apropos
apropos
About
- Username
- apropos
- Joined
- Visits
- 158
- Last Active
Comments
-
These asymmetric horror games are gaining a lot of popularity; I saw some concept for a 16 player game, recently that looked like a blast. Considering that, I imagine that this game will likely end with the release of something bigger and better.
I'm not really playing any other games but DbD currently, there's not much out there that is challenging AND fun. The last time I had this much fun in a game was with demon souls and dark souls; invading and fighting 2 or 3 vs 1 was a lot of fun.
-
@Orion said:
@deadbytonight said:
@Orion said:
@powerbats said:
How about this, you keep your 360 fov but the more you turn around the less visible the skillcheck window becomes. Since if you think about it you can turn and look around but the more you twist around to check say behind you, the more distracted you'll be.So looking in say a 90 degree arc you've still got the full window clear as day but say at 120 degrees well you lose a little clarity just slightly because you're slightly distracted.
But if you're looking say 240 degrees the windows gets faded out a bunch because you're so distracted.
That sounds like a pain in the ass to program. The "lock PoV" feature already exists.
Do you program? Cause no it doesn't... lol
The game already can tell when a player is engaged in an action. We know this because you don't get inactivity crows while sitting in the same spot doing an action i.e. repairing a generator. There is most certainly a variable we can get from any player object that would indicate the FOV vector (with 0 degrees being looking straight ahead). Simply check this value during the repairing state and, if it's between certain values, modify the view as necessary.
I do. Are you aware of the slang term "spaghetti code", also known as "what this game is made of"? I'd rather the devs implement a feature that already exists than create an entirely new one and break something else.
The functionality already exists; it was implemented with Laurie Strode's perk Object of Obsession. Also, I'm not sure why you think the implementation of this is so difficult, all it takes is some polar coordinates. Make it so that your functionality activates anytime the difference between the character's angle and the object's angle is 180 degrees +/- 22.5, and the element farthest from the origin has the greater angle. So, whenever the character interacts with a generator the skill check visual cue is disappears whenever the respective player's camera angle shares a difference less or greater than 180 degrees with the generator.
-
Yes and No.
Yes; If in the weird case they DID add comms, two things should happen:
- Everytime survivors communicated they would have to give away their position, because it should effectively work as if you are calling out to one another.
- If the killer was within 32 meters, they could hear the communication between survivors.
This could actually create for some interesting gameplay; on the other hand, I could see survivors being really fugking mean on comms, knowing that the killer could hear them.
No; Voice chat has the potential to create the greatest imbalance in the game, primarily due to the fact that there are four survivors, and one killer. As an example, you can easily communicate to one another where the killer is, thereby bypassing any real need to use detection perks.
- John says "Yeah, I got him chasing me, I'm gonna loop him a bit, then pull him over to the killer shack; Cindy, can you take him from me for a bit?"
- Cindy says "Ok, let me know when you vault inside, let him hit you, then run out and pallet it stun him, I'll take him from there."
- Marci says "We're gonna be at the gen near the other one we finished."
Later...
- John says "Ok, I just vaulted inside... ready Cindy?"
- Cindy says "Yeah go ahead."
- John says "Oh crap, hey Marci he turned around, he's suspect of that skillcheck fail."
- Albert says "Ugh, everyone head towards John and Cindy, I'll get the killer to follow me for a bit, let him hook me while you finish gens. I'm going to take him as far as possible from John and CIndy's current location. After you guys finish a Gen, come over and save me."
- Cindy says "Ok, before the gen finishes I'll run back to keep an eye on the killer before coming to save you, if need be, I'll reel him away."
-
TL;DR
- Reduce the number of pallets;
- The new healing perk coming with first cut seems like a really bad idea; maxing the perk in the trial will take a bit, but once done, survivors will be able to heal themselves anytime they pallet stun or blind the killer.
- It'd be nice if they'd allow killer add-ons to have 2-3 uses per.
I don't know if it's necessarily a balancing issue, but it would be awesome if they reduced the number of pallets in the game. The perks that are coming with the first cut DLC, correct me if I'm wrong, appear to give survivors the ability to do near insta-heals. Granted, they need to be hit in the first place, to have the opportunity to heal, to even get a skill check. But, certain killer perks that reduce healing speed will now serve to benefit survivors using the new healing perk; I'm not sure why they think this is going to work out. Once multiple have the perk maxed for the trial they will be able to pallet stun, and heal, then continue looping. I'm guessing on average, I'm going to have to hit a survivor twice as many times to complete a sacrifice.
There's really only one thing that I think is unfair, killer's losing their add-ons after a single use. Survivors rely on items just as killers rely on powers, so in that sense killers always have their 'item'. But, in the times that I've played a survivor, once I got good at dodging killers, it wasn't really that hard to wander into the level to grab an item from a chest or that was dropped before exiting. Why this dynamic is unfair is because any good survivor can switch items, and effectively hold onto most items if they use them wisely. If they do lose it, the can easily get another one. I don't think it would be too harmful to allow killer add-ons to have 2-3 uses before expiring, or at least make the offering that prevents add-on loss a common reward.
-
@Peasant said:
@apropos said:
...I have nothing wrong with all survivors wanting a good experience. I only have a problem when their good experience is derived from an immense bad experience for another player.
For example, say all 4 survivors escape, even when the killer tried very hard to kill them. As long as everyone is cordial and kind I am perfectly fine with this. However, if a killer works their hardest and is met with taunting all game only to lose spectacularly at the very end I fail to see the need for hate speech and excessive vulgarity after the match. The killer already lost and is probably not feeling too hot, there's no need to kick a man when he's down, eh? Now if the killer instigates the survivors with aggression post-game that's a whole different story. However, more often then not we're seeing someone work hard, only to fail and be verbally abused for doing their job. Such behavior disheartens me and therefore I am to rise above it and crush it underfoot with the decent members of the community walking alongside me. You want to have fun by winning? That's all good. You want to have fun from bullying? We have a problem.
Oh, i get that you want everyone to have a good time. What sucks about types of people that seek out good experiences, is that as time goes on, if they're having a good experience already, they will take it to the next level; i.e. survivors who've completely obliterated a trial, yet they still are abusive towards the killer. It's not cool, but they only see making their teammates experiences better by giving the killer a bad experience. If they start losing, they will get mad at the killer for 'preventing them from gaining points'. The people who approach the trials this way aren't really thinking about the situation rationally, so any killers who experience that kind of treatment shouldn't take it personally.
I'm not gonna sit here and say that I haven't wanted to quit the game after an experience like what you're describing, I get it a lot. There are two scenarios that happen to me a lot that make me lose my #########:
- In the first 3 minutes of the trial, 2 generators pop simultaneously, while I'm chasing one person that I found almost immediately, hoooked, then went back for after they were saved. Then a few minutes after hooking the person again, or the rescruer, I see 3 generators finish at the same time. By the time I get to the gate, the doors are open and everyone walks out backwards while tbagging.
- Or when I've killed 2 of 4 survivors, and I have the third in the dying state, while i try to find the 4th, the third disconnects so that the hatch opens for the fourth. Then, chase the 4th around until we encounter the hatch and the survivor stands over the hatch, squatting and whatnot, trying to trick me into hitting them. He realizes I won't, I want the interrupt, so he wanders off to fix remaining generators. He get's them fixed, so I am forced to pursue. Once I catch up to him, I hit him once, and the delay from that single hit gives them more than enough of a lead to make it to the hatch and escape before I can interrupt. If they know where the hatch is, and they're all that's left, they win basically.
Following these situations is usually some mean messages about being trash. Granted I do get some messages from people saying gg, but I don't know if they're sincere so I ignore them, heh.
-
Man, that generator ability would be awesome. It's balanced too, because the killer should be penalized in some way to gain such a large benefit. Killers need something, the struggle against gen rushing is real. But yeah, the doll thing doesn't seem like it can work, the more I think about it. I really think that if there is a doll killer, it has got to have a mechanic like that red light green light idea, because what makes dolls scary is a person's naive trust in them being inanimate objects.
It really would bbe hard to implement, because what stops a survivor from just watching them constantly? Nothing. And you're right about the generators, they could just face away from it and prevent anyone from running up, which they can easily do while standing still which breaks my concept. I guess that's why I went with chucky, because he does let people see him move, but once he's exposed as being more than a doll, they fight to get rid of him. But with looping, survivors could easily get rid of all the dolls on the map if they disappeared 60 seconds after being seen moving.
I like the idea of affecting survivor vision, like maybe the dolls, due to their nature of being somewhat like trinkets, could place traps on generators that temporarily blind people when they try to interact with them. Survivors could also start feeling scared of generators because they are inanimate objects, just as the dolls are supposed to be.
Anyways, I like where you're going with the ideas, and I hope you keep working on them. It's awesome that you give so much attention to fleshing out the finer details.
-
TL;DR In personality type theory, the greatest conflicts are found primarily in one of four dimensions of personality; those that want good experiences, and those that want to explore what's possible. People who want good experiences tend to want games to be easier, whereas people who want to explore things like more challenging environments, there's more possibility there. According to statistics, there are more people on earth with the personality dimension that favors good experiences, and unfortunately, industry caters to them, it's where the money is. Guess which personality type favors the survivors? It ends up working out though, as the game is made easier for the people who want good experiences, the explorative types are given greater challenges. So the game ends up not losing any of it's population due to this imbalance.
I've always found this topic really interesting, so I'm going to elaborate on this more below.
So, if we look at Jung's archetypes for answers to the cause for all this toxicity, we can find them there. A lot of people are more familiar with the archetypes than they realize, especially if they've ever taken a personality test. Some people might know them as, the myers-briggs MBTI, socionics type theory, or the big 5 which is given more credence in the science community than the MBTI is. Anyways, digging into these theories, reveals that most conflict is generated by poor communication along one dimension of personality, the dimension of perception.
This dimension is affected by whether the person is motivated by internal forces or external forces, but to keep it simple, this dimension of perception can be generalized and divided into two types:
one type is referred to as the "sensing types" they care about 'what is', and they're motivated to give, as well as have, good/enjoyable experiences; they look for what reality is currently telling them; they listen to people with credentials, and trust factual information.
the other being the 'intuitive types," they care about 'what is possible', and are motivated towards influencing change; what people want isn't as important as what works; they trust their understanding of something over facts and authorities on subjects, they like what's abstract.
To be fair, intuitive types are often times the instigators of arguments as sensing types are inherently driven toward making the majority happy, whereas intuitive types believe in weighted averages, i.e. small populations deserve to be happy too.
The conflicts between these two types tend to go like this:
- Sensing type: "My friends and I arent enjoy the experience that we're having, something isn't right, someone please change this?"
- Intuitive type: "But if that's changed, things will just be easier, not more enjoyable. Maybe if you looked at the situation differently, maybe as a learning experience, you might enjoy it then."
- Sensing type: "But that's not enjoyable to me or anyone I know, what's the point if im not having a good time?"
- Intuitive type: "Well it's not about you enjoying yourself all of the time, and maybe you need to try hanging out with some new people, you know, broaden your horizons!"
- Sensing type: "You're not even listening to me, how can you expect me to change what I enjoy? That's like torture, it's evil! you're so toxic!"
- Intuitive type: "Whatever, you're just not trying hard enough, you're the toxic one!"
Really they both have good points, however, resolving them becomes more difficult when we also have to consider what each person sees as important objective or subjective information; feeling types wanna talk about emotions, thinking types wanna talk about logic and rationale. So, there's a lot to understand to truly empathize with one another, but it's possible
What's interesting, too, is that each personality type has access to all of the same cognitive functions, i.e. all intuitive types have a sensing side, and all sensing types have an intuitive side, but, because neither type uses those other perspectives as often as their primary perspectives, they tend to see the other side as contradictory and negative. Hence the disagreements and fighting.
What makes resolving the issues even harder, too, is that about 70% of the population is comprised of sensing types, creating a bias toward their ways of thinking, which might even convince sensors that their ways of thinking are right - majority rules! No? An example of this can be seen in the video game industry; World of Warcraft was one of the first video games geared toward sensing types, that and almost every cell phone game. The success of these games convinced the video game industry that there's a ######### ton of money to be made by simply creating 'good experiences,' hence the entire industry shifting towards easy game play and loot crates/boxes. Finally, because the survivor archetype really fits a sensing personality type the best, we will continue to see the game developed in the favor of survivors - that's where the money is. And the intuitive types? They will continue taking on the challenge of these changes.
-
@TWiXT said:
@apropos said:
@Iceman said:
@apropos , @TWiXT created a killer similar to the concept that you have. You can take a look at it belowhttps://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/106081#Comment_106081
Holy cow, that's really fleshed out. My idea was more or less a fleeting thought, but I guess I should have searched the boards to see if the concept had already been suggested. Well, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who would like to see a killer doll added to the game.
The concept you came up with was "shockingly" similar to mine, but you know what they say about "great minds..."
It's always nice to find out that there are others on similar wavelengths, and I totally agree with you and Iceman: a killer doll/dolls should get their chance to terrify survivors in this game.They were sort of destined to be similar, don't you think? I mean, how many ways do you think the doll killer archetype could be implemented in a game with DbD's ruleset? You can't do it with a single doll, so there must be many, and the player has to be able to control all of them, ergo cycling through them. Truth is, none of this is really original, and most ideas here are bound to have 'collisions' as any of them will be an extension or derivation of some sub-genre of horror movies. These 'ideas' are really more like suggestions.
-
@Global said:
Why cant people accept the fact that they have to wait? Just because a THEORIZED date was not right doesnt mean you can know when it comes out. Its been this way for all dlcs why would it change.#########. I couldn't recall where I read that September 11th was to be the release date, but checked the dbd wiki, and they updated their release date to reflect that the date they have has not been confirmed. Really, we should be pissed at the people who make the wiki! Or just move on... lol
-
"They're in a meeting"
But in all seriousness, I doubt that appearing unaccountable and unprofessional is what any of the stakeholders want, right? c_c
-
Well, OP, because you don't know what the other survivors in a given trial want, or even within the community at large, you can't speak on their behalf to agree with you to leverage your own argument. The rest of your points are good though; it's clear that there are some issues that hinder the fun of the game. I don't personally camp unless I've been body blocked, for me if a survivor body blocks, then they're gonna get face camped. As a rank 3 killer I'm guessing this surprises a lot of people, because oh boy, do the angry DM's flow afterwards.
-
@Iceman said:
@apropos , @TWiXT created a killer similar to the concept that you have. You can take a look at it belowhttps://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/106081#Comment_106081
Holy cow, that's really fleshed out. My idea was more or less a fleeting thought, but I guess I should have searched the boards to see if the concept had already been suggested. Well, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who would like to see a killer doll added to the game.
-
@BigBadPiggy said:
It's 100% unfair that the survivor doesn't get a chance at surviving when they are the last one. a chance to troll the killer one last time while growing up and making hot pockets. -
@SovererignKing said:
Survivor is more OP at the moment. All you have to do is Loop, and you cripple all but three Killers in the game to an absurd level. Add in the stall meta perks, yeah... no need to worry. Only time you’ll break a sweat is if you’re up against a good Nurse, great Billy, or Godlike Huntress. All of those Kilers running the Killer meta by the way.What is looping? While we're on explaining terminology, what does SWF mean, too?
I've only been playing a few weeks and I try to play both sides, but I prefer being the killer. I really only play the survivor when I have a daily task for them. I'm currently rank 5, splitting my time between the wraith and the doctor.
Personally, I feel like the survivors are OP, simply because they can be present in multiple locations simultaneously. It makes sense that the top three killers can cover a lot of ground, whether by movement speed, or their powers. I wonder if we will see the wraith crawl up into a top spot with the coming add-on changes. That increased movement speed while cloaked and suppressed stain/terror radius should be fun.
-
I had a guy trash talking me because I was 'face camping' as a killer, but due to both exit gates being open, and he being the only one I had hooked, I wasn't gonna let him go, and if I could I'd get an interrupt. But anyways, I asked the guy why he was calling me trash, and when he said I sucked, I told him 'so?' and tried reasoning with him, asking him if he did this often and he showed me a bunch of screen shots of him trash talking people. So, assuming that was it, i said in earnest, "we all lose sometimes, lets just move on" and he replied back saying "thx for talking to me" and I was kind of baffled because I didnt see our conversation as anything serious, but ######### just got real. Not knowing what to say, I just said "werd" and a few minutes later he said "sorry for being an #########". I didn't reply, because... I thought it was important to let that ruminate with him? Like, maybe he won't do it again, or maybe he'd realize trash talking isn't a good way to make friends. But holy ######### this interaction made me realize that sometimes the anger and frustration people throw my way might just be them indirectly asking to have their feelings acknowledged.
-
I like the way killers currently interact with pallets because their behavior towards them is consistent with how I imagine the killer's state of mind. Like, consider some popular horror movies (which DbD takes some of it's characters from), the killers' mind is typically preoccupied with catching and killing their obsession. Their craziness, and what makes them intimidating, is illustrated by how they interact with the world. They seem calm and cool on the outside, but they're really seething with rage on the inside; all they want to do is assert their power and inflict pain. There's no concern for time, or... anything really, so hopping over pallets is unnecessary, instead, they smash, kill, maim, so long as they keep moving toward their obsession.
-
@Master said:
Horvaths idea to build in bloodwarden would get rid of tbagging survivors waiting at exit gates
Haha I bet
@CoolAKn said:
I only stick around if I am unsure the remaining survivors know where the exits are. Most of the time this gets me killed,I recently didn't get the achievement to fix the generator in the Mother's Dwelling because I escaped through the hatch, even though it is worded that you just need to live to tell the tale.
Yeah, that makes sense, and I'm down for anything that includes playing the game. Let the survivors run free... so we can kill them
@CornChip said:
Or you could have been good enough to kill them before they all got to the exit gateWait, so the goal is to prevent the survivors from escaping? Man, if only I had known this sooner!