crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3886892#Comment_3886892
That's one way of doing it aye, and not a bad approach. The only potential downside of an iterative approach is it can tunnel vision/pigeon hole you into 1 line of thinking.
The issue that sticks out to me is there is no Universal "go next" method, the challenge here really is detection.
The ideal solution is that nothing in the game changes for players who aren't going next... if possible, we would ideally want our mechanics to stay exactly the same and only punish players with clear intent on just ruining the game unprovoked and going next.
The way I would do this myself would not be a automatic "you did this so DC penalty". I'd likely attribute weights that accumulate to then give a ban.
E.g. A player on their first hook who immediately unhook attempts and misses 2 skillchecks looks like an easy ban... but what if its 8 mins into the game, 4 gens are left, everyone else has 2 hooks and 1 survivor is dead? Now this is much more reasonable to try and kobe, and in the event of failure choose to sacrifice.
So instead of being 1 question with an automatic "detection = ban", I'd look to applying weightings based on context. So on a 10 mins of thought system, I might consider: -
- How long has gone by in the trial?
- Did they try to kobe and miss 2nd stage skillchecks? How much time did they spend on hook before they attempted?
- How many players are dead/in the dying state when they died?
- How many score events does the player have relative to their time in the trial?
- How many hooks does the killer have, and how many gens have survivors completed?
- How much chase time does the survivor have relative to their time in the trial minus time in the dying or hooked state?
- Do they have AFK crows?
You get the idea. Any individual measure on this list is flawed by itself, and any simple system will only factor 1 or 2 of these measures in. However when you combine them all together it becomes pretty hard to misidentify someone. The common part of all of these things is that time spent making genuine effort in the trial, even for a newb, gives a reasonable measure of their participation. The main issue to tackle is the immediate DC/SoH at the start of the trial.
The major problem of players quitting is when players quit a perfectly winnable game cause they throw a tantrum... but after the game has been going a while, the likelihood someone quits drops substantially. There is a nice correlation between that and how early in the trial they die, but there are these other factors to consider. So if we run some scenarios: -
- A player who gives up just because its Wraith, or they got a dodgy hit on them over a pallet in the first chase will score poorly on 6 of these points...
- A player bad at looping who gets tunneled out from first hook may score poorly on 3-4 points... but will score well on at least 3 points, and may even score well on up to 5 points.
- A player who unalives to give hatch may score poorly on 3 points, but will score well on others.
- A player who is AFK is likely to fail on 5 of these points.
The point is the really agregious players will not just score badly on a number of these points... but they will score REALLY badly in the offending points... and that ties into the weightings. Trying to not score badly on a lot of points before they quit, basically makes it so it's more effort to try to reach a threshold before they try to quit than just eat a penalty, or play the game.
So even if we only hit the most blatant of first and last scenario players, and the system is otherwise quite forgiving, the lack of clarity on how much you have to participate becomes something not worth a players time to try and figure out.
I'd say a potential long term problem is the impact on people who don't play that much. You have two reactions, neither of which is good:
1: A player every now and then receives a 1 minute penalty. They don't know why, nor do they care, and continue to behave in the same manner.
2: A player every now and then receives a 1 minute penalty. They don't know why, but they are extremely angered by what has happened.
Because if you have weights and a player is only playing occasionally, its going to take awhile for those to add up.
Take the example of player who always quits against Wraith - that might happen 1 out of every 25 matches. If they play ten games a week as survivor, you're looking at a 5 week period for this activity to happen twice.
It also seems a less than optimal use of developer time to design and manage a system of weights when there seems to be pretty significant agreement about what are the biggest problems.
The major problem of players quitting is when players quit a perfectly winnable game cause they throw a tantrumWhich I agree about. I think the solution to that is relatively straightforward by removing/limiting early game kobes. We can worry about the other less major problems later.
-
@Ghostofsnow said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3887017#Comment_3887017
It incentivizes it, cause it can end matches faster then hooking with less commitment thanks to the concede option.
It gets rid of slugging everyone just to be a toxic and bleed survivors out, but now just makes it more optimized time efficiency wiseBut I don't see how it incentivizes just standing over a body or how that is going to lead to a four person slug.
-
@Ghostofsnow said:
Okay, i know stuff will probably be addressed with the phase 2 stuff, but with the addition of the give up option, which is linked to 4 man slugging… whats stopping a killer from hyper fixating and camping a body? Like you're forced to go to them and try picking them up so a killer gets easy snowball potential
_____
Like I'm not saying its going to be efficient but i can very easily see this honestly increasing slug heavy playstyles due to the fact you can make the other side instantly quit, granting a win.What's to stop them from doing that now? I don't understand how a give up option changes this in anyway.
-
Racial slurs are definitely reportable and chats are auto logged.
Not doing gens at all, never touching them, is reportable, but the line is pretty steep and you'd need video.
-
@Huge_Bush said:
I admit, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so I know this could be a terrible idea, but what would be the downside if:
- The Entity would teleport a slugged Survivor to a hook after 60 seconds of being slugged.
- None of the Killers hook perks would activate when this happens and Entity teleports won’t count as a Kill but more as a bleed out currently does.
- Killer loses out on blood points and hook objectives for challenges.
- Unbreakable can be buffed by reducing the activation from 60 seconds to 45 seconds.
Survivors aren’t rewarded (by giving them base-kit Unbreakable) for losing the chase and not splitting apart to prevent slugging and Killers are pressured more to pick up and not bleed everyone out since they’ll lose out on points and objectives if they take too long.Please don’t be snarky and try to have a legitimate and constructive discussion.
Conceptually: there aren't any real issues on the idea.
I guess the timing could be part of it. 60, 75, or 90 seconds, not sure what would work best.
Player change: the killer still has the same reason to slug in certain situation (which is good). I guess if the time is too low the other survivors have the incentive to just not go for the slug. That's not inherently bad and potentially makes a 3v1 more playable.
Possibility of back firing on survivors with mistiming a run to pick up a slug only for them to teleport away right before getting there. Again, not inherently a bad thing to have in the game, but could occasionally be impactful.
Randomness: Different players have feelings on how random the game is. What hook does the survivor spawn to? If its random across the map that could swing the match on that number. Even if spawning to close hooks, the exact location could be pretty impactful.
Blood points: I know some disagree, but I think these are horrible ways to motivate behaviors. If slugging with a hook teleport is a valid strategy, then fine, allow it. If we don't want it to happen we should change the game so that its less beneficial as a way to win or progress the game.
- The Entity would teleport a slugged Survivor to a hook after 60 seconds of being slugged.
-
I've seen the streamers who covered the update talk about this, though not hexes, because the biggest thing is slowing down gens.
-
@AssortedSorting said:
It probably won't be very complicated at all:
- Were they Killed before 3 minutes elapsed?
- Were they the first Killed?
- Were they trying to Kobe at first sacrifice stage
- Did they ignore the second stage skillchecks?
If yes for all, then issue a dodge penalty.
I'd imagine it's more about preventing players from being able to exit early (thusly screwing their team over in a 1v3)
In this case though: why issue a penalty? If its that clear, why even give the player the option?
If condition 1 and 2 are true, and no unhook perk or AFC present, no unhook option is presented. Instead you're risking angering players between the difference of a 2:55 kobe (bad) and a 3:05 kobe (perfectly fine)
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3886605#Comment_3886605
Problem as I see it is a simple system can have any one of/or multiple issues such as: -
- It is easy to subvert.
- Doesn't address the problem.
- Causes false positives
- Limits the players playing genuinely more than the players who quit.
E.g. If you make it so Survivors only have skillchecks after 50% of their bar is depeleted on struggle phase (stage2), the system is ineffective (point 2) because they've already lost an extra hook stage and only need a little over 30s or to run to the killer to escape.
If you remove hook stages from stage 2, you prevent attempts to sacrifice a genuine losing scenario for hatch and hit point 4.
If you make it so if miss 2 skillchecks as you hit stage 2 you give me a low priority lobby, you hit points 1 and 3 where newbie players don't understand, and players wanting to quit, hit one, then miss 2.
If you make it so no self unhook attempts period, you hit point 4. Players can't try to kobe in a no hope situation, or when their team doesn't try to help them.
The issue you guys are presenting is you're trying to come up with a system to discourage players from leaving, but without forcing them to stay... these goals are diametrically opposed... any system that is effective must by definition give a strong enough deterrent to force a survivor to stay, otherwise the system is ineffective.
The examples cited, such as the AFC, are more complex than they appear, with careful controls for mutliple floors, a temprary delay, and different behaviour based on survivor/killer proximity to not punish the killer from doing sensible and natural things near the hook.
The Finisher Mori is quite simple granted, and we're seeing the issues from that where the killer has to painstakingly wait for the 3rd player to die before they can Mori, and the rise of slugging for the 4k. I consider those issues small myself, but some people are quite upset by it. The Finisher Mori would probably benefit from a system that is a little more complex to make attaining the Finisher mori a mini challenge for killers to encourage playing the game in more interesting manner. E.g. minimum 10 hook requirements to encourage more macro driven gameplay as a sott of "true victory" or "Entity reward" system.
Having discussed this issue a lot, it's very difficult to find a system that actually solves those 4 points.
Problem as I see it is a simple system can have any one of/or multiple issues such as: -So I think all of these problems exist with a complex system and may even be worse.
E.g. If you make it so Survivors only have skillchecks after 50% of their bar is depeleted on struggle phase (stage2), the system is ineffective (point 2) because they've already lost an extra hook stage and only need a little over 30s or to run to the killer to escape.But the current system, at least as described in the post what they are focusing on, this doesn't exist either. If we get multiple layers of checks, when the problem is glaringly obvious, by overcomplicating it we've missed the obvious problem.
On the other hand, let's say their data indicates the issue is 2nd stage skill checks. They just remove the first 30 seconds of skill checks. If after a few weeks the player base opinion is "hey, here's how that doesn't work" then you move onto the next thing.
It's easier to start simple and add more layers, then start complex and winnow down (see the basekit mori example).
And if that one simple layer does work, great, you're done, and don't have to worry about false positives.
If you make it so no self unhook attempts period, you hit point 4. Players can't try to kobe in a no hope situation, or when their team doesn't try to help them.But again, this is something that we have and their proposed solution (again, with the limited info we have) doesn't look like it is going to change. Right now killers can circumvent the idea of player getting out of the game by leaving them slugged. Even if a player was trapped on a hook for a 70 second timer, that would be an improvement over being trapped on the ground for 4 minutes.
Again though, you can put in base kit idea and work from there. What's the problem? Go next from first stage with kobe attempts. Okay remove those. Oh, wait, but we need unhooks later in the match.
No problem, slight modification. No unhook attempts within the first X minutes or first 1 or 2 people who are hooked. There's no guesswork on the survivor part of whether or not they are in a position where they can attempt the unhook, nor are we in the situation where matches can still be ruined by people who are willing to eat the depip / dc penalty (instead they would just eat the DC penalty if they really wanted to, but then there is at least a bot).
The examples cited, such as the AFC, are more complex than they appear, with careful controls for mutliple floors, a temprary delay, and different behaviour based on survivor/killer proximity to not punish the killer from doing sensible and natural things near the hook.But more complex than they are appear when they are simple for the player to understand. As killer, don't be close to hook for too long, unless another survivor is there. The killer player doesn't need to worry about the specific distances, the times, or all of that. Some people will inevitably map out the extreme edges of the system, but you don't need to fix everything to have a solution that improves the game.
Having discussed this issue a lot, it's very difficult to find a system that actually solves those 4 points.But you don't need to solve. You need to improve.
'The first two survivors hooked may not attempt to unhook themselves, barring a perk or AFC."
Is that going to solve every issue associated with players going next? No. Would it improve the game? Absolutely.
And you can even modify the above. Two can become one or instead of a number of counts, we can make it the first X minutes of the match. You can start safe, then expand.
I think my biggest point against starting with complex, is there is nothing wrong with going a step at a time (other than BHVR seems opposed). By staying simple you've limited the damage you can do and can solve a portion of the problem at a time. Not to mention you would save a ton of design and coding time during the process.
-
@KerJuice said:
Title.
The front page is littered with doom posts. This is what the community asked for, and all we are seeing are a bunch of worry warts posting negative hypotheticals, expecting the worst outcome. Let’s all wait and see what happens first when the changes are made. The devs will adjust the new changes accordingly if need be. Just be patient and give it time.
They literally end their post asking for our thoughts and feedback. Not wait and see.
-
@Nazzzak said:
I can't imagine the swf scenario happening tbh. And even if it did, the game would be over fast so as killer the most you've wasted is a few min of lobby time.
As for the killer scenario, if my 3 team mates are slugged then I'm happy to give myself up to be downed and give everyone a quick surrender. I'm sure other survivors might do the same. I might cop a penalty for it but whatever, I can go play another game. It doesn't happen often enough to concern me.
As for the killer scenario, if my 3 team mates are slugged then I'm happy to give myself up to be downed and give everyone a quick surrender. I'm sure other survivors might do the same. I might cop a penalty for it but whatever, I can go play another game. It doesn't happen often enough to concern me.This is a paradox that is emerging in DbD's design (and potentially has always been there). Back in the two hour server days and the hatch standoffs, devs have said they never imagined how long players would try to wait something out for a perceived victory.
On the other hand, saying 'let's just get this game over with' will also be punished?
I strongly dislike when DbD becomes a farce. 2 survivors dead, 3 gens to go, killer won, no problem on my end, let's get this over with instead of spending 10 minutes hiding, gen tapping, etc. I do worry that the new changes will require the survivors to pretend like there is still a competitive match going on or face punishment.
-
@Nazzzak said:
I can't imagine the swf scenario happening tbh. And even if it did, the game would be over fast so as killer the most you've wasted is a few min of lobby time.
As for the killer scenario, if my 3 team mates are slugged then I'm happy to give myself up to be downed and give everyone a quick surrender. I'm sure other survivors might do the same. I might cop a penalty for it but whatever, I can go play another game. It doesn't happen often enough to concern me.
As for the killer scenario, if my 3 team mates are slugged then I'm happy to give myself up to be downed and give everyone a quick surrender. I'm sure other survivors might do the same. I might cop a penalty for it but whatever, I can go play another game. It doesn't happen often enough to concern me.This is a paradox that is emerging in DbD's design (and potentially has always been there). Back in the two hour server days and the hatch standoffs, devs have said they never imagined how long players would try to wait something out for a perceived victory.
On the other hand, saying 'let's just get this game over with' will also be punished?
I strongly dislike when DbD becomes a farce. 2 survivors dead, 3 gens to go, killer won, no problem on my end, let's get this over with instead of spending 10 minutes hiding, gen tapping, etc. I do worry that the new changes will require the survivors to pretend like there is still a competitive match going on or face punishment.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3886179#Comment_3886179
Does that mean 1 - (0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8) = 59% that one of the four maps is chosen?
Because the survivor choice going from 100% to 59% doesn't sound very fair to me, when the killer choice is just flat out going from 100% to 20%.
We have no idea at the moment. It could be as you said. Or it could be there is a 20% chance that the system checks to see if map offerings are in play (random number 1 to 5, if 1 go to offering selection, if not go normal map selection), which would mean that stacking map offerings of different types would have no impact.
-
@sanees said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/438839/beware-1v2-is-gonna-be-amazing
How about not finding yourself in such a situation? if you 2 left and cannot fix the generators, you have failed, and forcing the killer to run around the map for 20 minutes and look for you is not the most interesting thing
I'm not expecting to win every time with survivor.
I'm not even expecting to win half the time.
All I want is that when I lose, it not to be boring.
-
@Fantasy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3885587#Comment_3885587
Well yeah DBD's version is basically a Wish version but it's still shamelessly copying.
I'm really not seeing it.
Dark purple color palette is a pretty common coloring.
Claws? Not very unique and we have different lengths.
Lashers? Different coloring, different styles (one ethereal, the other more solid), going in different directions.
Pose? Completely different. Even the head tilts are not same.
Headset? Okay, they're both wearing a headset, but that's not a very unique fashion accessory.
On top of those: we have different tops, different skirt lengths, one with ripped stockings vs bare legs, one showing feet the other not, one has a "power" pose, the other more enchanting.
-
The game averages way more than 30k players a day. Right now it has 26k players playing at this moment on Steam, not including all the other systems.
However, this is then not just split up by MMR, but also divided up around the world.
So let's say there was a 100k people playing when Momo was playing, but we split that up to various servers. Let's say he's on one of the more popular regions, we cut that down to 20k. Of that, 4k players should be playing killer and thus can't be matched with Momo, so we have 16k survivors. 5% of that player base should be in his MMR range, so we're talking 800 players above the soft cap.
If out of those 800 possible opponents it takes almost ~2k games to find a suitable match up, the game is killer sided. Even if we estimate he only hit an even match up every 100 games, the chance of that streak is in the tens of millions. On top of that, remember for him to lose the streak the survivors can win or tie. For the streak to be realistic and say he got a little lucky, you need to be saying he was only hitting a challenging match up like every 300 to 400 games.
-
@Foxtrick said:
Before anyone jumps down my throat or tries to throttle me, let me explain.
To begin, I've played all 3 iterations of 2v8 since they first came out, so I'd like to think my opinion can offer a little weight to this conversation. Also, just so everyone doesn't believe I'm entirely biased, I've also played a bit of killer, so I can observe this discussion from 2 sides. I will also admit that I've spent a bit more time playing 2v8 as a survivor so this is definitely observed from the survivor angle.
Now that I've gotten introductions out of the way, I will start immediately by admitting that 2v8 has most definitely been survivor sided. Well, you're probably wondering "well then, why are you submitting a discussion contradicting your statement?" and that is an excellent question, I'm glad you asked.
Basically the reason I am creating this discussion is because in all 3 iterations of 2v8, I believe that this current 2v8, COUGH COUGH 2v6 and now 2v7, has swung more towards the killer side than the other 2. With the addition of even more extremely mobile killers and their buffed stats for rushing and moving around the map, killers have so much ground coverage and naturally more map wide pressure. This by itself isn't necessarily my main concern for this mode or even half of the reason why I think it's tilting more towards the killer side; however, where the real insult to injury begins is with the killers' base kit NOWHERE TO HIDE and map wide DARK SENSE. There is just so much information given to killers and then when combined with killers like Blight, Wesker, Legion or even worst Nurse, they can be on top of you within a second. Again these problems alone don't necessarily make the game impossible by any means, but people have to remember that's it's always the kindling that starts the larger fires.
Some other issues I've noticed in my playtime concern the overall connection to Dead by Daylight servers and always favoring the killers. Too many times, I will be perfectly through a window or have already dropped a pallet to just get hit through them. Another weird issue I've witnessed almost consistently are killers completely whiffing their attack or being beyond a reasonable distance and still getting hits. I think this has always plagued Dead by Daylight, but I think it's even worst in 2v8. I am of the opinion that Behavior should focus on less additional content for the next 2v8 and more stable servers and gameplay/balance changes.
I believe maps in 2v8 are fairly balanced and don't need any changes BUT Raccoon City Police Department is way too small for this mode. I would have hoped they could have extended the map to a small portion of the parking garage or even the clock tower.
My last concern concerns the Nurse specifically. Every killer has their strengths and weaknesses and Nurse is no exception except she doesn't have real weaknesses in 2v8. Her entire weakness is breaking line of sight but that is completely non existent given she can have constant aura reading in this mode. A nurse can hit you, recover fatigue, and immediately be on top of you to confirm her kill. The aura almost 100% guarantees her second hit on a survivor which is just unfun to play against.
My solution to this problem along with making the game slightly more difficult for killer duo's would be to hide survivor's auras after their first hit so killers like Nurse can't completely outshine all the other killers where they struggle.
Thanks for reading and I hope we can have a productive discussion as well as receive any insight into the state of the current 2v8 mode.
I believe maps in 2v8 are fairly balanced and don't need any changes BUT Raccoon City Police Department is way too small for this mode. I would have hoped they could have extended the map to a small portion of the parking garage or even the clock tower.RPD is too small, but that's not the main reason its killer sided. Being a long rectangle instead of roughly squarish really limits the survivor options.
On the other maps, when the killers are approaching the survivors have 180' of possible escape, 90' if they are in a corner, and rarely 360' if they are in a center gen like Ormond. Now some of these angles will be taken away by the approaching killer(s), but the survivor should still have multiple avenues.
On RPD usually the routes a survivor can take are
A) straight at the killer
B) straight away from the killer, sometimes with two or three variations, but right into where the other survivors are
If the two killers are coming together, it is very easy for them to trap the survivors and cut through them.
But it gets worse from there.
RPD's central areas have three main paths into the wings, a fourth less used path on each side along the balacony, and the front. One of the key goals of the survivors are to spread out off the start, but RPD makes this very difficult. On other maps you can usually edge run to get around, in RPD you usually have to try a stealth approach (or just pick a path, run, and hope). Even then, when you make it to the center, if a killer is there you risk being spotted.
This is such an important issue because as the two killers push through one wing, the cages will begin to spawn in the other wing. If no survivors are over there to get the save, it can very quickly be game over.
They should connect the two back courtyards and run the front path further down the opposite win and create entrances. That would alleviate some of the issues.
-
Those aren't even close.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3885314#Comment_3885314
That's fair, and I have played a few games as killer where I bulldoze, and had other games where I'm doing all I can, but it's nowhere near enough.
For every good player In ee, I also see a load of bad ones...
- Guide is often not used to it's full potential, finding and breaking central gens early is important because you have the 3% great bonus. If you get hooked, fantastic you unlock the special ability that is super strong. Most guides sit on outer gens instead while on 0 hooks.
- Scouts often have players who forgo gens to ensure their perks are impactful, following killers around and revealing auras, which is fine, but ideally you should be doing gens with wide fields of view so can give value passively while pursuing objectives, and obviously looking for good pallets to reset.
- Escapists tend to do the same as scouts, forgo gens to keep boostingg people in chase, which isn't wrong... but its a one and done, get back to gens man. Escapists especially should be helping their Guides trying to break difficult gens, and giving them the fast escape when they need it.
- Medics thankfully are kinda foolproof. They usually do fine, though I've seen some being kinda cowardly instead of prioritising unhooks to get people back in the game faster.
- Killer side I often see people take a perk they want... rather than a perk that actually works for their partner... e.g. the Shadow then paired with Wraith/Trapper.
Ultimately I think there is so much fluctuation in both survivor and killer skill every game that it's kinda impossible really to conclude whether it's survivor or killer sided... at least it is with only the brief times we have it to assess.
I recall the original intent of 2vs8 was Chaos... it is certainly chaotic
Ultimately I think there is so much fluctuation in both survivor and killer skill every game that it's kinda impossible really to conclude whether it's survivor or killer sided... at least it is with only the brief times we have it to assess.That's probably true. It took years for DbD's strategies to emerge.
On the classes
Guide: agreed
Scout: this one is hard to tell. Sometimes I follow killers around and I really have no idea if I'm giving the others a head start that is valuable or if I'm just wasting time. Though if a Trapper is in play this becomes a great strategy.
Escapists: It's interesting because what you are talking about I rarely see, but when it does is it strong. The killer is so kind of set on where they think the chase will be/end, and then suddenly the survivor is rushing away.
The biggest mistake I see is people who aren't a medic healing escapists off of hook.
Medics: I think the biggest thing is other survivors not letting the medics do their job. Let them do the healing.
Generally I think survivors main mistake is not keeping track of hook states. If you're on death hook and the others aren't, stay to the edges. Out right hide if you need to, don't get eliminated early. If you have hooks to spare, attack the more central gens.
I also think lots of survivors don't seem to get the spawn logic of the cages. Off the start of the match I try to sneak straight across the map (I usually play Scout or Medic). This means I'll usually be right in the spot the cages spawn when the killers get their downs.
And if I get caught, I found killers will frequently chase me to the opposite corner anyway, which is a really bad idea on their part.
The biggest mistake I think killers make
Losing the most defendable gens wasting time on edge gens (though this varies really by map)
Chasing survivors to map edges, losing way too much time
Either staying together the entire match, or never teaming, needs a mix depending on the situation. I'm surprised more killers don't try and pincer the survivors and instead both just go straight at the survivors.
-
@Gardhome said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3885330#Comment_3885330
But no other killer so dependant on teammate than Legion. Even Trapper and Slinger have 1vs1 mechanic.
1: As we get more killers, it will probably become more common.
2: There are definitely killer combos that are better and worse.
3: The thing that balances Legion in 1v4 is the option to just stay injured. That's not a real option in 2v8. Without a radical overhaul of how Legion works, he's always going to be a great partner. If he could 1v1 the survivors as well he's now way overpowered.
-
@Gardhome said:
Many people say that Nemesis and Trapper are underpowered in this mode. But im surprised why people dont talk about Legion, cause they are laughable weak compare even to this two killers. People say they are good as support for the teammate, but they dont realise that they actually say "Legion is not a real killer, he is just support of the real killer". He is only killer in this mode that has nothing to 1vs1 situation (anti loop). He is just m1 killer that has to deal with 1000 god pallets (that survivors can rebuild) and totally dependant on his teammate skill level. So in this case there is my suggestion
- Make iri button and Frank mixtape base-kit
- Return frenzy down from 8 hits to 4
- Decrease mending time to 4 second
- Decrease terror radius in frenzy to 40 m.
People say they are good as support for the teammate, but they dont realise that they actually say "Legion is not a real killer, he is just support of the real killer"It's a team game for the killers now.
-
@UndeddJester said:
I win so many of my survivor games in 2vs8... I don't know how anyone holds the view killers need nerfs...even when I die, I can usually see 6 survivors getting out at least... I'm not even that good.
I can only assume people don't understand how their Survivor classes work to be able exploit their power, and/or are so reliant on their meta perks from 1vs4 they are incapable of switching their playstyleto natch their class.
Not trying to insult anyone... but I can only see a Killer sided conclusion as people simply not using the strength of their classes.
I can only assume people don't understand how their Survivor classes work to be able exploit their power, and/or are so reliant on their meta perks from 1vs4 they are incapable of switching their playstyleto natch their class.I think we have to be dealing with a perception, or an MMR, or a region based issue.
Because even if someone who thinks its killer sided at the moment is awful, in 2v8 its not as statistically significant. 1 bad survivor does not nearly have as much impact as 1 bad survivor in 1v4.
Personally, my experiences have been a lot more lopsided than before. I'll play against killers who barely get any hooks, and sometimes the killers will cut right through the survivors.
-
@sinkra said:
Based on their stats the escape rate was 45%, which made it much more enjoyable than 1v4 as solo survivor. Then the devs decided to gut survivor classes and add bots which is another massive nerf. Why do the devs want the game to be so easy for killers when survivors are the majority of the playerbase?
The bots are awful, but they aren't there to punish survivors. I thought it was a foolish idea, but the goal was to reduce queue times, not impact kill rates.
-
I've only queued as killer when I have some other project to work on. So not a game, but things I need to do that I can also pause.
-
The bots aren't helping. They can take a long time to do basic actions, they have no game sense, and killers will usually ignore them because the one thing they can do is loop okay.
On top of that, I think the killer players are figuring out more how to play the mode. For all the talk about survivor sided, this was a completely new mode for killers, with the need for new strategies and focus. The changes to strategies for survivors have been less extreme. As killers begin to get a hang on what they should and should not be doing, I think it will feel more like 1v4 in terms of balancing.
-
@jeremyislate said:
- There should be 10 gens instead of 8
- Killers like hag or trapper takes time to trap everything and corrupt intervention would help if at least 5 gens are blocked
- Gens speed should decrease a small amount
Killers like hag or trapper takes time to trap everything and corrupt intervention would help if at least 5 gens are blockedIn the long run, probably a minor survivor buff. The dumbest thing survivors can do is immediately jump on the gens they spawn next to (one or two survivors staying in the spawn is fine, but everyone else should be spreading out). Getting gens done quickly just makes it harder to finish the more central gens that are easier for the killers to defend and putting all the survivors in one spot is exactly what the killers want.
But none of these should be done.
@Dadeordye said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3884909#Comment_3884909
Sadly I have to agree with this.
If you get competent survs you get massively stomped (game mode is way surv sided) and still people don't want to play as surv.
I know for a fact that a portion of the ones who don't want to play 2v8 are the jackasses that thrive in making the killer miserable in 1v4 matches (bully squads, etc).If you get competent survs you get massively stomped (game mode is way surv sided) and still people don't want to play as surv.I really feel like we're on the opposite end of 1v4. If the two killers are KWF, both really good players, they map out a strategy ahead of time, and are in constant communication talking strategy the whole game, they'll cut through the survivors much like an elite SWF will slam through gens in a pub match.
If the killers are different skills, random, or even a KWF without a detailed strategy ahead of time, then its closer to balanced / survivor edge.
-
@justadreampallet said:
I know that when something gets released or reworked there is a chance for the scale to shift but most of the time it is fairly balenced.
Most matches are 2-3k so those are not special. The 4ks and the 0ks stand out more cause those are rarer.
If you play 15 games and in one you get stomped you will remember that 1 game more then the 14 others.
There are problems but most of the “x sided” problems are mistakes on you or your teams parts or you went against someone who was better then you.
however yea sometimes it is sided I will admit but not as much as claimedMost matches are 2-3k so those are not special.Except that's not true. According to the data we do have, 4k is the most common result.
Even on weak killers (like Chucky at the moment), the more common results are 4k and 0k.
The extremes are more likely to occur than the mid points.
-
Showed 400% for me both times, though I had someone in a game lobby complaining about it.
-
They don't make a huge difference. During normal periods they just indicate which side has the quicker queues and I play that one.
Still, I like leveling the characters even if it means nothing, so there is a little benefit.
3x XP though does help as there are lots of things I can use shards for.
-
1v4 he is in a good spot. Not saying adjustments are impossible, but he's healthy.
Right now, seems pretty weak in 2v8.
-
I really feel like large scale changes like this might just be impossible at this point in the game's lifespan. You have major issues like perks that would need to be adjusted on top of minor things like going through the tome archives and making adjustments.
Purely on a conceptual matter, probably. It would break up the game flow in a way that might not be appealing to new players, but would make the game less of an attack / defend which it is now (and doesn't really fit the horror theme that well in my opinion).
@Dadeordye said:
I'm just brainstorming here.
It would help a big deal about turbo camping and turbo tunneling, plus they are way cooler and survs can't try to Go Next on them.
Of course I know that sometimes killer needs to camp and tunnel to turn the tables in a match, so some buffs for them would be needed (maybe less cooldown on hits, I don't know).survs can't try to Go Next on them.BHVR could easily add the ability to try and kobe out of cages, or they could remove it in an instant from the hook as they are now. That's not really an issue.
-
Out of scope? No, but I'm not sure how familiar the overall playbase is with the franchise. BHVR does surveys about this and the fact that we haven't seen more skins / products from Japan or Korean based entertainments that haven't crossed over into US / West kind of makes me think there isn't that much interest.
-
That was my thought as well at first, but I think I see what they are trying to do.
My guess is they want to boost the player count for the weekend for both modes and then judge the impact of 1 bot / 400% BP. If people just go and play 1v4 that doesn't solve the short term issue, but it does give you pretty valuable long term information. And if when they return to no bots on Monday, survivor counts (as a proportion) increase without an incentive, well, then it shows how much people hate bots.
@Nazzzak said:
I actually appreciate this response from them. I honestly did not think they'd change anything until next 2v8. Also I think it's because both queues are suffering, not just 2v8. Lots of players aren't interested in 2v8 and just want 1v4.
Yeah, I was not expecting this either, which is nice. Only a 3 minute drop in queue times though has to be way below their expectations (and, we also got how long the average queues have been, which I think lots of people have been wondering about).
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3884176#Comment_3884176
First of all, thank you for your patience and respect.
You make good points and I think I understand your position. Please correct me if I am wrong but you believe that 2v8 is a fun diversion that has the potential to eat more resources than it should. On the grounds of that argument I can agree with your points.
You pointing out the 703 Killer combinations was particularly powerful. I mean it’s the map problem right? Every new addition creates exponential more work. I won’t be unreasonable. I get that and I can sympathize with that point.
2v8 doesn’t need to be perfect to exist. Pragmatically I can agree with that. Ideologically I obviously want 2v8 to please as many people as possible while expanding to as many options as possible. But again, I do see that the potential resource sink is there.
Please correct me if I am wrong but you believe that 2v8 is a fun diversion that has the potential to eat more resources than it should. On the grounds of that argument I can agree with your points.I guess it depends what you mean by 'fun diversion'. Video games are a fun diversion from life broadly speaking.
On a personal matter, I was kind of meh on version 1, really enjoyed version 2, still enjoy version 3 but think it is a step back from version 2. Outside of a personal view, my main problem is their approach. I think their priorities were askew for this version.
To my understanding, long term BHVR wants 2v8 to be permanent. They need more people to play survivor. That seems to be the absolute agreed upon position that this mode cannot realistically move forward until queue times become reasonable. In addition to all of the other priorities they have, when it comes to 2v8, killers that are deemed less fun to play against should not be taking development time. Its not just failing to help the problem, its potentially making it worse.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3884085#Comment_3884085
It's not realistic to think that with 38 killers, and 703 possible combinations, that everything can get work.
When you look at it this way it would even make sense to believe a 2v8 mode couldn't work at all in any way shape or form so why try? Under this argument the highly popular 2v8 shouldn’t even exist yet it does.
I think it's easier to think of how something can't work instead of how it can. I still have a hard time believing that Bhvr would roll out an exciting new gamemode with no intention of bringing the full roster over to it.
There's a whole ton of survivor perks I can't use, and with good reason, in 2v8. Trying to force 1v4 perks into 2v8 would be a waste of time.
Again if this argument was followed to its natural conclusion then there would also be no point in developing new Survivor classes- which again I have a hard time believing won’t be making their way into future iterations.
That would be a lot of invested time for a secondary game mode when there are so many other issues to tackle.
Regardless of re-working Legion for 2v8, doesn’t this argument reinforce the idea that unless the game is perfect nothing else can be tried and worked on?
It’s easy to beg for new ways to play, and then complain when they aren’t perfect. It’s an easy yet unfair set-up. Are Survivors escaping against Legion? Yes. Will Legion be changed if their kills are too high? I can’t see why not? But outright advocating for the removal of a Killer who took development time to get 2v8 ready citing development costs seems counter-intuitive to me. I think the sunk-cost fallacy is often improperly applied by a community who assumes Bhvr’s “ill-intent” on the regular.
I understand the community wanting to do its due diligence of course. But the knee-jerk reaction of removing Killers we don’t like is… Definitely a reaction.
When you look at it this way it would even make sense to believe a 2v8 mode couldn't work at all in any way shape or form so why try? Under this argument the highly popular 2v8 shouldn’t even exist yet it does.That's just not logical at all.
Being you're going to mention fallacies later, I'll mention a few as well, and this is an example of the Nirvana Fallacy: presuming that unless something can be perfectly done it shouldn't be done at all.
When you are taking a base thing and modifying it to a different format, various changes likely need to be made. Potentially including leaving some elements of the original behind.
As an example: in 1v1 challenges gens become irrelevant for extremely obvious reasons. That is a huge, core part of DbD that just disappears. Certain killers also don't get carried over. That doesn't mean 1v1 is somehow bad or shouldn't be tried, its just being realistic about the different formats.
I think it's easier to think of how something can't work instead of how it can.Depends on the person, I'd say. But generally speaking people will always demand more and better.
I still have a hard time believing that Bhvr would roll out an exciting new gamemode with no intention of bringing the full roster over to it.Why not?
'Hey, we got this mode, people will really love it, but when we look at how the killers are designed only 30 of 38 will make sense'
'Nope, trash it.'
As I said, my expectation is that BHVR thinks they'll get every killer in. Maybe they will succeed. But if some of the killers don't fit, there's nothing unexpected about that.
Again if this argument was followed to its natural conclusion then there would also be no point in developing new Survivor classes- which again I have a hard time believing won’t be making their way into future iterations.You're confusing natural conclusion with a slippery slope fallacy.
Regardless of re-working Legion for 2v8, doesn’t this argument reinforce the idea that unless the game is perfect nothing else can be tried and worked on?No, its being realistic about costs and development times.
While BHVR is a large company, there are still practical limitations. They have 1v4, new killers, new meta changes, bug fix, balances fixes, new modes, and every other change in 2v8 to think about.
Legion is a killer pretty despised by the exact portion of the player base BHVR needs more people to be playing. Taking all of that into consideration, pushing such an issue way down to the priority queue, probably into a 'never realistically going to get to' section would be a logical conclusion.
But outright advocating for the removal of a Killer who took development time to get 2v8 ready citing development costs seems counter-intuitive to me. I think the sunk-cost fallacy is often improperly applied by a community who assumes Bhvr’s “ill-intent” on the regular.The sunk cost fallacy says you shouldn't prioritize the work you already put in. Time spent is irrelevant, only impact and costs/time going forward. I have no insight to how BHVR operates in their decision making or what it would take to get Legion to a place were more of the community was happy with him.
But the knee-jerk reaction of removing Killers we don’t like is… Definitely a reaction.I'd say the chance that BHVR removes Legion is somewhere approaching 0%.
Legion is in, and will stay in. BHVR though should be cautious with killers as they go forward. Each new killer introduced now adds more complexities because killers can form teams that may be broken in balance and/or fun. It is possible that they'll come to a killer that is just best left to 1v4.
-
I think its just chance. I went 10 or 15 matches on the first day before the patch without getting RPD.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3884125#Comment_3884125
Do not worry, my reply to ExtremeDBD was not meant for you.
Sometimes we just vibe with one role easier than the other. Killer has always been easy for me (I too am extraordinarily humble) but Survivor has always been…unpleasant. Perhaps it is the opposite for you.
As a new Killer player, I'd recommend just finding someone who seems cool and vibing with them. Don't look too much into Kills or Escapes. Just play the game, try to learn/improve and have fun.
Those are the best generalized tips I can give without any more specific scenarios
Sometimes we just vibe with one role easier than the other. Killer has always been easy for me (I too am extraordinarily humble) but Survivor has always been…unpleasant. Perhaps it is the opposite for you.Every now and then, I like to imagine that all of the forum disagreements come from the fact that many of us might just be maining the role we are bad at.
-
I've played 4 or 5 matches as killer (with a random teammate) and around 20 to 30 as survivor (again soloq).
In the killer matches won three without the gates being opened (3 gens, 3 gens, 1 gen remaining). The other one got absolutely smacked around and had an 8e, though I and the other killer played really poorly so it was well deserved.
Survivor has felt a little under 50%, having a harder experience than last time with the bots.
-
@TwinsMain2004 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3883963#Comment_3883963
I also heard Choy say the same thing chatgpt pretty much I also never use wikipedia
I gotta go so i wont respond as much if at all for a while so have a nice day
I just came across the video you mentioned. He's talking about things as if they are new discoveries when they have been well known, and publicly argued over, for years.
-
@SharonPancakes said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3884086#Comment_3884086
Yeah I would much rather be bleed out because the last 1 or 2 survivors who didn't didn't do anything all game are hiding and not working on gens, a surrender option would just ruin the experience. But in all honesty those survivors would probably just vote not to surrender anyway, lol.
There are other ways to fix how long bleed outs take without going to 'full team' surrender.
-
@dreamWarden said:
Reading through the forums for quite some time made me realize the community is very split on rather its fine for a person to go next if a game is going badly or if its considered annoying and toxic, so what if instead we add a surrender option? it can activate after a certain amount of time has passed and needs 3/4 survivors to agree, if the vote fails the game continues as normal but if succeeds then will kill the survivors on the spot like it happens when the end game timer runs out, and killer can have a small bonus. Not sure if this posts belongs in questions or discussion, but I thought this would be appropriate, thoughts?
Surrender comes up every now and then.
Problem 1: as a game designer, you want your game design to have a climatic finish. DbD, in my opinion, does this more frequently than a lot of games were you have things coming down right to the wire (trying to finish a gen as a killer rushes at you, getting caught at the gates, etc.).
In my opinion, this is also why they've been spending the last couple of years working around with a basekit mori system because the end game there is just kind of 'meh'.
A surrender option is antithetical to this goal. Games just end. It's kind of like when a killer DCs. It doesn't have nearly the same feeling as actually getting out of the gate (though at the other extreme, which is a danger, some players will take it as a point of pride).
Problem 2: Hatch mechanic. The game balance is built around kill rates, and hatch escapes are part of this. If you had a surrender option, especially if it didn't require a unanimous vote, you'd see kill rates go up because this stage isn't getting played out anymore.
Problem 3: A surrender option leads to survivors quitting on each other. If two survivors want to surrender, and the others don't, that increases the chances those first two survivors just stop trying in the trial altogether.
Other games:
From what I've heard, in some games with a surrender option seeing a game played out to conclusion is extremely rare.
What would you need is something like chess, where I believe there is a etiquette that it is polite to surrender if you are in an unwinnable position but the game is still going to take a long time, but rude to surrender when check mate is just a few moves away (may vary by region for all I know, anyone more familiar with chess can correct me). So you'd need some type of mid game surrender option that doesn't continue into the end game.
Personal View: if this was just about making the game fun for me, I'd take a surrender option with limitations immediately. But I think the option would really ruin the experience for newer and more casual players for whom the full experience of the game is important.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3883989#Comment_3883989
I have a hard time believing that a final determination on their exclusion can be made so quickly without trying out all of the options. If their powers are too oppressive then I’m of the mind that they can always be modified.
It just doesn’t make sense that the highly popular 2v8 mode would limit the roster instead of expand. It doesn't make financial sense to drop a Killer that has had labor hours dedicated to them. It also doesn’t make thematic sense to hype up a brutal new game mode and not have the expectation of eventually adding in the full roster.
Look I’m going to be honest. I can't stand Legion either. After Wesker, they’re my least favorite Killer(s) to go against. But I can’t justify their removal without trying everything possible to keep them present.
It's not realistic to think that with 38 killers, and 703 possible combinations, that everything can get work. Killers were designed for 1v4, it shouldn't be a surprise that some of them won't work in 2v8.
I expect that BHVR will try to get all the killers in. I think that will also eat up a ton of dev time and frequently impact the enjoyability of the mode.
It also doesn’t make thematic sense to hype up a brutal new game mode and not have the expectation of eventually adding in the full roster.There's a whole ton of survivor perks I can't use, and with good reason, in 2v8. Trying to force 1v4 perks into 2v8 would be a waste of time.
But I can’t justify their removal without trying everything possible to keep them present.At a certain point, you're just developing a new killer. If Legion had a totally different power, but was just called 'Legion' and had the skins, what's the point? That would be a lot of invested time for a secondary game mode when there are so many other issues to tackle.
-
I had one killer queue that lasted almost 30 minutes (I know, because I started watching a 37 minute video when I entered the queue and paused it when the lobby loaded). I haven't timed my others, but they've been in the 10 to 15 range.
That was my general experience last time around.
Maybe things have gone down a couple minutes. That seems the best case scenario on the times. It certainly doesn't seem worth the tradeoff. If killer queues were under 5 minutes with the bots I could see the argument, but this seems to be the worst possible outcome.
-
It's conceptually fine. DbD is a game with a high level of RNG and trying to take into consideration all of the different factors would be close to impossible.
An example of this is how they don't separate out sweatiness and use of tactics. BHVR devs have said if a new killer starts playing, uses their best addons, and just tunnels non-stop, they are going to fly up the MMR and they'll suddenly hit teams they don't know how to deal with. And BHVR is fine with this.
On top of that, the MMR is supposed to just generally match you with like skilled opponents. There's no public rankings, there's no MMR prize, it is just for general matching. It is meant to take long term view of player outcomes and match them up.
Now how well does the system work out? That's a bigger debate and BHVR is probably the only one who knows the real answer.
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3883820#Comment_3883820
Have you been the last days online in this forum?
If the Thread isn´t 2v8 related its most likely a slug theme.
So it´s not the survivors fault if they bring Anti Tunnel vs a Slug build
But it´s killers fault if they bring Totems/Aura/Hook builds vs Anti Totem, Aura or Sabo builds?
I have a honest question.
What do we even want?
A stale game where everything is predictable, say same Loops on every map, same playstyle every game, same perks what so ever or do we like dbd cause its not predictable?
Have you been the last days online in this forum?If the Thread isn´t 2v8 related its most likely a slug theme.I didn't say people weren't discussing it. I said implying people are saying this is 'every game' isn't accurate. Its a strawman.
But it´s killers fault if they bring Totems/Aura/Hook builds vs Anti Totem, Aura or Sabo builds?Of course its not their fault. DbD will always have a guessing game element. That leads to the next point:
What do we even want?For perk selection to not be the deciding factor, for a removal of certain strategies that grind the game to a halt, a game that is roughly balanced.
Perks should give an advantage in the right situations. Never should the answer to a question on how to deal with a strategy from the other side be 'well you should have brought X' without any other options that are practically viable.
Gameplay to generally be fun and engaging. I'm surprised this is really even an issue. Getting slugged with knockout is boring. Old facecamping and 3 genning were boring. They grind the game to standstill and people aren't actually getting to engage with a video game.
And of course, the game should generally be fair and balanced. Given its design this balance is always going to be rough and felt more over multiple games than a single game, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a consideration.
Variety is a part of the game, but losing slugging people for 4 minutes isn't going to harm the game's variety anymore than infinites disappearing or auto completing gens with a BMP harmed variety. Some things are bad gameplay.
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3883809#Comment_3883809
So you say…
Survivor bring a complete Anti Tunnel Build with DH DS StB and the Killer has to play into it? Because the other side don´t want a guessing game? (2 out of 16 perks could be Exponentional and don´t need 4 Anti Tunnel perks on all Survivor)
I am confused.
Hasn´t it been always like this. Killers go full Slow down, Survivors go Gen rush.
Killers bring Aura Build, Survivor go Anti Aura.
Killers go Tunnel and Survivor brings Anti Tunnel.
Now it seems like everyone is saying all games are full of Slugging which brings to points.
Either go Anti Slug because Anti Tunnel won´t happen that much or it´s a straight lie that every game is a full slug fest.
straight lie that every game is a full slug fest.Who is saying every game? I'm sure someone has in this thread, but usually people are saying its becoming a more common tactic. If one out of five games is a slugging killer, that's rare enough that its hard to justify a build to counter, common enough to ruin the game.
-
@Yippiekiyah said:
If Basekit Unbreakable is implemented it should be a once per game thing, and it should be on a long timer, like at least 50-60 seconds and also killers should get something in return, a basekit corrupt and a toolbox nerf would be fine by me.
Getting something in return is bad game design. Like I'm a survivor main and I'd be fine with nerfing or reworking toolboxes straight up.
@Leon_van_Straken said:
I have a short question.
If slugging is in every game like some people say, why wouldn´t you take unbreakable, exponantional or we gonna live forever, since DS, StB or DH are useless?
Don´t get me wrong but wouldn´t that be the next step in meta?
Killer won´t hook so why bring anti tunnel? Maybe we need to adept, instead of asking for basekit changes so we can run the same build over and over again?
Yes and no.
The problem with 'meta' discussions is that if there was a clear one, then yes, it could be countered. Historically, killers have had spreading hooks, spreading pressure, snowballing, tunneling, camping, 3 genning, and slugging as broad overall strategies. If all 4 survivors guess right ahead of time then the killer will probably be in a lot of trouble.
But DbD is a bad game when it becomes a guessing game in the lobby. Not to mention soloq's difficulty in coordinating a strategy.
DbD is an even worse game when you need to bring a perk to counter a strategy. Even if you don't bring the right perks, there are strategies to counter tunneling. Old 3 genning? Did anyone bring potential energy? No? Well, 40 minute game here we come.
Slugging is in the position of old 3 genning. Not only do survivors need to win the guessing game, if they don't, its an incredibly boring game.
-
@ThatRyanB said:
Jumping back in here to thank everyone who's provided their thoughts so far, both from the Survivor and Killer POV! We're continuing to note down your feedback including the specifics, so rest assured, they are being read.
My opinion is that bots should be removed and the earth salted from whence the idea sprang.
Barring that: bots should communicate what they are doing. Going for a rescue, going to heal, doing gens, things like that. Maybe even just making them permanently visible to other survivors.
Bots seem unable to adjust their behavior. If they are going for a rescue even if I run in front of them (which is common, because they get caught on weird on objects and seem to have difficulty pathing to a rescue), they keep going. If they go to heal someone, they just stand there even if two people are already healing the injured target. If I knew a bot was going to rescue, even if they were doing it slowly, I wouldn't jump off what else I was doing.
-
As a game mechanic? Its great. It adds much more tension to the end game if there is just the possibility of NOED.
As a perk pick if you are just trying to maximize value? It's pretty solid, allowing you to pull back a tough game into either a minor loss or draw.
As a perk to get better at the game? Its awful. It gives easy and powerful value and whether you can block the survivors countering it is completely random.
Last time I had NOED was in a chaos shuffle game where I turned a 1k into a 3k in the end game where they went for the rescue. The survivors were actually really cool about it in the end game chat, but it felt pretty cheap to me.
-
I really enjoy 2v8. It offers a unique experience to the 1v4 mode. I enjoy them both in different ways.
My problem with this version is that its worse than the last version. If this had been version 2 I'd be enjoying it more, but I think the changes are all bad with the exception of Wesker, Nemy (though he is weak), and the RPD map. Legion I don't mind too much, but isn't thrilling to have in the game, but the bots are awful to have and I really dislike the herbs.
-
@MoZo said:
Updated Tierlist after some feedback and second thoughts.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/DOLBZWAE39KA/img-4680.jpeg
I think that's a pretty good list.
The thing about Legion, both getting more matches and just thinking it more, their strength is really dependent on who they are teamed with. Blight/Wraith/Spirit/Huntress seem to pair really well, Wesker, Nurse, and Nemy are mid ground, and Hillbilly, Trapper, Deathslinger are bad combos. Legion isn't strong on their own, but can be an amazing partner.
I think that will be a bigger issue going forward as we get more killers. No longer will we be able to just rank them independently, but in possible combinations.