TAG

@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804793#Comment_1804793
How? It follows a shorter gameplay path than Pop: Surge: Chase=>Down, vs. Pop: Chase=>Down=>Hook=>Gen
It takes less work to trigger. Offset by the fact that you may not be near a Generator that can be regressed, which can be influenced significantly by map and state of the game.
In which I suppose being able to corral Survivors nearer to valid gens could be considered the work required. Which can be significantly reduced with Powers and Insta-downs...

It takes less work to trigger once vs Pop, but in order to bring it up to Pop levels, you'd need to down 3 people in rapid succession in roughly the same area (hitting the same three gens three times). It requires a lot of things to go right.

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@Steel_Eyed said:
I prefer the survivors take Victor hostage. I never recall him. If I recognize they are doing this I let the Vic’d survivor rat out his teammates with his killer instinct and chase the ones that can do actions. If you know how much a dead survivor harms a team, and they ghost themselves, it’s a major advantage to the killer.

THANK YOU.

in Now that the killer works what is the point of her? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

How about bloodpoints? Also reduce their rarity. They don't need to be higher than uncommon anymore.

in Moris need a SECONDARY effect, nerf is lazy Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@Antrapace said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804801#Comment_1804801
I guess, but if this is their answer then why wasn’t it done so long ago? When I hear rework, I imagine a bit of time and thought going into it.

Better late and lazy than never. :P

in Reworked Mori - What a LAZY nerf! Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

Eh, as long as it is nerfed.

in Reworked Mori - What a LAZY nerf! Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804485#Comment_1804485
I'm still not sure how instant regression (a time gain of 2s per + the time taken to walk to them) on all gens within 32m + an 8% instant regression is worse than Pop. Especially without a cooldown and only a dying state requirement.
If it's only one generator, yeah, it's not the best, but if you can get two in that radius, you save a lot of time in comparison to Pop. Even if the average case is only 1 Generator, the amount of shutdown gained from hitting any more generators will make it better than Pop. And if you can down Survivors in a fast enough manner, it's even better. And you can use it in conjunction with Pop.

Because you have to put in a lot more work just to make it comparable to Pop.

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

Killer main. I approve of Moris getting changed (even if it is not quite how I would have done it).

in Nerfing moris is the worst thing bhvr could've ever done. Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804384#Comment_1804384
Which is why I mentioned map reliance. With your suggestion, on maps like The Game, it's essentially a Pop with a passive dying state trigger that also starts regression on all generators afflicted with no cooldown. But as you say, on larger maps, it's only comparable to Pop if the generators regress for a little bit.
Also, best case scenario would be even better than Pop even without factoring in movement, hitting about 4 gens in The Game will net a maximum of 32% regression from the down + whatever time spent regressing.
But this is an issue with its edge-case scenarios caused by the radius restriction coupled with map layout. But given that offerings are a thing, you can force that best-case scenario. (Albeit with a BP investment).

Sounds more like a problem with The Game than anything.

When I say "best-case scenario," I'm talking borderline Magical Christmas Land where you are completely bulldozing a team of potatoes left and right. In the average case scenario, it would still be much worse than Pop.

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@Zeon_99 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804330#Comment_1804330
Then it becomes a whole new thing they would have to balance around. Surge would most likely receive a compensation nerf due to how good it could be. STBFL on Legion would be good too. They could use it with their power earlier, but with a stronger power than before it'll be a no brainer to run.

I dunno, I don't think "another balance thing to think of" is a bad thing. And STBFL could be one of the perks that stays as-is. Surge I think can be safely changed.

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804311#Comment_1804311
It will make it good for average play, OP for high-level play, with a heavy reliance on map selection.

I don't really see it that way. In the ABSOLUTE best case scenario, I think it would only be comparable to Pop (maybe slightly better if you factor in the time it takes to find a kick a gen when you get Pop).

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@Zeon_99 said:
Dude could you imagine NOED on Legion? The basic attack requirement is what's keeping the game from not being a broken mess.

I mean, you could easily just keep the Exposed Status effect to only work on basic attacks anyways. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1803745#Comment_1803745
I take it you're also of the belief that Ruin shouldn't be a Hex perk?
If Surge not only loses it's cooldown but also loses its restriction, it will become one of the best snowball perks in the game. Imagine that on a map like The Game as well, where several gens are close together due to its layout. It might be balanced on spread out maps like Ormond, but it would be absolutely oppressive on layered/small maps.
And if you say "well why don't we add exceptions based on maps", you still run right back to that maintenance issue.
Do I think Surge could be improved? Absolutely, it's radius restriction is a bit hit-or-miss based on map size as mentioned above. It could absolutely take inspiration from the way Oppression approaches gens, and perhaps make it so that it effects the closest [X]# of generators to you instead of relying on a radius. Though this streamlining would necessitate a Cooldown.
The more I think about it the more I do agree with you that the M1 restriction could be replaced by a dying state trigger (though I am still hesitant given that Powers that can easily insta-down with mobility will be able to really make use of this in conjunction with something like Tinkerer's), but a cooldown is always going to be necessary. (And I would suggest a QoL replacement of the radius requirement with a maximum number of Generators requirement like Oppression).

I don't like Hex perks period, so I'm the wrong person to ask about that.

I believe that those changes to Surge would make it good, not OP.

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@Vetrathene said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804242#Comment_1804242
Do you know the meaning of the word balance? Because this change isn't it. Its one sided. And completely making a tool useless instead of making it less useful. And I really don't see keys getting this kind of treatment.

Do you understand what "game balance" is? It does not mean "don't change one thing without changing something else to compensate." It means "change things that are overpowered (or underpowered)."

in Going to Nerf Keys BHVR? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@bjorksnas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804180#Comment_1804180
ah yes the good old franklins water gun

Nope, I'll just kill them with a Reverse Bear Trap like I always do.

in Someone Necroed this by accident because first post weirdness plz ignore Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

As I said in another thread, not how I would have done but, but at least something was done. Step in the right direction overall.

in Mori changes no key changes reactions? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@Vetrathene said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804191#Comment_1804191
...If there is one less rotten apple on one side of the scale but the same amount on the other side of the scale, is the scale balanced?

Game balance, not actual "even steven".

in Going to Nerf Keys BHVR? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@Vetrathene said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804146#Comment_1804146
Mori's aren't fixed, they are useless. So unless keys are somehow going to be useless, I don't see how we are going to get balance. Maybe if they make it so a hatch can only be opened with a key when one survivor is left and 3 gens have been done, then maybe. But I don't see them doing that, and who knows how long before we get the devs 'solution'?

Because we now have one less overpowered thing in the game. That is balance.

in Going to Nerf Keys BHVR? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@bjorksnas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804091#Comment_1804091
look at it this way, you are dueling an opponent on the regular and have the same weapon, but due to a "bug fix" you bullets have become blanks while youre opponent still has real bullets but they attached a promise in a while they will be given blanks as well, do you think your opponent will take advantage of this situation and milk it for all its worth or just cancel for a few weeks until its all sorted

I'll just kill them with a different weapon. Ez

in Someone Necroed this by accident because first post weirdness plz ignore Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@Vetrathene said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804108#Comment_1804108
I would rather the game be balanced. And thats fine when its a bug fix or graphics update, But when it comes to balance and it tips the scales one way or the other, you should not just put it out because its done for one side.

And waiting to nerf Moris means leaving the game unbalanced longer.

you should not just put it out because its done for one side.

Strong disagree. Having two OP things is worse than having one OP thing. You don't wait to fix a problem until a separate problem can be fixed.

in Going to Nerf Keys BHVR? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@Vetrathene said:
They did, but they could have waited, and they didn't. Whether its intentional or not, they did not have the foresight to think this through at the best, and at the worst they actually do favor survivors. It should be reverted until they have the ability to change keys. I've been through this rigamorole so many times now. Where its 'easier' to change something for survivors and they will 'eventually' change it for killers.

They absolutely should not wait. You come up with a solution you're satisfied with, you ship that solution ASAP. I'd rather have one OP thing in the game than two.

in Going to Nerf Keys BHVR? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@bjorksnas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1804050#Comment_1804050
yea but to nerf them into the ground like this while letting keys run rampant and nerf them beyond what keys will be nerfed to in a 1 v 4 game with 1 mori and 4 keys you gotta ask yourself if it was a good change, my answer is no

My answer is yes. Moris being changed should not be dependent on keys being changed and vice versa.

in Someone Necroed this by accident because first post weirdness plz ignore Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

They've already said that they have changes to keys as well.

in Going to Nerf Keys BHVR? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

That's not how I would have done it, but this is one of those times where I am okay that they Warsong Commander'd it into the ground.

in Ebony and Ivory Memento Moris now require the targeted survivor to have been hooked twice Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1803511#Comment_1803511
Efficiency is part of it, yes, though there's also a balancing and playstyle factor. Given Surge's reliance on M1's it allows it to have a shorter cooldown and actually be useful on more M1 oriented Killers than having a Higher cooldown with a general dying state criteria otherwise abuseable with Power effective Killers.
And Surge should be more closely considered with Pop, not PWYF. PWYF's attack criteria serve as its restriction, not what it enables.
Pop's restrictions requires you to take time after hook going to a Generator right after. It's not something that is just passively active after a Hook to be used whenever a Generator takes your fancy. Much the same with Surge, you need to take time to get an M1 in for the final hit, rather than it just being a passive dying state effect.

I am 100% of the belief that Surge should have both its trigger condition relaxed to include non-basic attacks AND lose the cooldown, so I don't agree with your reasoning there.

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@gibblywibblywoo said:
I've always found the 26% thing kinda weird, feels like an outdated description. I'm assuming thats 8M on a 32M killer. This would be more in line with the way newer perks are treated so this would be a good change.

It's slightly more than 8 meters, since 8 meters is exactly 25% of 32 meters. I really don't understand why they didn't go with a nice, clean 25% initially.

in Perk changes | Distressing Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1802905#Comment_1802905
That's like saying "If you need to perform calculations for an equation, it doesn't matter if it's done by hand or if it's done by a computer." Sure, the end result is (may) be the same, but the time taken to get there and consistency differs based on the method used. (Please think of complex calculations requiring hours upon hours of work by hand, and not just a quickly expanded 1+1)
Sure, if you have the capability and resources to manage these things in a timely and clean manner, go ahead, but if you don't, shooting yourself in the foot by adding additional complexity isn't the greatest idea. In fact, even if you do have the resources to do so, why not make these things easier to maintain, and allow you to do other things?

I'm going to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. This sounds like it's a matter of efficiency, but I don't think what I'm suggesting is...well, not efficient, considering that we already have a perk that supposedly works the way I'm asking. I don't think it becomes overly complex if we adopt that model that is already used for one perk for a few other currently established perks that can get away with being buffed in that way.

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1802492#Comment_1802492
Ponder this for a moment:
All of these questions, these "What if"'s... If they were ever implemented. Whenever you made a change to a perk and to any of those same conditions, even added to the list... due diligence would necessitate comprehensive analysis against all of these conditions, testing, and regression.
That is what you want to avoid.
What is easier to understand,
1+1 =2
or
((13%2)+1)/2+(5-(2*2)) = 2

I mean, isn't that just how game coding and balance as a whole works? Isn't it always going to be "((13%2)+1)/2+(5-(2*2)) = 2" in the end? Whenever something is implemented, added, etc., it's always always always going to require comprehensive analysis against the rest of the whole game.

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

@Almo said:
This requirement will stay. There are things we don't want, like someone going into dying state due to a Bear Trap with Honing Stone triggering stuff like Surge. The alternative to the basic attack requirement is making exceptions. For example we could say Surge works for Demo Shred, but not Trapper BT/HS. Now every time we add a new Killer, we potentially have to through and update every perk with these exceptions. It's just not a maintainable design with the vast amount of perk/addon/power combinations available.
Since every Killer can basic attack, we can create the perk, and know exactly how it works with every Killer without having to check a ton of different interactions. If this means some perks don't work well given some Killers' powers, then that's just the way of it. Not every perk is exactly as useful on one Killer as it is on the others. Learning to choose your perks well to synergize with your chosen Killer is one of the important skills in DbD.
I have heard it said that this answer means we're "lazy"... that we're not willing to "do things that take work". Whole programming languages and paradigms have been based around preventing the same thing in code as we're trying to prevent in design with this strategy. You don't want a ball of yarn of a design where tugging on any little thing pulls a whole ton of others.
In a game as complex as DbD, there will necessarily be some of that. But minimizing it through smart design is still a worthwhile endeavor.

For what it's worth, Play With Your Food is designed to trigger off performing a, and I quote, "a basic attack or Special Attack." So in theory, could some of those perks that are restricted to basic attack only not simply just adopt the same condition as Play With Your Food?

in When will the basic attack requirement be removed? Comment by TAG December 8, 2020

Urban Evasion

Can't get hooked if you're never caught :P

in I'm so tired of dying on my first hook Comment by TAG December 7, 2020

It should also be worth noting that of the perks you listed besides Ruin, only two of them are worth potentially using (and NOED is problematic itself).

in The problem with Ruin Comment by TAG December 7, 2020

@Braders said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1801559#Comment_1801559
That's about 1,6 seconds worth of gen repair, killers kick gens in about 2 seconds, i think 5% (4 seconds) wouldn't be op or anything.

I am of the belief that the number should be small at the start to play it safe. If there ends up being more room for safe growth, then that's something that could be revisited.

in Kicking a gen should regress it instantly by some amount Comment by TAG December 7, 2020

@HittingOnHook said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1801548#Comment_1801548
saying that and nothing is the same lmao of course there will be all types of different usages of the perks

Yeah, and the important question to ask is if there is a potential for people to abuse it and if so, what are the ramifications. It doesn't matter if people will use it to make fun, silly builds. It matters if people will use it to make strong builds stronger. Even if both Killer and Survivor have equal opportunity (which, btw, they don't due to the fundamental differences between Killer and Survivor), it still means that there is a reduction of variety in the higher levels of play, which is a bad thing.