TheSubstitute
TheSubstitute
About
- Username
- TheSubstitute
- Joined
- Visits
- 6,661
- Last Active
Comments
-
It's a very good perk. I run it with a Prove Thyself and Situational Awareness build although, even then, 80% of the time I do the gen by myself.
Even without an exhaustion perk, I notice I tend to escape more with Deja Vu than without it.
-
Congrats!
-
I'm confused as to your reasoning. Why would Killers as a whole need basekit perks instead of buffs to individual Killers like Trapper? Individual Killers may have it rough but Killers, as a whole, are in a good spot.
-
@Pulsar said:
Balancing around the top % is bad, but you can balance things FOR the top %.
Very true. As an example, a common complaint is Starstruck on Nurse. If the TR was changed to zero for Nurse while carrying a survivor or a blink lunge became a different type of attack that didn't activate Starstruck but still left Sloppy Butcher, etc as possibilities for Nurse as @Little_Kitten has suggested that would be a good example of balancing for the top 1% but not around the top 1%.
Very few people would miss it and people learning Nurse would still be able to have fun with Nurse.
That's a good point to bring up; the top 1% needs things as well and I think the example above illustrates a way to do that without sacrificing the fun of those who are not in the top 1%.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268823#Comment_3268823
Of course, and sorry I came out of the gate so strong.
No problem at all. Misunderstandings, especially if it's all carried out in text, happen and they're not a big deal.
-
I like the Hag. I don't like being left to one hook by my teammates because the Hag may or may not have left a trap by the hook. That's my only complaint.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268811#Comment_3268811
The reason I'm so insistent on the clarification is because of how dangerous that type of information is. People who don't understand the situation will easily point at people who do to make their arguments for them, not understanding the first thing about the topic to begin with. The echo chamber effect is too strong, which is why opposing viewpoints need equal consideration. The topic was originally about how this game apparetly needs to balance specifically for casual players because balancing for top players is poisonous because of VHS as a case sample, which is why I'm so adamant in my stance. Its more about the conclusions people draw from the data than the data itself, which is why its near impossible to actually have constructive balance discussions at all. The initial dismissals, regardless of whether you meant them, serve as vindication for people who refuse to take insight from opinions they disagree with. Agreeing to disagree is perfectly fine, its just important that such a stance be an informed one and not one of vindication.
I see your point. I assume that most people know that I will change my opinion based on data, that I'm fine to agree to disagree on most topics and that without data and facts backing me up I consider everything I say to be an opinion and to be taken as such. I know that I shouldn't assume everyone knows that but it slips my mind since the natural tendency is for people to assume other people think like them. Thanks for clarifying.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268781#Comment_3268781
There is a reason so many companies do not make new IPs. It is an extreme risk to release a game with zero foreknowledge and pre-release marketing is all that is needed for a "single experience" title. When you make a "game as a service"/living game/whatever moniker is used for it, post release support and promotion is even more important then pre-release. It affects everything including balancing, as **re**balancing is a very important aspect of player retention. This is actually a very important distinction in the medium, and is a major part of why even single player games attempt to mimic it when and where they can.
Marketing is more than just pre-release advertising, post-release support is also a factor in it. This game is a great example with its licensed chapters, they do a lot to market the game to new players and understandably see a jump in players with their releases. People buy chapters like the SH and RE ones, Pinhead/Freddy/etc because they're iconic. BHVR pays for the licensing because they know it will bring more people in, aka marketing.
Games that don't get post release support are a trend that the industry recognizes too well. Its why growth is so important, this game in particular has lost a massive amount of players since its release, but also gained much more to offset it. And again, this game has gone through some near unplayable levels of imbalance, even if the worst of them were generally short lived.
Also when did I say "just" marketing? Again, I have been saying that poor balance was not the primary cause, and have been showing that marketing has more of an impact relative. I also stated that you can agree to disagree and reiterated that my issue was only with your insistence that your perceived issue is both the primary one and that others are inconsequential. Also don't know when I made any ad hominems, unless you mean pointing out your stance leans heavily into outcome bias.
But I'm not insisting the other reasons are inconsequential. I'm saying my belief is that the primary factor, which as I define as greater than the other factors, was the Monster side and of that the new player experience of Monster factored more into player retention than the unfun nature of Monster. As I stated above, I don't have any data and, to be honest, don't really care if I'm that accurate in my attributions of importance or not since if any reliable data ever came out I would change my opinion to be in accordance with the data. I'm not aware of any historical comparisons that show that the player loss that VHS experienced could be attributable to a lack of marketing and thus don't see it as a primary factor. A factor, yes. A primary factor, no.
I think this is just a breakdown in communication. I might not have explained it clearly enough but of the multiple factors that caused the downfall of VHS my opinion is that the largest factor, but not the only, was the Monster experience and this primarily came about because the devs focused on balancing on the top 1% as the primary goal. As I said, I don't have any data or analyses to look at but from what I've seen and my experiences in closed beta I think there's a good possibility that that was the primary cause. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and if I'm right, I'm right. It's not a big deal to me if I'm correct; I'm more upset over the fact that this was all avoidable and VHS had a lot of potential that will be lost if it simply just closes shop.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268751#Comment_3268751
In the very post i originally quoted? In case you forgot:
The not enough marketing, at least to me, seems to be an extension of the 'But more beta keys will fix it!' to but 'But EA will fix it!' to 'But a better tutorial' and now to VHS needed more marketing.Again, You were being extremely dismissive to another person who was making very valid points about the game's outcome in order to try to push a lesser reasoning as primary. Balance doesn't matter if the game's only sample size is its release window, and it gains little to no new blood to expand said sample size. Thats why I called it poisoned stock earlier, it lacks growth both in actual players as well as perspectives. This game didn't even have looping as an intentional mechanic at the start, and it changed a lot over the years, and had plenty of its success while in an extremely unbalanced state. My issue is that you're trying to force a lesser reason as the primary one, which I would dismiss as simply uninformed if not for claiming to understand how these things work from a professional level. That makes it come off as more disingenuous, regardless of whether that was your intent.
I just saw the edit in your post. That makes it seem a lot less hostile. Thanks for adding that.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268751#Comment_3268751
In the very post i originally quoted? In case you forgot:
The not enough marketing, at least to me, seems to be an extension of the 'But more beta keys will fix it!' to but 'But EA will fix it!' to 'But a better tutorial' and now to VHS needed more marketing.Again, You were being extremely dismissive to another person who was making very valid points about the game's outcome in order to try to push a lesser reasoning as primary. Balance doesn't matter if the game's only sample size is its release window, and it gains little to no new blood to expand said sample size. Thats why I called it poisoned stock earlier, it lacks growth both in actual players as well as perspectives. This game didn't even have looping as an intentional mechanic at the start, and it changed a lot over the years, and had plenty of its success while in an extremely unbalanced state. My issue is that you're trying to force a lesser reason as the primary one, which I would dismiss as simply uninformed if not for claiming to understand how these things work from a professional level. That makes it come off as more disingenuous, regardless of whether that was your intent.
In this case while marketing is a factor it would be, in my opinion, fallacious to say it was a primary factor. A game that is fun to play, even without marketing, will not experience an over 95% drop in its playerbase in the timeframe that VHS has been out.
I'm not being dismissive of the person either. I am dismissing marketing as the primary reason it failed. If you are unfamiliar with this part of VHS history everytime the issues with Monster came up they were dismissed with the 'But this will fix it!'.
Rather than launching ad hominem attacks such as claiming I don't understand correlation and causation and calling me uninformed and disingenuous perhaps you could explain to me or show me a game of similar complexity as VHS but was fun that lost over 95% of its playerbase in a few months due to just not marketing? One that had a few thousand players in its playerbase would make for a more accurate comparison.
If you can't find one or show that losing over 95% of your playerbase over a few months in a fun game that has the same complexity and replayability of VHS is normal perhaps you should consider that a lack of marketing was not the primary reason.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268734#Comment_3268734
Yea, I just now realized how poorly worded my original reply was, I changed it since when I first started commenting on it I was still half asleep and more focused around a discussion based around balancing Eruption.
I was trying to say that the game fell off for a variety of reasons, not just a single one, and that what you said can be a contributing factor, but not the sole reason behind the game dying. I changed my original reply so it reflects it a lot clearer.
That's cool, thanks. None of us have the data or are willing to perform an extended analysis even if we had the data so we're just stating opinions. What I believe is the main reason might not be and what you believe might be; it's just opinions and I'm fine to agree to disagree on any opinions anyway.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268731#Comment_3268731
You went off listing valid reasoning as excuses and conflated them with other excuses made concerning other games. Why try to throw clout with your profession if your observation was directly counterintuitive to it? My point was that the person you were responding to had valid reasonings that can both coexist with your own and can have more direct causation than your hypothesis. Your stance is also subject to outcome bias paired with anecdotal accounts, which again, makes it a secondary cause much more than a primary one. Just try not to be dismissive with stances that agree with reality but disagree with your outlook.
Where did I ever say that the other reasons listed were excuses? What evidence do you have that the new player experience for Monster was not the primary cause and where did I make the logical fallacies you said I'm making? Also, where did I say that what I said was the only reason instead of what I believe to be the main reason? I'm also not throwing clout by mentioning my background to further elaborate on what happened but to try to help convey part of the reason why I'm so disappointed this happened to VHS.
You're normally very calm and reasonable but, and my apologies if this isn't the case, but you're coming across as a bit hostile. Did I phrase something poorly or annoy you somehow?
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268707#Comment_3268707
I was saying it as it being one of many factors leading to VHS's downfall, Im not saying the lack of marketing is the sole reason behind the game dying. "There are a lot of moving parts towards the game's decline" was the mere concept of what I was saying, since a game's decline is more complex than just one thing being the cause.
Balance, or the lack there of, can be a contributing factor, but I believe it isnt everything when the game's early management made the game destine to fail. VHS's developers were kind of just known was "the people making that one game that will never come out in a polished state" and a lot of my friends dropped the game because they felt the direction it was going early in development was not so good. And I feel bad for the developers because they really tried to make the game work, just so many things went wrong.
They lost a huge chunk of their audience in early development. Yes, those who stayed despite it's early on issues might have not liked it, but the fact so many people left in early development should be considered since the game would have a better possibility of a thriving playerbase. Post-launch, it died because of the balance or lack there of, but through it's development, it could never get the foothold it needed to go anywhere to begin with. As I stated, the game was destined to fail to begin with.
I'm not disagreeing that what you said was a factor; we just have a disagreement over what the primary cause was.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268707#Comment_3268707
NGL if you actually do this for a job like you claim, you really should learn the difference between correlation and causation. You're doing an awful lot of dismissing of relevant factors to laser focus on a single one, which would be extremely bad for prospecting clients who wish to take all relevant data from any success/failure in marketing and growth.
Lack of growth is much more of a death knell than even balance, as it creates a net negative potential. If you literally have nowhere to go but down, then the failure cascades rapidly as the sample set not only has no room to expand, but it shrinks directly relative to awareness. Its both poisoned stock and natural decline bottled together, and the vast majority of almost any game's sales happen in its opening 2 weeks, while marketing and advertising/promotion are designed to ebb vs the natural decline flow.
I'm not saying anything you have to say about VHS is right or wrong necessarily, just that you're drawing a lot of assumptions and dismissing a lot of valid reasoning.
I understand what you're saying but it's not like I was hired and performed analytics. I was a player with a business background. I'm also not saying other factors didn't contribute but as for the primary cause it was primarily problems with the Monster role, and while not having any research or data so I'm making an opinion, I'm guessing the primary part of that was the new Monster experience based off of what I saw repeating from the beta waves.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268684#Comment_3268684
Why do they have to not be "esports"? Games that are balanced and played at the tournament level can still be plenty fun for casuals.
100% but DbD is not an esport and doesn't have the market to be an esport. If it were an esport or becoming an esport were a viable business model I would change my mind. I could be mistaken about the model; it's not like I've carried out extensive market analysis but based on the reaction from esports players going to play DbD I don't think that's viable (but still just an opinion).
If being an esport is not a viable option, then DbD should balance for its strengths and not for something that's not a good course of action.
-
@killermain said:
I really can not discern if this is satire. The "argument" C is especially ridiculous
That's probably a good indication C applies directly to you.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268651#Comment_3268651
A lack of marketing prevents growth, or at least normal growth. If the player count will never increase because the game can never reach a broader audience, then hypothetically the only direction it can go is a decline. Having growth can also cancel out or reduce the declining playercount.
The disagreement I have with the lack of marketing argument is the timeframe. In a matter of a few months VHS went from a high of 6,023 concurrent players on Steam to 140 currently and I wouldn't be surprised if next month was double digits. That is too fast of a decline for not marketing to be the primary cause. If it were spread out over years, that would be a different story.
The not enough marketing, at least to me, seems to be an extension of the 'But more beta keys will fix it!' to but 'But EA will fix it!' to 'But a better tutorial' and now to VHS needed more marketing.
It's too fast of a decline to be just marketing and the core issues were never fixed; new player Monster isn't fun enough to keep more than a small amount of people who tried it, of the ones who stayed they learned Monster wasn't fun even once you learned it, and without enough people to fill one side the match making, queue times, etc break down and impact the otherwise amazing and well-done Teen side.
In closed beta, whenever the fun part was brought up a common retort was 'But the balance!' and the devs gave high priority to the input from the same group of 50 people who were highly skilled at the game while ignoring the people in the lower levels of VHS who were saying it might be fun at the top but it's not balanced.
I literally said directly to the devs that if Monster is not fun enough to keep at least a minimum of 15% of the playerbase playing it and preferably 20% then all the rest doesn't matter because as Monsters leave queue times will grow, matchmaking will become harder and the Teens will also start to leave and this would crater the game.
Unfortunately, I was right and this is exactly what happened. I'm not surprised because as for my actual job over the last decade I have advised businesses (I'm not a teacher, I use TheSubstitute because of the mistaken leak for the Teacher Killer for DbD and teachers are good horror genre) and it was easy to see coming.
I am saddened, to be honest, because the game had so much potential but it forgot its product was entertainment value and balance was a tool and not a goal in and of itself.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268570#Comment_3268570
Not necessarily, because a Survivor team that is comprised of some better than Killer and some worse than Killer can balance out accordingly if you actually TRY to balance.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268591#Comment_3268591
Why do most other games that balance around the good players not have this problem of being not fun? Balancing for the top is a common way to balance that is reliable and can lead to satisfying gameplay. Why is DBD exempt from this philosophy?
Which games are balancing around the top 1% that are actually fun and not esports? The asymmetrical nature complicates all balancing but if you can list some games that would help. I can think of some games where it didn't sink the game entirely but it wasn't fun for a lot of other players but I don't think that's what you're referring to.
-
@Piruluk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268591#Comment_3268591
Yeah I think anymore buff to killers would hurt the survivor playerbase, right now its little killer favoured, but i guess it needed because most people cant handle losing playing as the one role, so they need a little bonus to winrate, 60% quite good number to aim for
Yeah, I think the next step to aim for is buffs to solo queue to help out solos and then let kill rates settle before changing too much. There are individual Killers like Trapper who need something but, overall, Killer is in a good spot. It's only an opinion, of course, but I think solo needs help the most and after that settles we can see how things look again.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268483#Comment_3268483
No it doesn't. It means that games are more likely to be determined by which side is more skilled. Also, I'm not arguing "balance killers among the top 1% of Survivors." I'm arguing "balance the game among the top 1% of players." The goal is not "make sure Killers can consistently win against the best Survivors." It's "make sure the best players can win regardless of which side they are on." Note how I am not referring to a specific side, unlike you.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268526#Comment_3268526
That doesn't make any sense. When players are of roughly equal skill, the win rates between them SHOULD be close to 50/50, which some minor variations between killers (since all Survivors play identically). Obviously perfect balance is not achievable, but doesn't mean we can strive to get close to that.
It kind of sounds like you want to emphasize the best balance over fun which is another reason that balancing for the top 1% kills games. If people aren't having fun why should they play or buy things for a game they don't enjoy? Very imbalanced is, of course, another way to kill a game but balance is a tool used to achieve fun. If the choice is better balance or more fun then balance is the subordinate goal and fun is the endgoal.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268506#Comment_3268506
Yes, balancing for the top 1% would mean removing starstruck from Nurse. But the game isn’t balanced like that.
Balancing for the top 1% would also mean dead hard would need a super nerf, because we would evaluate the perk based on what would happen if survivors could use the perk absolutely perfectly, every single time.
That would also suck the fun out of the game for many of the players and is another reason to not balance around the top 1%.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268483#Comment_3268483
Balancing for the top 1% means taking out all the things that get broken when the top 1% uses it. It means things like Hyperfocus would need to be nerfed into the ground, because we would evaluate the perk based on what would happen if a survivor could reliably hit every great skill check.
But if only the top 1% could actually use it why spend the resources creating it and maintaining it when the other 99% won't use it (and who will provide, roughly, 99 more times gross revenue than the 1%)?
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268420#Comment_3268420
To me, it seems like your primary position is that you think the game being balanced at the top is the #1 contributing factor in the game failing, when other people are suggesting a host of other factors.
It is the primary but not the only factor. Without balancing for the top, the new player Monster experience would have been considered. If the new player Monster experience had been better then the new Monsters would have stuck around.
As they didn't, that led to longer and longer queues for Teens and the only Monsters being left being the top of the players who tried the role which eventually would lower the Teen win rates so after the 20 minute Teen queue they would be more likely to lose. This lowered Teen retention as nobody wants to sit in long queues especially to have a bad game after.
All of this occurred because VHS focused on the top and didn't consider the experience of the newer Monster players. As soon as the number queuing for Monster fell to less than 20% of the playerbase the match making systems broke down followed by increasing queue times. This led to the extreme loss in player numbers. VHS had a decent amount of players at the start of EA; they lost them after.
This was then exacberated by what @edgarpoop mentioned; for the those that did stick around Monster was mechanically simple (although very strategically complex), not that much fun, and involved a lot of downtime which is boring. Not that many people stuck around though as most new Monsters just left before realizing this. This pattern was seen multiple times in the closed beta.
It's a bad idea to focus on balancing for the top if you need participants. People play to have fun and all sides and levels need to have fun if the game is to be healthy. If the sport is a spectator sport like professional sports, yes, focus on the top but for a game that's participation based focusing on the top is usually harmful.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268412#Comment_3268412
You seem to me like you are pretty set in your belief. That's fine, but do try to keep an open mind to alternate theories as well.
I just edited the post instead of double posting. I think the edit clarifies my position a bit more if you'd like to see why.
-
@FFirebrandd said:
That's not why VHS is mostly dead.
All of the following happened between when streamers were hyping it up an when it released.
1. A DDOS attack.
2. A lengthy period of radio silence.
3. A rebranding.
4. Their Discord getting hacked.
5. No marketing push to announce that the game was finally out.
I'll freely admit that VHS is much more punishing than DBD is, but trying to make it out like that is its biggest problem is incredibly inaccurate.
I disagree. None of that would have mattered in the long run if Monster had been fun and the skill floor difference between Monster and Teen hadn't been so staggeringly different. VHS had over 6,000 concurrent players on Steam when EA took place to a peak of 140 concurrent players as of yesterday.
If Monster and especially new player Monster had been a better experience as was said so many times in closed beta they would have stuck around and Teens wouldn't have had 20+ minute queues followed by any new Teens only meeting the sweatiest Monsters (who were the only ones left) which cratered the numbers on the Teen side.
It was the balancing around the top 1% and only really listening to a group of 50 people that sunk it.
Edit:
@[Deleted User] said:
VHS isn't failing because they balanced around top level play. It's failing because the Monster role is insanely boring and they haven't made any meaningful changes to the gameplay loop since beta. Monsters are mostly copy paste and there is zero mechanical skill curve with them if you have even 200 hrs of DbD killer. You are at the mechanical skill cap of VHS Monster within 5 hours if you come from DbD. Players repeatedly asked for ways to make Monster more engaging and after almost 2 years they got "M1 vending machines".
A boring ambush meta has nothing to do with the level of play they're balancing for. That's just a bad core design choice.
That's only part of it. While what you said about Monster play being boring and mechanically limited is true there is also the additional factor of Teens were easier to pick up than Monster. During the closed beta, I played both sides concurrently for 80 games and recorded the results. While at about 50 games my win rate as Monster equalized to that of Teen at the beginning my win rate as Teen was literally six times higher.
I pointed out that almost nobody would stick around for 40 to 50 games to have a decent chance of winning and the skill floor for Monster had to be dramatically lowered and I was far from the only one. This was ignored as it was balanced at the top.
-
@TAG said:
Always confuses me when people act like balancing around the top means making it so Killer always wins except against the very best Survivors.
I concur. Killers shouldn't be balanced around the performance of the very top and neither should Survivors. Doing so is unfair to the players and saps enjoyment out of the role.
-
This is what I've been saying in different threads about how DbD needs to balance around all players instead of solely the top. Unfortunately VHS, which had potential, decided to make decisions based around the top percentage of their playerbase which is a disaster waiting to happen for games based on participation.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268296#Comment_3268296
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268299#Comment_3268299
My lovelies, just to prevent you from spending needless time on my tactic: this is of course utter bogus! You don't have to open the hatch and escape two times in the same trial! That would be so crazy :D I just pulled ya leg, but I don't want in on my kharma tab if you guys tried to do it for an entire evening or something and get super frustrated. Escaping the normal way with a key is tough enough, IIRC you need to escape via key 4 times for all tome challenges?
Phew, the good part is I thought I had spent dozens and dozens of games doing something when there was an easier way to do it (I completed the challenge but it was over a hundred games to do so w/o throwing). The bad part is that if you haven't done this challenge yet there isn't an easier way to do it. I really wish BHVR would change this challenge.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/354973/open-hatch-with-a-key-2-times-challenge
The trick to this challenge is to open the hatch two times in the same trial. Its quite easy, actually: locate the hatch with Left Behind, hide in a bush, wait for the killer to close the hatch, then quickly open it when the killer goes to th exit gates. Afterwards hide again in a different bush and wait. The EGC timer will be paused and the confused killer has to close the hatch again. Then jump out, open and escape. Easy as pie.
I so wish I had known it would pause the EGC timer when I did this challenge.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
Imagine if every thread had to have a unique name.
To be fair the Reasons for the Nerf Nurse thread was started as a discussion about why is there so much vitriol directed at Nurse and how her unique game mechanics complicate the discussion. Some posters are just saying nerf Nurse in it but the thread was posted more of a discussion of the psychology behind it because the discussion around Nurse is more nuanced than the usual 'I think this might be too strong' or, alternatively, the 'I just want an advantage' reasons behind most calls for nerfs. The thread isn't a call for nerfs but rather a discussion as to why the nerf threads exist.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3268079#Comment_3268079
My teammates just farm me, refuse to do gens, insist on SELF-CARING AGAINST A LEGION and then i get tunneled
That completely sucks. I had a game the other day in RPD against a Myers who, as I guessed had Tombstone and COB/Overcharge, and my teammates didn't realize that if nobody helped me slam gens in the two in the meeting hall/one in the library three gen when the Myers moved away we would all eventually lose regardless of if the other four gens were done or not. It stretched into a very painful long game that was unsurprisingly a 4K as all the Myers had to do was stand on the upper corridor by the library gen to tier up to 3 and keep the three gen secure.
I suppose technically I didn't one hook that game but I did die in one hit so I kind of consider it the same.
-
I think it's fun most of the time. The rest of the time my teammates leave me to one hook.
-
@Omans said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3267878#Comment_3267878
How many times must things be explained to you before you stop repeating things that are not true...? Calling for changes to nurse is the same as calling for changes to swf or map balance.
The thing is, the latter two don't have fierce opposition. While all three are obvious changes that need to happen for the health of the game, only Nurse has a few posters fiercely defending her despite how her being OP is obvious.
So you're saying 'Nerf Nurse!' implies 'Nerf SWF!'? or 'Rebalance Maps'? I'm unsure how you think that means the same thing.
Edit: I'm very unclear on what you're trying to say. Everything I said is either true or stated as an opinion.
Or are you attempting to say your opinion for which you have no factual support is a fact?
-
I'm seeing Killer incentives a lot more than before as well.
-
@Raptorrotas said:
Generally it hillarious that there are so many nurf threads.
"We want survivor be balabced around swf, meaning we gotta buff survivor till "survivor" is as strong as "survivor x friendship + comms"."
"We need to balance around nurse, so gut her instead of buffing the others."
I've noticed some serious survivor bias in the community.
I think that there is a definite level of double standards in play. As an example, I've never seen any of the more virulent Nerf Nurse posters ever post in any of the threads suggesting that SWF is OP. They may say they think that but actions do speak louder than words and I don't see any calls to balance survivors around Hens coming from the same people who say Nerf Nurse around the theoretical god level Nurses.
Some people also can be stuck in their opinions and that's why they're so deaf set against open discussions. As an example, in my original post in this thread I stated that I think the Nurse complaints stem from more than just the 'I think this might be too strong' or the 'I just want an advantage for my side' which are the most common reasons for Nerf threads. I was accused of telling people what to think, being condescending, being unskilled, etc but I never said people shouldn't think that Nurse is too powerful; I said these are other factors that might be affecting people's perception of Nurse and that they had an opinion but opinions are not necessarily facts.
My position on all of these threads has been:
(a) I think Nurse is fine and I enjoy versing her. This is an opinion. It may or may not be shared by specific individuals and it may or may not be right
(b) The data to determine if Nurse is fine or not is not held by any member of the community and only BHVR has it. The only limited data we have suggests there is not an issue but it is not a full picture. The people saying to nerf Nurse have no reliable data to support their view because anything they present (eg selective tournaments) are too small of a sample size and the subset of players is too restricted. Any conjecture on whether or not Nurse is OP or not is a matter of opinion
(c) If a game relies on participation to be healthy the game should be balanced around all skill levels so as to maximize enjoyment. While small subsets such as tournament players and total beginners should be considered since they should have fun as well they are not the sole groups to be considered.
As a corollary of that, if people want to balance Nurse around SupaAlf as an example then they should also be calling for survivors to be balanced around Hens and Team Oracle. Anything else is a double standard.
I would say a lot of these calls to nerf Nurse fall under the 'I want an advantage for my side' if it weren't for Nurse being so distinct. As an example, if a Nurse is charged up on a second floor building I rush the Nurse and I steadfastly avoid pallet throwing and window vaulting as much as possible unless the Nurse is in fatigue. That's the opposite of nearly all other Killers; I'm never going to rush an Oni second floor or not and throwing pallets and window vaults normally helps me in chase instead of hurting me. That's why I posted those reasons there because I think Nurse's mechanics affect the discussion around her.
-
I didn't throw any games to get it. I also spent easily over a hundred games and probably over two hundred before I got it. Getting the 'Left For Dead' achievement without a friendly Killer helping me was honestly easier. Welcome to the challenge I hated the most in DbD.
-
I would say post 3.5 to pre 6.1 Ruin is healthier for the game overall and much healthier with the deactivates upon first down condition. It incentivizes chasing and deincentivizes tunneling and camping.
@ScottJund did a good video about that as well if you want to take a look at it
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UxAbR23YS_s -
I play both; a bit more solo survivor than Killer but maybe 55/45% to 60/40% at most. I don't want to buy a game and not explore all parts of gameplay. I'd feel as if I'm not getting full value.
-
If I have I haven't recognized the name. I also have a different name on Steam most days than here so it's possible I have but just don't know that I have.
-
@deifi said:
I just played against a nurse who was toxic, typical "eeeezzz" comments. So I logically ask, how about you play survivor and I play nurse? You can even recruit a team of survivors against my nurse (who I haven't touched in months AND im running yellow perks. He refuses. So I figure let's see how well I do in a solo queue..
- Nurses Calling (Yellow)
- Thanatophobia (Yellow)
- Fearmonger (Yellow)
- I'm all Ears (Yellow)
Map = Crotus Prenn Asylum
Items: In fairness I ran green heavy painting and green ataxic respiration.
Steam rolled 4K, 3 dead w/ 4 gens still up; so I cool it off and let survivor get hatch.
TLDR; Even a scrub pub (PC player) who mains survivor can pick-up nurse and steam roll. Yes. She needs a nerf.
Recommendations: I find that without audio cues, it is definitely difficult to follow-up blink - I recommend that she goes "audio deaf" during the fatigue or permanent reduction to sounds e.g. she shouldn't be allowed to hear footsteps or give survivors a perks that mute movement sound for X seconds...
To be fair, I've done that with Clown. By itself, that doesn't prove anything. One of the points I was making, and I'm not saying that you're doing this, is that saying Nurse needs a nerf is an opinion and not a fact. There is an excellent discussion, however, started by @Iron_Cutlass in Feedback that is, at least as of yesterday, discussing what people think of proposed changes to Nurse. Post ideas here about it if you like of course but I'm just mentioning the other thread as it's focused on recommendations like yours.
-
@Omans said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3267071#Comment_3267071
Except in that video he doesn't say she is fine...?
That's arguing semantics
-
@Omans said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3267055#Comment_3267055
He also said Plague was one of the best killers not too long ago which has never been true.
I guess appealing to authority is fine when it is your opinion, though.
No, I'm just pointing out your statement that 'no skilled player thinks Nurse is fine' is demonstrably false using someone who is well-known to be very skilled at the game.
You have an opinion that Nurse is too powerful; there's no issue with that. However, you may be wrong and other people's opinions may be correct or you might be right. It's just a video game anyway; nothing to get worked up about.
-
@Omans said:
So half of these reasons are you condescendingly telling the players who think nurse is too powerful that they are playing the game wrong and/or thinking about nurse wrong. B, C, E, F.
Just the same old, same old. Players with less experience in the game telling players with more experience that they don’t understand things like the 'win condition.'
G is completely wrong. You should edit it out.
Your second paragraph makes your first paragraph where you used condescending an extremely ironic statement. I'm not speaking about any person in specific but rather on general. If Otz is saying that Nurse in her current form isn't that bad that can also serve as an indicator that perhaps old perceptions are still coloring people's impressions.
-
@Little_Kitten said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/354898/reasons-for-the-nerf-nurse-threads
(A) Maps do not have consistent LOS blockers. Nurse is different because she has different chase mechanics than other Killers. However, Nurse is one of the Killers such as Blight and Billy where if they can aim accurately you're done for. People remember bad experiences more than good ones so these experiences stand out.
The tricky part is finding the balance.
Some maps are a purge for the nurse; I'm thinking of Lery in particular. The number of walls is absolutely absurd, not for nothing is it the worst map for the nurse.
However, I'm not complaining about it, beware! I was just talking about the technical aspect.
Other maps are easier for them, even if it depends on the survivors in front of them, of course.
For example, on ... the nurse's map itself, the asylum, the central building is obnoxious when used against her, but on the other hand, there are nice deadzones all around, even if a survivor who goes around the building along the wall might be problematic for the nurse who follows him.
That's the challenge: how to create a map that has enough LOS breakers, without falling into "not enough" or "way too much hello Lery!"
"(B) People mischaracterize the win condition of games due to this being a 4v1 game. The win condition is not being able to outchase Nurse; the win condition is escaping. If the survivors do gens faster than the Nurse can down people then the survivors get a 3E or 4E and win. You may lose a lot of chases faster than you like but if you have a 3E or 4E the survivors still won."
I also think that in addition to what you say, some players compare the nurse to the other killers, as far as the hunt is concerned; against the other killers, it is quite possible, depending on the loops, to envisage the killer LOSING the hunt; against a nurse, it is of course also possible to envisage it, nurse=/=losing the hunt, but the probability is of course less; as a result, the goal is no longer to win the hunt, but to make the nurse lose as much time as possible I know I'm pushing an open door, but I really feel that some people lose sight of this detail.
(D) Nurse has different chase mechanics than every other Killer in the game. The only way to improve against Nurse is to versus Nurse or play as Nurse. This means a lot of players who are really skilled against other Killers can really struggle against Nurse.
I had mentioned this point several times, on some threads.
The problem is that we have on one side the nurse, and on the other side the (soon) 29 other killers with an identical movement pattern (they walk).
Statistically, a survivor, in his life as a survivor, will encounter many more "walkers" than nurses; so they will become, in the end, much better at facing "walkers" than at facing nurses.
This explains why we sometimes find survivors with 3k, 4k hours, who can play well against walkers, but who play like potatoes against nurses.
Moreover, and I agree with you on this, the best way to learn how to play nurses is to either play them, or, even better, to meet, know, and work with a main nurse, in order to be trained in a personalized game against him.
The best way is to get to know several hand nurses, in order to vary the types of gameplay during the training.
Some people will tell me : "It's only a game, we shouldn't have to train !"; which would not be a valid argument, when we see the amount of energy that the survivors deploy to learn by heart the loop paterne in the shack, in the LT, to learn by heart the position of the people / totems for each iteration of each map, etc.
"(E) Bandwagoning, echo chambers and perception. People have complained about Nurse for a long time so an inertia has been built up regarding Nurse. However, if the data does not match your perception then that's probably because your perception is wrong. To be clear, I don't know if Nurse is completely fine or needs changes because I don't have the data. However, neither do the Nerf Nurse posters as only BHVR has the data. The only data we have is limited and it doesn't indicate an issue but only BHVR has the comprehensive data necessary to interpret it completely correctly. As such, all statements on whether Nurse is fine or not are opinions and not fact. Are people actually complaining about Nurse over an actual issue that has a disproportionate effect on wins or because other people do so?"
Indeed, we are talking about the mass effect.
A person will start complaining about something, trying to pass on his feeling, and only his feeling, as a universal truth.
And from there, others will say: "Oh, but wait, he thinks the same thing as me, it must be true?!"; or "What does he say? That this, that and that? Yes, though ... not wrong ..."
Finally, some will go so far as to use this kind of rallying to comfort themselves in their own ideas, even if it means considering only this truth as THE established and irrefutable truth.
I wonder: do people say the nurse is too strong because she is?
Or is the nurse too strong ... because people think so and say so?
That is definitely a good question to consider. Quite a few times as well people attacking Nurse also attack anyone who disagrees with them which, in my opinion, adds to the group think aspect.
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3266961#Comment_3266961
Nurse doesn't have nearly the skill ceiling everyone likes to claim, not nearly as much as Blight or Billy. It's 90% muscle memory and after that it's just being able to predict people. But she does have a hell of a skill floor, so I wouldn't call her a crutch character.
She's just.. the best. And people know it. And people tend to give up, mentally if not literally, on a match because they really have no reason to believe a Nurse who already picked the best character in the game isn't going to go full send on it.
She is the best but that doesn't definitely mean she needs to be nerfed which is why I'm discussing why she gets so much vitriol. She might need one, she might not; I can't say because I don't have all the data.
I definitely agree that it's Nurse by Daylight when you face her as her chase mechanics are so different. Part of why I made this thread is because I noticed the people who like versusing Nurse also play Nurse not necessarily as a main but they invest large amounts of time to do well against one Killer.
If the people complaining about Nurse are complaining because they find her unfun to versus then that's a different argument than hyperbolic statements such as no counterplay. I think discussions would be more productive if people articulated more their reasons for or against a specific character. BHVR can't overlook the enjoyment of Nurse players as they still need to have fun as well but understanding complaints better might give them a better idea of where to look if they do decide to tweak something.
-
@Meathammer said:
Stop complaining & get good.
Who are you speaking to?
-
@Brokenbones said:
The thing is we have killers who counter or ignore things like looping, windows or pallets but the key difference is they don't ignore all of them at the same time.
Pallets and windows might as well not be there when Nurse is in the trial, because they are almost worthless apart from letting you trigger a very small amount of perks
That's one of the reasons why I think Nurse gets so much vitriol. Nurse does have chase mechanics but Nurse has the most distinguishing chase mechanics in the game and certain things can't be done such as Head On. I run Head On because it's fun. I can't Head On a Nurse. I'm not going to be pallet camping a Nurse or even throwing a pallet as I don't want to become an easy target by locking myself into an animation. I think that's part of the reason why there are such strong feelings about Nurse; there are chase mechanics but the chase mechanics aren't, on the average, as enjoyable for most players as when they versus other Killers.
-
On the other side I don't think it's possible to describe the frustration of seeing your slugged teammates just lie there in your Exponential/CoH Boon until someone picks them up.
-
I've had that happen as well and been told I can play chill. I just either don't respond or say I am playing chill. I mean, if I'm not camping, alternating hooks and the first survivor dies on the 8th or 9th hook then how much more chill do you want?
-
@hiken said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3265860#Comment_3265860
it seems you havent read my comment, people DC and leave on hook agaisnt those 2 all the time against nurse. ALL THE TIME. dont pretend is not because thats BIG CAP. people dont enjoy going against them and then sorry but u are delusional if u think u can beat a DECENT or better than that nurse in SOLO Q... literally impossible, as long as she starts to tunnel try hard solos are powerless against her.
But I have and I have seen it done by solos. I've also seen solo streamers who have done it. But, once again, we can agree to disagree instead of retyping arguments we've already typed multiple times before.