crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
It has a tactical advantage. Basically if the killer has hooked someone who is on first stage, leaving would deprive them of their 4% chance or Deliverance if they have it. Other times it's to put pressure that survivors can go back into the map again and mess up whatever advantage the killer has at that point (say one or 2 people on hook), so killer has to personally push them out to avoid.
Sometimes survivors do it to be asses, other times it can to just say goodbye and have one last interaction with the killer. I just like to show them my Flashbang if I still have one and won't get to use it anymore.
Pretty much this.
Taunting the killer when the game is over is bad, but there isn't much that can be done. Move it so they have to stand outside the gate? Okay, they do that and taunt from there.
If I'm standing in the exit gate to taunt the killer, bad, but if I'm doing it to distract so my teammates can recover, good. It's like slugging, really annoying if the killer does it just to let the survivors bleed out for 4 mins to end the game, but tough to address because there are many times when slugging is a strategic risk the killer may or may not want to make.
Please let me know if there is any other way
If they're all in the gate and it bothers you that much, just don't go. Find some doors to destroy, that's usually what I do.
-
So @jesterkind answers this really well, but there were a few other things I wanted to touch on.
Imo this is very poor game design and I think the devs really need to consider reworking some of the current most popular perks.IMO, the exact opposite is true. Earned perks are a bad idea.
Take the perks that trigger off of hooks or downs. The better you are at downing survivors, the more value you get. This means if the killer is better than the survivors, a win becomes a steamroll (which could happen with old pain res). If the killer is not as good as the survivors, the perks are useless and the survivors now steamroll.
New pain res and no way out are meant to encourage alternative play styles, e.g. getting value out of not tunneling.
Or look at the change from old, old DH to old DH. The activation requirement was more challenging and required a game to be played between survivor and killer, but once survivors mastered it they were getting mostly the same benefits. You can't really balance for perks like that - if you balance to the top end there is probably little value in ever trying to use the perk, if you balance to the middle an experienced player will demolish killers with it (current example are the perks that trigger off great skill checks).
Killers should have to earn their regression, or any other benefit that comes from perks. A fair point perhaps, but let’s apply this argument to the current most popular survivor perks:This is mostly a strawman. Complaints about the 3 gen meta were overwhelmingly about it being a boring, long game. People complained about 'brainless' out of anger, but that wasn't that it was brainless to win, but brainless to put the game in a very boring spot.
The stronger they are, the more limited the use or the greater the activation requirements.I don't think anyone disagrees with that in concept, its just what you are citing as examples. Staying injured is a big risk. Sprint burst requires a lot of walking. Prove thyself and deja vu aren't that good. Balanced landing is a risky take and limits the areas of the map you want to play around. Lithe, well okay, lithe is probably too easy.
But wait I hear you say- there’s lots of perks that provide killer’s value without them doing anything. Deadlock, Corrupt, Lethal, Discordance to name several.First, as mentioned, I think you are misunderstanding where others complaints about certain game elements come from.
Second, you are missing the strategy element of the game. Choosing what perks to take, and how the other side responds to that in game, is a really important part about what makes DbD an interesting game. Not everything in game should be boiled down to just chase skill, but looking at what the map/opponent gives you and making play decisions based on that.
-
I think the ability to change things in the dream world fits him really well, but has been said there needs to be more of it. I'd love if could block off windows or change loops, but I highly doubt the engine could handle things like.
-
With these discussions its always a question of whether we're discussing SWF, soloq, or trying to walk the line between both. I'm more concerned with what is or is not fun game play as a primary element, with balance being a secondary concern.
Facecamping is never fun and BHVR should try and remove it.
Being slugged is no more inherently bad than being on the hook (boring, but part of a game like this), and only becomes a problem when a killer just lets someone bleed out for 4 minutes. While I hated the suggestion the first time I heard it, a give up option should be available in certain slugged situations (say at least one survivor out of the game, been on the ground at least 30 seconds).
Tunneling can never be done away with without a significant restructure of the game. BHVR could make it harder, and there are various ideas of differing complexity on how. I don't have that much of a problem with tunneling when I'm the one being targeted, at least I'm playing the game and there are things a survivor should do if the clear tunnel tagret, but it makes for a very boring game in soloq when the killer eliminates someone else really quickly and you are no longer in a competitive game.
As for whether such things will be addressed? I find it unlikely.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3446305#Comment_3446305
How many pallets do you believe the killer can possibly get out of the way in that time?
90 seconds into the match the killer loses 2-3 gens. If a killer needs 15 seconds to find the first survivor ( which is faster than most killers do) and another 10 seconds until they catch up that's only 65 seconds left. From here on the actual looping begins. Say the survivor buys another 15 seconds by dropping a pallet and only gets hit after 25 seconds by dropping another, that allows them to run and maintain distance for about 15 more seconds. This is where the second looping phase begins and the survivor plays even more careful. Another 25 seconds until they go down and about 10 seconds to hook puts the killer at 90 seconds and the loss of 3 gens (at least). In that time they got 3 maybe 4 pallets out of the way and that only happens, if the survivor doesn't play well around windows or god forbid used an exhaustion perk.
Few killers can actually destroy the survivors' ressources as fast as they can finish gens even without items. You don't go through pallets left and right as a killer, which is why a late first down puts you in a very bad spot.
You are missing the use of 'can'.
No one denies that the start of the game is incredibly important to both sides. The argument is whether killers 'can' come back while survivors 'cannot'. If the killer gets a really bad start there are still possibilities - 3 gens, basement hooks, tunneling, etc. can really quickly change the game (not to mention end game builds and powers). Plus the possibility of survivor mistakes can really throw the game in the killers favor quickly.
Compare this to the survivors. Once a survivor has been eliminated they, by game design, lose a substantial amount of their power. If the killers initial gameplan doesn't work he can change strategies - the survivors have no alternate strategy they can play to if things go really badly early.
So yes, early game really important for both sides, if it swings the survivors way killer has strategies available, if it swings the killer's way game is done.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3444425#Comment_3444425
This is an entitled attitude though. If every killer made a post on this forum saying “flashlight blinds are unfun” or “head on is unfun” would you expect BHVR to change it?
BHVR know that camping is something they can change, because it’s unfun AND prevents a player from participating in the game, hence the upcoming mechanic. Tunnelling however does not prevent a player from playing the game in the same way that camping does. Hence why there are only deterrents against it, not outright preventative measures.
If BHVR balanced the game according to what survivors found fun, then killers would have to two hook everybody and the same survivor could never be hooked twice in a row. Which in principle, doesn’t actually sound that awful, it’s just in the current state of the game it’s impractical.
This is an entitled attitude though. If every killer made a post on this forum saying “flashlight blinds are unfun” or “head on is unfun” would you expect BHVR to change it?On the forum? No.
If a large amount of killers players expressed dissatisfaction with a mechanic (via surveys and other methods)? Then yes - see instablinds. The forum is an extremely minor subset of total player perceptions on the game.
As a multiplayer video game BHVR is bound to continually making the game enjoyable for its player base. Its an asymmetrical design, so they need to balance two different sides who are often in opposition to what should be addressed.
-
@Blinckx said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3443142#Comment_3443142
Your entertainment is not my problem, I don't play killer to entertain you but to have fun for me.
You are not having fun ? Not my problem
I play to win and use every tactic that I consider valid as, I imagine, happens on the other side, indeed I expect the survivors to do the same as me, that they are not interested in my fun, that they bring the strongest perks and play to the maximum to win.
Camping doesn't mean the killer isn't playing, he's playing and keeping an area and a target (and maybe even a nearby generator or two) under his control zone. I've recently started using Scourge Hook: Monstrous Shrine and I must say it works well, I keep myself slightly away so that the Scourge Hook does its job and, as soon as I see a survivor trying to save, I intervene by blocking the road and preventing the rescue or making a profitable trade hook or hunting doing the unhooked one if it is stage two
They are called tactics and strategy. Aren't they fun for survivors? Who care?
I don't care if you don't care if I'm having fun as survivor. On that I agree with you.
But you know who should care? BHVR. They do have to consider the fun of both sides. And if a large group of players say 'X is unfun' then yes, they should change it.
-
Point system for the perks wouldn't be a bad idea. It would also stop them from nerfing perks into the ground, could always just increase the cost of a perk if it is taken too much.
I think you could even use it to help balance out the killers. Weaker killers get a few extra perk points, stronger killers get less.
For anything beyond that, it depends how much of the game we're adjusting. I think the current blood web concept should be thrown out, but as long as it stays things like perk levels will likely remain.
I'd like a random perk game mode where all players are playing with random perks. Even if they allowed players to limit the perks, say from a list of 40, I think it would make for a much more interesting game.
-
If everyone is in the exit gate? Almost always to taunt. I think there are a few archives out there were you want the others to leave first, but that's almost certainly under 1% of the time.
-
I'd be fine with changes, but this discussion is done. As others have said, DH is dead. It has a very minor use anymore and that's the way its going to stay. Time to move on.
-
@Pluto_1 said:
"4: The survivors being in a rush fit the games theme. In a horror movie the normal characters are trying to get out as quickly as possible."
And there it is. Survivor entitlement wide open for all to see. Doesn't even try to hide it.
You're missing the point. I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about theme - which are two totally different discussions that people conflate. The survivors feeling like they have to rush is a good game.
Honestly, if I was entitled as a survivor, I'd be asking for the opposite. Imagine a game where survivors didn't feel like they had to rush. That loops were so strong and the killer so weak that touching gens wasn't a priority. Killers can complain about gen rush, and some things like BNPs should be removed, but I'm not sure they realize what balance changes would have to be made to make non-gen rush strategies a thing.
You can do gens pretty well soloq, but there is no way you can believe that a soloq can accomplish gens with the same organization/speed as a SWF.
-
@Skill_issue is really the master of these posts to get us all arguing over the same thing again.
killers proximity camping a survivor (especially when the other survivors are injured or there are gens nearby that are regressing/can be patrolled) or in the rare case of a killer having two survivors on a hook close to each other...why would the killer leave to go find another survivor? it makes no logical sense...if two survivors proximity camp a gen (1 leading the killer on a chase so the 2nd can loop back and finish the gen) why is it seen as bad for the killer p.o.v. but not from the survivor p.o.v. when it is the exact same scenario?Because we are talking about game fun and those scenarios are not at all alike. Being camped is never fun. It's important to note not just in the 'losing' sense of not being fun. Getting taken down by a NOED while running for an open gate is rage invoking, but it's really exciting. Getting camped is just boring.
That's the difference. The game is meant to invoke tension and stress. If an element of the game fails at that objective, which camping definitely does and tunneling kind of can do, it should be removed. A flashlight save squad can be infuriating, but infuriating is better than boring and there are things that you can do. A gen rush squad makes the killer sweat for even a 1k, but again there is something as killer to try for.
Killers on this forum talk about how hard the game can be and how much they have to push themselves. Survivor complaints revolve around how boring and tedious certain situations can be. It should be obvious why a game designer would be far more worried about the latter scenario.
Other minor points
1: Only SWFs can really gen rush to maximum ability, while every killer player can camp if they wish.
2: Killers have said they don't care about survivors fun enough that BHVR has taken them at their word.
3: As @Pulsar has said, there is nothing else for survivors to do but gens. Even if, hypothetically, I wanted to play a 'let's 99 all the gens in the game' strategy it would only be possible if every other survivor was on board for it. The killer has complete control over how they play the game.
4: The survivors being in a rush fit the games theme. In a horror movie the normal characters are trying to get out as quickly as possible. Killers in horror movies hunt, stalk, surprise - they don't play defense (3 gen) or just ignore the other survivors (camp).
-
The game could have easily break through 100k players on average if they took those 3 monthsI assume you mean by 100k you are discussing the steam player count, because they are already well over that number when looking at the various services people play this game on.
The idea that DbD could triple their player count though is a fantasy. The game is only appealing to those interested in asymmetrical style elimination multiplayer games, then that is limited by those interested in the horror genre. On top of that, from that limited group, many have played DbD over the last 7 years and grown bored with it (inevitable).
Basically, the game has tapped the vast majority of its potential player pool. Sure, you'll have new people appear for a variety of reasons, but there is not a giant surge of players out there waiting to buy the game.
So could you attract back the old players? Probably not in any reliable way, once people move on from a game they might come back to it from time to time, but very rare for it to become their primary game again. Much like how anniversaries will see a surge but it will only last a short period of time.
This doesn't even get into the idea that any 'fix' is subjective (beyond bugs and removing cheating). Like everyone, I have my own 'dream DbD' game design, but am well aware there are current players who would hate the game I would make. Any fix would be similar, you'll energize some portion of the player base, but likely lose others. Given that risk it makes sense that BHVR slow walks their game changes.
-
I just upgraded GPU, but before that I had something weaker than a 2060 and I was able to run DbD with incredible settings. I don't know the why of it, @GoodBoyKaru seems like a solid possible answer.
-
That's really shocking.
US West - when I first started playing about eight months ago, maybe saw an AFK killer 1 out of 10 games, but probably less than that. Now I see it maybe 1 out of 15 for killer is AFK right from the start.
-
Some of those are on BHVR. 3 gens, facecamping, etc. can and are being worked on and can be made less viable. I don't have a problem with NOED, but hypothetically I did the solution would be simple, remove NOED.
The teabagging and hitting on hook, yeah, it's a problem. I slightly disagree with the community in that I don't encounter it that much more compared to other games, but it is a community issue that would be really hard for BHVR to address.
The "sweatyness" is a game design choice on BHVR's part and not one that I think is good.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3438815#Comment_3438815
What failsafe stops sweaty players from entering casual lobbies? I can think of at least two active players in this forum (not this specific thread) who would abuse the hell out of this. And they’re not alone.
BHVR probably wouldn't do it, but you could limit unranked mode to SWFs no larger than 2.
You could also put limits on the power of items and addons that get brought into the game, but that's a whole different thing with BHVR's game design.
-
There are types of gameplay that BHVR doesn't want to happen. You can agree or disagree on whether it will make the game better or worse, but the best course of action if you don't want something to happen is to just make it impossible. It's not a balance question, which is what most people are discussing in this thread, it's a game design question.
Facecamping is just a bad game, it's not fun for the person on the hook, nor fun for the survivors just sitting on gens. Killers will say, rightly in my opinion, that it's not their job to care about survivors fun, however it's definitely BHVR's. So if you don't want something to ever happen, just make it impossible.
For survivor sided things that never should have happened you have to go back farther in the game's history because they got fixed quicker: being able to sabotage all the hooks, infinites, instant blinds, hatch mechanics, etc.
-
If I get the OP idea, it's not really the value of the hexes themselves (though that's a bonus), but the slowdown they provide by making survivors cleanse them vs being on gens.
I don't think it's a bad idea, but going full hex seems excessive. I notice when I run plaything the time to cleanse those totems slows down survivors quite a bit.
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3433586#Comment_3433586
The cases I had in mind is that sometimes they take too long hiding at a critical time, when they should be more worried about finishing a gen even if they take a hit or go down. Sometimes you have to trade your safety for a gen that will benefit everyone after all, cause you might never get the chance again to finish that gen.
I feel like there is a difference between playstyle and tactical decisions.
Being stealthy as a playstyle is fine as long as, as others have said, you're still productive. Especially if you are a bad looper, stealthy is the right choice for the team. If you loop the killer for 30 seconds, or waste 30 seconds of the killers time playing hide and go seek, it is the same benefit for the team.
Tactically, are there times where going to hide is the wrong decision? Sure, but making a bad decision is another issue and can occur regardless of playstyle. Yes, if a player is 100% committed to stealth they hurt the team, but so does a player who insists on taking chase even when they are the only one on death hook.
-
@woundcowboy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3433107#Comment_3433107
That isn't a valid excuse. It isn't right to shaft part of the playerbase in the name of the majority.
Sure you do. Any design decision in a video game will make the game more appealing to some players, less appealing to others. Trying to appeal to the majority is a perfectly reasonable. BHVR has to walk a finer line than most as an asymmetrical game, but there is no "true" DbD, just whatever game BHVR designs.
@MrPeanutbutter said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3433107#Comment_3433107
I agree there’s no way to prevent it. My whole point is that it’s very unfair to killers yet most players accept it and survivors who use it simply tell killers to deal with it.
Given the fact killers have to deal with an incredibly unfair advantage that SWF get, they should be able to play however they want to. Yet here we are yet again nerfing tactics that the devs have said for the past 7 years are fair and legitimate parts of the game.
If two things are broken, and you can fix one of them, you should.
And while BHVR has said camping was valid, they've changed their minds. Nothing wrong with that.
And until we see the numbers, we don't know how much they've invalidated camping. Basically they are creating a window between when it is fair to camp and when it becomes abusive. Whether they hit the times right or not we'll see when it gets released.
-
@MrPeanutbutter said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/UFOFGAVMHYD9/image.png
Using comms in the game is a cheap and easy way to get all the gens done. Yet killers are forced to deal with and survivors claim that it’s totally fine. How come only one side is allowed to use cheap tactics to win?
Because there is really no way to prevent it, especially without likely losing a lot of the player base.
Also, a killer can use "cheap" tactics in any game, only some games involve players on comms.
-
@nars said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3433077#Comment_3433077
we can at least show what they shouldn't do so they don't do it. We know about the ranges distance, and that survivors nearby will slow the timer in some way. So we can make assumptions on the timer and show how those times would be bad so they can build off of it.
But that's presuming a lot about potential timers.
If the escape meter gain is minimal at the max distance, and the survivor slows it down further, it's not a viable strategy.
Even if it was viable, at a minimum it's very risky. The killer now knows exactly where the survivor is trying to loop and if the killer gets a down before the timer reaches, there's now two survivors hooked.
Not to mention if the survivors don't get the timings down right the hooked survivor could easily progress a hook stage before getting the escape, which is a trade off in favor of the killer.
And even if the survivor manages to get off the hook before the down, you're potentially just looking at a hook trade, which already exists in the game.
So for survivors to reliably employ this as a strategy they would need:
1: The killer to put the survivor on a hook that is easily loopable.
2: To not just win the loop chase, but do so while keeping the killer close to the hook.
3: For the other two survivors on gens to be so far away that taking the brief period of time to rescue their teammates while the killer is distracted is not the obvious play. If it takes 5 seconds to go and rescue the hooked survivor, and 5 seconds back to the gen, but it takes 30 seconds of looping to get the survivor to escape on the own, that's 30 seconds the hooked survivor couldn't do anything. The survivors could have had three people on gens while this master looper is plying his trade.
4: The killer to have engaged in this cat in mouse in the first place.
Could it be bad, especially on initial release? Sure, but that's just really a question of moderating how much the meter increases at various ranges.
-
We're not going to know how the idea will work in implementation until we actually see it. If the rate of 'escape' gained at 9 - 16m is minimal, it might be a non-issue.
I will add though on small maps if the killer is constantly within the range, survivors likely will be as well, slowing the process.
Additionally, I'm not sure its even that huge a harm. Let's say you are on Midwich and not camping, but because of the floors you end up triggering a survivors ability to get off the hook.
If the survivors even remotely know what they are doing, they almost certainly will have rescued the hooked survivor before the escape meter becomes an issue.
Even if they don't and the survivor does get an escape, it hasn't changed the game that much. Any time the survivors gain by not taking the short run to the hook, they've lost by all that time having a teammate unavailable to do gens.
As for your scenario of hooking a survivor in the midst of a 3 gen might that allow the survivor an easier escape? Potentially, but being BHVR has actively been trying to weaken 3 gen gameplay recently I'm not sure they view that as a bad thing.
-
There's lot we don't know, but I suspect if the killer is close enough to the survivor to trigger the anti-camp that easily, than multiple other survivors are as well, slowing down the process.
-
Lets look at this mathematically.I don't understand how camping helps you in this situation.
If three gens are done/almost done, how does camping a hook actually help? Mathematically, the survivors have time to finish the two remaining gens and still get a rescue (or ignore the rescue and just leave). In that situation feels like your only chance is to find a three gen to defend (presuming you don't have a killer with an instadown ability).
-
It really depends on the situation you are in, how many gens have been finished, what killer are you playing, are you in chase, etc.
If you are actively in a chase, no you aren't going to stop the chase to kick a gen. Probably not even if you had regression perks.
The survivors only have 1 gen left to go and they have one at 95%? Yeah, kick that gen.
Those are kind of the extreme ends of the spectrum. You give up a little bit of time to, likely, get a small reward. You have the potential of getting a massive reward, especially at lower MMRs, where you kick a gen with a lot of progress and then no one comes back to touch it.
-
One of the problems with an anti-tunnel build is there are a lot of times where it doesn't really even matter. If you aren't tunneled, either because the killer doesn't tunnel or tunnels someone else, wasted slots. On the other hand if you are hard tunneled with the killer proxy camping, the perks are only going to add a little bit of life.
In the right situation they get a lot of value, but lots of games they'll have zero return. Lots of players likely prefer perks with a higher chance of being useful, even if the theoretical value you get of them isn't as high.
I do tend to run OTR.
-
@RoastedGarlic said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3431800#Comment_3431800
For someone like me who suffers from sensory overload, I want a reduction of noise alerts. Survivors constantly fast vaulting is brutal.
Chase music is already too loud on some killers as is and all of them should be changed to the same volume. Chase music should not drown out all other sound. I have a friend who is vision impaired and needs to hear survivors to play. (he only has one eye)
FOV is the thing I need the most right away as I actively am forced to waste a perk slot just so i can enjoy the game without feeling like I am going to lose my lunch.
Fair enough:
Reduction of noise alerts: I could see that, that not sure I'd trust BHVR to code it well.
Chase music: Standardizing killer music volumes, got it. I feel like a lowering of chase music volume would be a pretty substantial buff to killers, but I say that as someone finds tracking survivors by sound really easy in the game currently.
FoV: Honestly surprised they haven't done this given the number of complaints. Has BHVR ever said why they haven't just done this? Feels like it would be at most a minor buff to killers.
-
Killer gameplay and accessibility improvements:What do you want?
Survivors get gameplay and accessibility improvements because there are lots of ways the game can be improved for survivors.
The only real suggestion out there for killers if field of view.
Some killers should get balance attention, and some maps should be looked at, but those are balance questions. If we're discussing gameplay what is that killers could get that would make it a better gaming experience.
-
Looking at Steam player counts its got a long way too go before its even in competition with something like DbD.
I played it over the free weekend. Fun for awhile, felt like it could be really good with some changes to the game, but I got bored with it pretty quickly.
-
After Dead Hard got a nerf, hook grabs should go.
One of the main arguments about why Dead Hard was bad was that it led to killers just running right behind survivors for extended periods of time. Killers argued it didn't feel right.
Same principle should be applied to hook grabs. Standing there playing a guessing game with the killer looks and feels stupid.
-
dbd is a 4 vs 1 team based game correct?That's debatable. I wish BHVR was clearer that it was a team game, but people are allowed to bring hatch focused builds, focus on archives, play for BP, etc.
if the games are taking to long then don't blame the killer; the survivors are the ones who dictate how long a game takesBlame BHVR.
People play to win on both sides. If winning becomes frustrating and tedious people won't change their playstyle, instead they'll just stop playing.
coordinate and take up the killers timeSure, if you're a SWF, coordination is easy. Doable as a soloq, just takes time.
I never understood how an m1 killer is seen as more oppresive than a slugging nurse/oni/twins or a tombstone myers or a facecamping bubba/tricksterNurse is broken balance wise. Design wise she fits the game theme, but in mechanics (once mastered) she is overpowering. If they were somehow able to balance her, I'd actually enjoy how different games against her feel.
Skull Merchant is not a balance issue, instead she has the ability to be tedious.
Tombstone Myers isn't fun to play against, but win or lose its usually a quick game.
Facecamping Bubba is the same.
Both also get complained about a lot, Skully is just new so there is more focus on her.
what are the communities thoughts?I don't have nearly as many problems with the Skull Merchant as I did pre-patch. I'll likely always have some dislike of her because of her initial release, but she isn't that bad anymore.
-
I think what OP is talking about is the idea that a SWF would get a hard penalty just by being in a SWF, like slower gen repair, and isn't talking about perks.
There's a couple of answers to that, but the one that usually gets made is that is that if you put a penalty on playing in a SWF, there are ways for people to still play together without using the built in feature, and people would just do that.
-
You're basically remaking Switch from deathgarden.
I think theme is a factor. The survivors are generally 'mundane', an illusion would be a weird power to have.
Balance wise? All depends on cooldown, ways killers might be able to tell the difference, etc.
-
I'm all for complaining about killers, but you are being really vague in what you are talking about. What are the examples of killers that you are thinking of?
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
If survivors do a gen under 30 seconds it takes to get Onryo's tv's on then that is actually a good thing.
It means that most likely all of the survivors had to be on that gen and blew all of their resources to get that single gen done fast. It would be way worse if they split up from the start and pressured multiple gens.
Early gens don't mean as much as people want to believe. The only gen that really matters is the last one. Once you realise that it's easier to keep your head cool.
Early gens don't mean as much as people want to believe. The only gen that really matters is the last one. Once you realise that it's easier to keep your head cool.This.
I feel that the panic that seems to set in for lots of killer players is the thing harms them the most. As survivors run out of items and pallets to use and have to narrow the portion of the map that is needed to be defended, games turn really quickly.
I'll also add even if this was done without items, just 3+ survivors jumping on one gen with prove thyself, that's not much different to the survivors spread out. 3 gens at 33% or 1 gen finished at the start of the game don't have that much distance between them, other that as killer one of those you know about and the other you don't.
-
Conceptually it's not a bad idea, though as others have mentioned the numbers are too extreme.
Any mechanic to try and encourage the killer to not tunnel runs into a couple of immediate problems
1: Eliminating a player is always going to be a massive benefit, so the trade off would have to be pretty substantial.
2: If you made a substantial change to benefit the survivors, they might just ignore someone on the hook, defeating the importance of rescues.
Here's the idea I came up with about this awhile back.
All survivors start at 75% gen repair speed.
When a survivor is hooked all others survivors gain gen repair speed (25/20/15/10/5%).
The hooked survivor's gen speed is reset to 75%.
So if you were a survivors and there were three hooks to other survivors, you'd have a gen speed of 135%, if you get hooked it drops back to 75%, but after another survivor is hooked you start the process over and are back to 100%.
This would slow down the rate of gens in the early game when the killer struggles the most, make survivors stronger as the game goes on, and if a killer completely misses a survivor they will become great at gens, giving the survivors a chance if the killer hard tunnels.
However, it's a complex solution to something that BHVR doesn't seem to see as that big of a problem. I think a much easier way to address tunneling would be if one survivor has more hook states than any other, he gets a permanent speed boost until another survivor equals him on hook states. Killer could still tunnel, but it would be more difficult.
-
They're not going to give more shards. Or if they did, it would only come after reducing the way players currently get shards.
As a player who has spent very little money on this game I'd love more shards, but it's not going to happen.
-
The anniversary chapter could be a message saying 'thanks for 7 great years' and nothing else and it wouldn't kill the game. Hurt player counts, sure, but kill the game, not at all.
-
@DyingWish92 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3425306#Comment_3425306
I tunnel when I'm in trouble. 1 gen left still 4 survivors alive. Or if I can't keep up with the speed of the gens. Not cuz it's easy mode. A lot of killers camp or tunnel to try and make a comeback from a bad start.
But you are basically saying that it is easy mode.
You have a tactic as a killer that is really powerful and easy to pull off: camping. You are choosing not to deploy it unless you are in trouble. I'm much the same way, I try to avoid tunnelling unless the gens are almost complete. That doesn't mean those tactics aren't easy and some killers choose to run them from the very beginning.
-
It's definitely overall weaker and I see a lot less of it, but I've been in games where it really helped out the survivors.
-
They should do something about it, but they are not going to. Their stance is that unless the only possible way for the game to end would be server collapse, you aren't really holding a player hostage (examples: body blocking a survivor into a location and just not moving).
I've always found it shocking that they let it slide, but they do. As others have suggested, the only real recourse is alt-tab or go do something else.
-
@Pulsar says it well off the start: it's unique and hasn't collapsed. Which in the vast sea of game clones is pretty amazing.
@Nirgendwohin said:
It showed me how different mentalities are in europe and the countries that have to play on EU servers. Which has brought me one step further in my human development.
I'm really curious about this and would like to know more about what you mean.
-
Scavenger Switch has entered the Trial.
Problems
1: System probably couldn't handle that many things running around. Imagine 4 of those going off at once.
2: As written, way too powerful. Hitting these back to back as a team would be really strong. You list 3 perk benefits, that's generally too much, most perks can pull off one thing.
3: By disrupting aura reading with a single use perk a single survivor can take out multiple perks on the killer side.
4: Not really thematically appropriate. If we have more sci-fi elements, or survivors with magic powers, maybe, but this doesn't really fit into that.
-
@GhoulNative said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3421702#Comment_3421702
Makes sense, what doesn't make sense is me (100+ Hours) Goes against killers that are still playing their first match.
There are few things it considers for matching: your region, your MMR, and other players who are looking for a game.
So even though the player count might look huge, remember it is narrowing the player pool geographically and then only those players currently looking for a game, so we're already at a fraction of the overall player count (and if you don't have crossplay on, even a smaller subsection of players). From there it tries to find players close to your MMR, but the longer it takes to make a match, the more it is willing to broaden its search.
A while back they had stricter MMR matching, but the time to get into a game could get really long and no one really liked it.
At the lower levels it can especially be hard to find a match. There just aren't that many new players in a 7 year old game. A 5 hour killer and 100+ hour survivor being matched up isn't even close to as crazy as it sometimes gets.
-
@sanees said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3419490#Comment_3419490
have you tried repairing generators? I remind you that the survivors progress 16 times faster than the killer, just repair all 3 generators and heal
else she will gradually lose or she will be forced to drop the generators to make a down
Because it's not all about winning. It's about having a fun game.
Take face camping Bubba. Easy solution: the other three survivors stay on gens. You'll get 2 or 3 out, guaranteed.
Skull merchant: split up to opposite ends of the 3 gen, 2 survivors on each, heal if you need it.
Yeah, great, survivors win, but who in the world wants to play a game like that?
-
A few replies in this thread have been rude when it wasn't warranted. I understand your desires, but I don't think they are going to happen for a variety of reasons (some good, some just BHVR decisions).
But there is no response, even those who offered to volunteer were not answered eitherIf I had to guess, there are concerns about private company taking volunteer work and then using it for profit. Additionally, as new content comes out it would also have to be translated. That's why I think they'd likely prefer to have a long term partner, not volunteers.
That said, I have nothing against the concept of a translation to any langue.
On the not responding: BHVR, like many companies, seems to have a policy of not commenting about possibilities. This is understandable, a simple 'we are considering something like this' can easily explode into a community thinking an idea which is just a possibility is guaranteed.
I know it is difficult, but the Arab region is full of myths and legends from which they can make 2 killers out of these ideas.It is a pity that the developers did not pay attention to this treasureSo there are a few issues here on why it probably hasn't happened/is unlikely.
1: The games theme is western horror movies, especially with a focus on American/Canadian slashers. Western horror fans also tend to gravitate to east Asian horror pretty well (and vise versa). However, this same theme transition is not as easy with some other cultures. As the game trends more toward 'horror in general' though it likely will expand.
2: DbD tends to avoid just taking characters from mythos. There is no werewolf, vampire, frankenstein, etc per se, though they do play off those ideas. Whether that is a good idea or not is its own question, but that doesn't seem to be a well you want to dip into.
3: When you dip into mythos you are creating the possibility that you will upset people who believe the genre you are using are very much real (example: devils, djinn). Some cultures don't have much of a problem with this, Shinto believers in Japan for example don't seem to mind the use of Shinto religious concepts in fictional works. That isn't universally true. Given how broad the Arabic world is BHVR creates the possibility of backlash, which is the last thing a company wants.
Personally, I wish they used mythological creatures more from various cultures, but they really seemed focused on the idea of characters who at least have a human origin.
-
The Knight as a summoner was pretty unique. Skully as an information gatherer/area denial was also new. Whether they were fun or not is a different question.
Within any game there are only so many variations that can be introduced. Something totally unique that doesn't introduce new game elements would be a major surprise/probably impossible. Also, look at the Nurse, I'm not sure we want another killer who breaks the general rules of the game.
On your suggestions
Taking over a survivor would definitely be different, but I'm not sure how it would work against SWFs.
Fireballs sounds like a different version of huntress. Ice spells are just a hindrance effect.
-
Back in the early 2000s I was at a college conference where there was a presentation on what type of character models people chose to play. Back then the overwhelming majority was male gamers chose male models. That has shifted a lot, perhaps because improvements in graphics have made female models more visually appealing.
People choose models for a variety of different reasons.
Some are only interested in the game. If a model gives a tactical advantage, that is the one they choose.
Some prefer simplicity, whoever they started with they just kind of stay with. I'm in this camp. When I started playing I thought Claudette's perks were the obvious ones to get first and she's just been my main ever since.
Some want visually appealing, this can be sexiness, fashion, etc.
Some want to identify. They want to be able to feel like they are the character they are playing as. It helps them get more into the game by feeling for a moment like they are the character.
-Why people identify with certain characters really changes from person to person. Sometimes it is because a character is similar in appearance to the player, sometimes lore, sometimes it is more someone who they aspire to be (Ash is a classical example of this for male gamers, a general everyman who saves the day while being funny, tough, etc.). At times it can be a really minor detail that causes people to identify with someone.
Some people have particular characters that they feel like they are helping. I.E. by escaping with Kate I'm not playing Kate, I'm saving Kate.
One thing that I've noticed which is new for me (I now coach high school students) is that it is becoming more common for people to feel like they can't intrude into certain areas/characters. David would be a possible example of this, if as a non-LGBT individual you played a LGBT character you are taking space that was not meant for you.
I feel like a mix of those answers the question, but also just expansions of character roster.