposed to be 50/50. Maybe its supposed to be linked to one box, but the devs programm it wrong, thus the devs think its working like it should but it doesn't. Maybe the stats are made up and the devs can clarify that its indeed linked to one box and the stats are a lie.
    The devs haven't responded to both topics, but if they read this and know the exact answer, they're very welcome to clarify this.

    I don't see how someone at the company could completely misunderstand programming, spread it around, no one bothers to check the code at any point, and then after they make their announcement on video, no one actually checks to see if anything wrong with that information. And as far as a programming error, if they did, say, mistakenly program the boxes to put the key into two boxes instead of one, then it shouldn't be possible to have to check all four boxes because after you check two bad boxes, the key would have to be in one of the remaining two.

    Honestly, i can. To get their knowledge from Q&A, they ask each other. They've missunderstood each other in the past several times (doctors+nurses calling), as humans do.
    There's no guarantee that the test results are true, someone else would have to test it. And then people dont trust that person and so on. Until you test it yourself or see a whole video of it, we can only believe it or not.
    Its a good thing to keep in mind though for Pig, maybe later on someone can confirm or deny it.

    I cannot. That, to me, sounds like it falls outside the realm of plausibility. This isn't a minor misunderstanding such as "Was Snap Out of It + Nurse's Calling intended or not?" This is "How did we game developers make our game?" It's getting information regarding a huge chunk of programming wrong. It'd be like if a dev incorrectly said in a Q&A "We programmed the hook to have higher chances of successful kobes the fewer remaining players there are." Those are not just "Whoops, my bad" levels of wrong. Those are "What the heck possessed you to say something we clearly know is wrong?"

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by TAG

  • Would Distressing qualify?

    in Could we get a no mither equivalent for killers? Comment by TAG

  • @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    Here is a quote from someone who did the math:
    "I ran some stat tests and it turns out the distribution isn't 1:1:1:1 nor does it seem to be 4:2:1:1 as you claimed but rather it seems to be 8:4:2:1.

    If we look at the people who got it off (ignore deaths and DCs) we get the following from a chi square test:

    p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance.

    p-value assuming the distribution is 4:2:1:1 was .0276, a 2.76% chance

    p-value assuming the distribution is 8:4:2:1 was .2716, a 27.16% chance.

    Given those results the last model seems the most likely, but the second one is possible. What this means is that you most likely have an 8/15 chance the key is in the first box, 4/15 on the second, 2/15 it's in the third, and a 1/15 chance it's the last one. I spent more time on this than i should have but it was really interesting. If it turns out I am right then I hope they fix this ASAP."

    For the second question, i would say that this is very much typical for the devs :D

    Apologies, but I am not well-versed in statistics to understand any of that. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I don't get it at all.

    What is typical for the devs? Being completely wrong about how they fundamentally programmed an entire killer, announcing the fundamentally inaccurate information on a Q&A session, and then having no one correct them on that fundamentally inaccurate information for months on end? That's typical for these devs?

    "p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance."
    Thats the chance, that an even distribution, as the devs tell us, ends up in the test results. Less than 0.001%. And that goes for two tests. So less than 0,00000001% chance, that it is an even distribution.
    If the test results are true, then it is a coinflip after searching a box, until the last one.

    They said its an intended feature for doctor to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, when they added that feature. After legion, they removed the doctors ability to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, because it was a bug. Two devs, two contradicting statements.
    Dont take their words for granted. Believe it when you see it. And here you see a coinflip for the trap rng.

    Fair enough, I will trust that what the person in the Reddit thread said is accurate.

    Considering something intended or not is a HUGE difference from declaring "We programmed the boxes to function so that only one of the boxes is the correct one." when the reality is "We programmed the boxes to function through RNG so that each box has an X% chance of getting the trap off." The sheer difference in execution there is not something that both a gameplay programmer and gameplay designer can just get wrong.

    Yes it is. It only takes half the time its supposed to take to remove a trap. There has to be misscommunication somewhere between the devs. Either the info was wrong and traps are supposed to be 50/50 or the programmer did not programm what he should (Or the person on reddit made up the stats, which i find unlikely)
    Only a statement from the devs can clear things up wether its supposed to work that way or not. Anyways, for pig players, this is bad news.

    The devs issued a statement already, though. It was a statement they issued in response to all the people who misinformed with how the RBTs were programmed. I linked you their statement in their Youtube video. They said that the boxes are pre-determined when you get an RBT placed on your head. When you search a box, you don't have a 25% chance of getting it off or a 50% chance of getting it off. You either have a 100% chance because you picked the right box, or you have a 0% chance because you picked the wrong box. You find it unlikely that the stats the person gave on Reddit are inaccurate/falsified? Well, I find it unlikely that the devs in the video somehow did not realize that they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes to function on a percentage-based system instead of a "Only one of these boxes is the right one" system, never realized that they could have it be affected by luck despite the fact that they said that the thing about the Luck Mechanic was that they intended for it to function with RNG systems they implemented but they just never actually ended up adding any since the game was young, still decided to announce to viewers at large that the RBTs was not something that was affected by Luck because of the mechanics behind it, and then were somehow never corrected by someone(s) who knew that they were actually mistaken on that claim despite the fact that this was a recorded video that they probably had to have gone over before they uploaded it to Youtube.

    I honestly dont understand the sentence, that makes up the second half of the text.
    For the first half, if you mean their Q&A at 29:36, i'm exactly referring to that as the current problem. They say its linked to one box. But the tests show, that it's <0,00000001% chance to actually be that way. Its possible that the stats are made up, even though i dont see any reason or motive to do so and the poster seems pretty honest and casual. Not a conspiracy type of person who wants pig buffs. He just "sad oinks"

    Maybe the devs communicated it wrong. Someone missunderstood it and it spread around. Maybe it is supposed to be 50/50. Maybe its supposed to be linked to one box, but the devs programm it wrong, thus the devs think its working like it should but it doesn't. Maybe the stats are made up and the devs can clarify that its indeed linked to one box and the stats are a lie.
    The devs haven't responded to both topics, but if they read this and know the exact answer, they're very welcome to clarify this.

    I don't see how someone at the company could completely misunderstand programming, spread it around, no one bothers to check the code at any point, and then after they make their announcement on video, no one actually checks to see if anything wrong with that information. And as far as a programming error, if they did, say, mistakenly program the boxes to put the key into two boxes instead of one, then it shouldn't be possible to have to check all four boxes because after you check two bad boxes, the key would have to be in one of the remaining two.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by TAG

  • @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    Here is a quote from someone who did the math:
    "I ran some stat tests and it turns out the distribution isn't 1:1:1:1 nor does it seem to be 4:2:1:1 as you claimed but rather it seems to be 8:4:2:1.

    If we look at the people who got it off (ignore deaths and DCs) we get the following from a chi square test:

    p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance.

    p-value assuming the distribution is 4:2:1:1 was .0276, a 2.76% chance

    p-value assuming the distribution is 8:4:2:1 was .2716, a 27.16% chance.

    Given those results the last model seems the most likely, but the second one is possible. What this means is that you most likely have an 8/15 chance the key is in the first box, 4/15 on the second, 2/15 it's in the third, and a 1/15 chance it's the last one. I spent more time on this than i should have but it was really interesting. If it turns out I am right then I hope they fix this ASAP."

    For the second question, i would say that this is very much typical for the devs :D

    Apologies, but I am not well-versed in statistics to understand any of that. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I don't get it at all.

    What is typical for the devs? Being completely wrong about how they fundamentally programmed an entire killer, announcing the fundamentally inaccurate information on a Q&A session, and then having no one correct them on that fundamentally inaccurate information for months on end? That's typical for these devs?

    "p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance."
    Thats the chance, that an even distribution, as the devs tell us, ends up in the test results. Less than 0.001%. And that goes for two tests. So less than 0,00000001% chance, that it is an even distribution.
    If the test results are true, then it is a coinflip after searching a box, until the last one.

    They said its an intended feature for doctor to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, when they added that feature. After legion, they removed the doctors ability to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, because it was a bug. Two devs, two contradicting statements.
    Dont take their words for granted. Believe it when you see it. And here you see a coinflip for the trap rng.

    Fair enough, I will trust that what the person in the Reddit thread said is accurate.

    Considering something intended or not is a HUGE difference from declaring "We programmed the boxes to function so that only one of the boxes is the correct one." when the reality is "We programmed the boxes to function through RNG so that each box has an X% chance of getting the trap off." The sheer difference in execution there is not something that both a gameplay programmer and gameplay designer can just get wrong.

    Yes it is. It only takes half the time its supposed to take to remove a trap. There has to be misscommunication somewhere between the devs. Either the info was wrong and traps are supposed to be 50/50 or the programmer did not programm what he should (Or the person on reddit made up the stats, which i find unlikely)
    Only a statement from the devs can clear things up wether its supposed to work that way or not. Anyways, for pig players, this is bad news.

    The devs issued a statement already, though. It was a statement they issued in response to all the people who misinformed with how the RBTs were programmed. I linked you their statement in their Youtube video. They said that the boxes are pre-determined when you get an RBT placed on your head. When you search a box, you don't have a 25% chance of getting it off or a 50% chance of getting it off. You either have a 100% chance because you picked the right box, or you have a 0% chance because you picked the wrong box. You find it unlikely that the stats the person gave on Reddit are inaccurate/falsified? Well, I find it unlikely that the devs in the video somehow did not realize that they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes to function on a percentage-based system instead of a "Only one of these boxes is the right one" system, never realized that they could have it be affected by luck despite the fact that they said that the thing about the Luck Mechanic was that they intended for it to function with RNG systems they implemented but they just never actually ended up adding any since the game was young, still decided to announce to viewers at large that the RBTs was not something that was affected by Luck because of the mechanics behind it, and then were somehow never corrected by someone(s) who knew that they were actually mistaken on that claim despite the fact that this was a recorded video that they probably had to have gone over before they uploaded it to Youtube.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by TAG

  • Me being overly picky: Technically you could argue that it only reduces the number of hooks by one in most cases. Yes, you have instances like flashlight/pallet saves, Decisive Strike, and just not being able to find the hook in time, but in the majority of cases, if you are able to kill someone with an Ebony Mori, you can also just put them on a hook.

    in The most overpowered thing in this game Comment by TAG

  • @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    Here is a quote from someone who did the math:
    "I ran some stat tests and it turns out the distribution isn't 1:1:1:1 nor does it seem to be 4:2:1:1 as you claimed but rather it seems to be 8:4:2:1.

    If we look at the people who got it off (ignore deaths and DCs) we get the following from a chi square test:

    p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance.

    p-value assuming the distribution is 4:2:1:1 was .0276, a 2.76% chance

    p-value assuming the distribution is 8:4:2:1 was .2716, a 27.16% chance.

    Given those results the last model seems the most likely, but the second one is possible. What this means is that you most likely have an 8/15 chance the key is in the first box, 4/15 on the second, 2/15 it's in the third, and a 1/15 chance it's the last one. I spent more time on this than i should have but it was really interesting. If it turns out I am right then I hope they fix this ASAP."

    For the second question, i would say that this is very much typical for the devs :D

    Apologies, but I am not well-versed in statistics to understand any of that. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I don't get it at all.

    What is typical for the devs? Being completely wrong about how they fundamentally programmed an entire killer, announcing the fundamentally inaccurate information on a Q&A session, and then having no one correct them on that fundamentally inaccurate information for months on end? That's typical for these devs?

    "p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance."
    Thats the chance, that an even distribution, as the devs tell us, ends up in the test results. Less than 0.001%. And that goes for two tests. So less than 0,00000001% chance, that it is an even distribution.
    If the test results are true, then it is a coinflip after searching a box, until the last one.

    They said its an intended feature for doctor to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, when they added that feature. After legion, they removed the doctors ability to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, because it was a bug. Two devs, two contradicting statements.
    Dont take their words for granted. Believe it when you see it. And here you see a coinflip for the trap rng.

    Fair enough, I will trust that what the person in the Reddit thread said is accurate.

    Considering something intended or not is a HUGE difference from declaring "We programmed the boxes to function so that only one of the boxes is the correct one." when the reality is "We programmed the boxes to function through RNG so that each box has an X% chance of getting the trap off." The sheer difference in execution there is not something that both a gameplay programmer and gameplay designer can just get wrong. It's a large enough difference that they made it a point to mention that RBTs aren't affected by the Luck Mechanic because the way they are programmed is incompatible with how the luck mechanic functions.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by TAG

  • @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    Here is a quote from someone who did the math:
    "I ran some stat tests and it turns out the distribution isn't 1:1:1:1 nor does it seem to be 4:2:1:1 as you claimed but rather it seems to be 8:4:2:1.

    If we look at the people who got it off (ignore deaths and DCs) we get the following from a chi square test:

    p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance.

    p-value assuming the distribution is 4:2:1:1 was .0276, a 2.76% chance

    p-value assuming the distribution is 8:4:2:1 was .2716, a 27.16% chance.

    Given those results the last model seems the most likely, but the second one is possible. What this means is that you most likely have an 8/15 chance the key is in the first box, 4/15 on the second, 2/15 it's in the third, and a 1/15 chance it's the last one. I spent more time on this than i should have but it was really interesting. If it turns out I am right then I hope they fix this ASAP."

    For the second question, i would say that this is very much typical for the devs :D

    Apologies, but I am not well-versed in statistics to understand any of that. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I don't get it at all.

    What is typical for the devs? Being completely wrong about how they fundamentally programmed an entire killer, announcing the fundamentally inaccurate information on a Q&A session, and then having no one correct them on that fundamentally inaccurate information for months on end? That's typical for these devs?

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by TAG

  • @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by TAG

  • @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by TAG

  • @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by TAG

  • This sounds like a bug.

    in The strangest thing happened with the Jigsaw boxes. Comment by TAG
  • Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)
    DarkGGhost said:

    Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box

    This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything.
    Weederick said:

    Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/
    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.
    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by TAG
  • EW2 Myers searches chest
    Finds Scratched Mirror
    Game crashes

    Not a good idea.
    in Give killers a way to gain addons in game! Comment by TAG
  • I will crouch tunnel RBT Survivors until the day I dieeeeeeeee.
    in Do you feel like the devs are corralling killers into playing the way survivors deem "fair?" Comment by TAG
  • e8Lattice said:

    @TAG said:
    e8Lattice said:

    @ThGameIsHardButSoAmI said:

    So why don't devs put a skillcheck for the mori? It's easy to hit skillchecks right? Put a skillcheck on every mori like "brand new piece"

    skillchecks are a gameplay feature for survivors, not killers.

    If you're good at looping and you survive more than 60 seconds after being unhooked, you can't use it.

    if you loop a killer for 60 seconds, injured, after getting unhooked you don't need decisive, it would only reset a chase that already took to much time of the killer.

 @e8Lattice said:

    DC can be countered by just chasing down the target again. . . Come on people it's not hard, and you even get chase points for it!

    i'm sorry but this quote shows that you don't really know how the game works...

    . . . No I'm pretty sure if a Survivor escapes via DC it means I just need to chase them down again which is super easy for anyone who has eyes, ears and basic motor function (which I think is most of us)

    That doesn't make chasing a counter.

    It kind of does because chasing and catching the Survivor after DS lands means they've wasted their one and only single use escape perk. (which is a waste of a perk slot anyway, any Survivor worth their salt has an entire list of better perks in place of DS)

    That's not what a counter is.  By that logic, the counter to BBQ is not getting found by the Killer.
    in New DS = Trash Comment by TAG
  • Interesting...this idea has potential IMO.
    in Obsession Perks 101 (Remastered) Comment by TAG
  • I'm down for either "Vulnerable" or "Marked for Death".
    in Broken Status Effect Name Change Comment by TAG
  • Considering that there's nothing in the perk text about protection from grabbing people directly (such as from a locker), my gut tells me that it's intentional
    in Grabbing people with active borrowed time? Comment by TAG
  • I'm slightly confused.  If you are not the Obsession, do you not get the hook progression penalty?
    in Obsession Perks 101 (Remastered) Comment by TAG
  • e8Lattice said:

    @ThGameIsHardButSoAmI said:

    So why don't devs put a skillcheck for the mori? It's easy to hit skillchecks right? Put a skillcheck on every mori like "brand new piece"

    skillchecks are a gameplay feature for survivors, not killers.

    If you're good at looping and you survive more than 60 seconds after being unhooked, you can't use it.

    if you loop a killer for 60 seconds, injured, after getting unhooked you don't need decisive, it would only reset a chase that already took to much time of the killer.

    @e8Lattice said:
    DC can be countered by just chasing down the target again. . . Come on people it's not hard, and you even get chase points for it!

    i'm sorry but this quote shows that you don't really know how the game works...

    . . . No I'm pretty sure if a Survivor escapes via DC it means I just need to chase them down again which is super easy for anyone who has eyes, ears and basic motor function (which I think is most of us)

    That doesn't make chasing a counter.
    in New DS = Trash Comment by TAG
  • Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)
    DarkGGhost said:

    Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box

    This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything.

    Weederick said:

    Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.
    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by TAG
  • c-c-c-c-combo breaker?
    in (discussion closed) Comment by TAG
  • Kagrenac said:

    @TAG said:
    Reverse Bear Traps kill people trying to escape through the Hatch. :P

    They don't? I thought they did; I'm always afraid to escape through the hatch if I have one on

    They don't.  You die if you try to cross the Exit Gates wearing one, but the Hatch is safe to exit through while wearing a RBT.
    in You Own BVHR, What Is Your First Change To DBD? Comment by TAG
  • The_Crusader said:
    TAG said:
    The_Crusader said:
    Bbbrian2013 said:

    Eating the stuns won't be bad at all if they don't change how Enduring interacts with ds. The timer nerf means all ds will be like the current tier 1 ds.

    Enduring+Clown bottle with the new ds will be hilarious it'll be like nothing happened.

    If you don't want to take Enduring though?

    I perdonally believe the stun time will probably be increased.
    What do you base your belief on?
    Just a gut feeling. With how much current DS users are crying about this change I feel it might be done to appease them. The devs have said it's a possibility.

    Of course this is just a personal gut feeling. There's nothing concrete about it. Don't want to confuse anyone.
    Well, as long as things remain unchanged, I'm gonna use Enduring to combat Decisive Strike and Pig Crouch to deal with Borrowed Time.
    in After playing the game tonight with the new DS changes in mind... Comment by TAG
  • The_Crusader said:
    Bbbrian2013 said:

    Eating the stuns won't be bad at all if they don't change how Enduring interacts with ds. The timer nerf means all ds will be like the current tier 1 ds.

    Enduring+Clown bottle with the new ds will be hilarious it'll be like nothing happened.

    If you don't want to take Enduring though?

    I perdonally believe the stun time will probably be increased.
    What do you base your belief on?
    in After playing the game tonight with the new DS changes in mind... Comment by TAG
  • DarkGGhost said:

    @TAG said:
    Peanits said:


    Freaked said:


    Peanits said:

    If the killer slugs you for 60 seconds, that leaves you open for a quick tap from another survivor, not to mention unbreakable and no mither, even adrenaline.

    To that you might say what if the killer camps you on the ground? They have no way of knowing you have decisive strike. Unless they want to slug and camp everyone they down off the hook for 60 seconds, they're going to have to just eat the stun. But if they do camp every slug for a minute, that's a minute that the other survivors are able to work on generators uninterrupted. That's an easy way to lose if that's what you're after.

    Okay, you got a point, slugging is not the best counter, but what about the other counter I counted?

    A mori isn't really a counter to DS specifically. It kills you outright. By the same logic, a mori would counter Hope or No One Left Behind because they don't get to activate either.

    Make your choice activates on the unhooker, not the guy who's been unhooked. If the killer is going for a different survivor each time, you don't really need the new DS, they aren't tunneling you.

    If you're worried about juking the killer for 60 seconds, you could always just let them down you, or subtly act like you made a mistake so they don't expect anything. You running away isn't really a counter, you're the one doing it.

    Remember isn't a frequently used perk. Yes you can get more stacks with this change of you would have previously camped the obsession to death (though that would have been silly if you are after remember me stacks). But remember me is also not a direct counter to DS. It does not prevent you from getting it or using it.

    Rancor is the one there that's most likely to actually counter DS, but that seems fair. Perks are a game of rock paper scissors. If the killer is expecting you to save your DS until the gates are powered and equips rancor, they won that one. This will be one of the ways the perk is more fair in the end game.

    This one wasn't mentioned yet (and I'm slightly surprised it's not mentioned more often), but I think Myers can counter DS pretty hard with Judith's Journal, Tombstone Piece, and Enduring (for the stun).  This could especially be true for a non-Obsession Survivor who uses DS (potentially because there are multiple DS users in the trial).  Heck, maybe if you want to go the full anti-DS route, throw in Play With Your Food so when the DS-er runs away and you super stalk them, you get a speed boost so you can catch up to them quicker and go for the Tombstone Mori.

    So play one killer for the rest of you life in order to "counter" DS with only 2-3 addons and only one build ok

    I didn't say to only play Myers?  I was commenting on what DS means for Judith's Journal.
    in New DS is ######### Comment by TAG
  • Peanits said:
    Freaked said:
    Peanits said:
    If the killer slugs you for 60 seconds, that leaves you open for a quick tap from another survivor, not to mention unbreakable and no mither, even adrenaline.

    To that you might say what if the killer camps you on the ground? They have no way of knowing you have decisive strike. Unless they want to slug and camp everyone they down off the hook for 60 seconds, they're going to have to just eat the stun. But if they do camp every slug for a minute, that's a minute that the other survivors are able to work on generators uninterrupted. That's an easy way to lose if that's what you're after.
    Okay, you got a point, slugging is not the best counter, but what about the other counter I counted?
    A mori isn't really a counter to DS specifically. It kills you outright. By the same logic, a mori would counter Hope or No One Left Behind because they don't get to activate either.

    Make your choice activates on the unhooker, not the guy who's been unhooked. If the killer is going for a different survivor each time, you don't really need the new DS, they aren't tunneling you.

    If you're worried about juking the killer for 60 seconds, you could always just let them down you, or subtly act like you made a mistake so they don't expect anything. You running away isn't really a counter, you're the one doing it.

    Remember isn't a frequently used perk. Yes you can get more stacks with this change of you would have previously camped the obsession to death (though that would have been silly if you are after remember me stacks). But remember me is also not a direct counter to DS. It does not prevent you from getting it or using it.

    Rancor is the one there that's most likely to actually counter DS, but that seems fair. Perks are a game of rock paper scissors. If the killer is expecting you to save your DS until the gates are powered and equips rancor, they won that one. This will be one of the ways the perk is more fair in the end game.
    This one wasn't mentioned yet (and I'm slightly surprised it's not mentioned more often), but I think Myers can counter DS pretty hard with Judith's Journal, Tombstone Piece, and Enduring (for the stun).  This could especially be true for a non-Obsession Survivor who uses DS (potentially because there are multiple DS users in the trial).  Heck, maybe if you want to go the full anti-DS route, throw in Play With Your Food so when the DS-er runs away and you super stalk them, you get a speed boost so you can catch up to them quicker and go for the Tombstone Mori.
    in New DS is ######### Comment by TAG
  • Peanits said:
    Raccoon said:
    It's way more time effective to just camp people out of the game on the first hook if you think they're running DS, instead of setting yourself up for a guaranteed escape scenario in the endgame.

    Without the initial Obsession indicator, I'm just going to be forced to assume everyone is running DS after its mega-buff. 
    Someone will still be marked as the obsession at the start of the match. This bit was just missing from the description.
    So if no Obsession mark pops up, that's a guarantee that no one is running Decisive Strike?
    in New DS is ######### Comment by TAG
1 … 203 204 205 206 207 … 218
Avatar