dezzmont
dezzmont
About
- Username
- dezzmont
- Joined
- Visits
- 967
- Last Active
Comments
-
They tried stuff like this and it broke the game.
The killer MUST be allowed to defend the hook from rescues. The game doesn't work if they are guarenteed.
To counter campers, spread out and rush gens. If your sitting by the hook the ONLY thing they can do is try to stop you. You need to force them to go somewhere else.
-
The entity seems to be willing to cooperate with killers of a certain level of... cosmic ability so to speak. There is no realistic way the entity COULD 'trap' Pyramid Head, and Myers maybe for a bit for as long as Myers doesn't realize his 'true power level.' Instead it lets them assist him.
Pennywise is the avatar of something semi-omnipotent, much like The Entity, so it could full well show up in some sort of partnership capacity. Pennywise's goals and motives are extremely similar to The Entity's, even though their preferred... flavor profile lets say is different, and so it could be as simple as The Entity inviting Pennywise to dinner, especially if Pennywise gets the PH treatment and has a pseudo-mori baked into their kit.
The real weird thing is that Pennywise showing up has implications in terms of Steven King's multiverse, especially because The Entity would fit into it extremely well. But that also would up the 'cosmic level' of the setting a bit. Obviously we don't need to get The Other (AKA GOD) or Maturin the Turtle (Also kinda god) in there, but I am not sure the implication of the existence of powerful benevolent cosmic forces really fits DBD, though it would lead to cool perk fodder (and make sense for blessing totems!).
And this is assuming we are just talking Pennywise, and not The Deadlights, which is Pennywise's 'true nature,' both the same thing as him but also a different, grander entity. Low key The Entity is really really really obviously based on The Deadlights (A sapient pocket dimension that kidnaps people to torture for all eternity) so that is more of a problem for the hypothetical crossover than anything else, unless BHVR wants to say The Entity is The Deadlights, or some reflection of it, reconciling Pennywise can be a bit hard because The Deadlights are just so comically similar to The Entity it would be weird to not address this.
So the baggage is way less 'The Entity couldn't tame Pennywise' and more 'Bringing Pennywise in brings a whole lot of lore DBD very clearly borrowed from that will be hard to reconcile in a cosmology sense.' But this was also somewhat a problem with Silent Hill kinda. Silent Hill serves as less of a problem. While Silent Hill is a genius loci (Well, three kinda, Silent Hill lore is weird) much like The Entity, its way more passive and non-sapient despite having a clear MO and goals (At least, two of the three Silent Hill 'dimensions' do), so its easier to kinda just ignore that but its still sorta weird.
So maybe they will just completely ignore the heavy lore and just say 'Pennywise is here because he saw all these tasty snacks in The Entity's Realms and not even he knows if he and The Entity are one and the same or not' and just dodge all this nerdy stuff.
-
Hex Totems need to have a consistent philosophy on their spawning to prevent 'instant finds,' and perhaps some changes to them to 'normalize' their value a bit more, but they are a good design ultimately. The big issue is that its way too easy for a hex to give zero value, rather than low. A hex perk shouldn't really ever risk being a dead perk slot.
One idea that gets floated around a bunch is the idea of making it so that hex totems all have non-hex effects. Ex: Ruin passively helps regress rates slightly, but the totem itself is what makes gens auto-regress, so once you lose the totem you still have some stall, its just bad stall that depends on kicking gens without the absurd value other perks give like pop or oppression.
I think the best angle is to give the killer more control. One common recommendation is to let the totems start dull, and give the killer the ability to interact with them at the start of the match from anywhere on the map (sorta like Freddy's teleport interface) to place a random totem perk they have on that totem, with maybe some specific ones (ex: Haunted Grounds) spawning randomly after all other totems are placed. This way, you never get that crappy totem that is just in plain sight on a hill right in front of a gen or something, and can plan your totem based on where you want on the map, or even 'delay' your totem to make leaving even unlit bones about more threatening.
The other thing is that we kinda need perks that interact with dull totems better. A common rework idea to NOED (or creating a 'noed family') is perks that buff the killer for each surviving totem, that get stronger endgame. Right now totems are meant to be a side objective but more feel like a 'screw you' to the killer. Making it so survivors are encouraged to clear ANY totem they see, and making the choice to not cleanse them a known cost rather than NOED's 'out of nowhere' nature that can't be countered without cleansing EVERY totem, would help accomplish that. Right now a big issue with totems is they are extremely binary in an unfun way for both sides. Making it so that your time spent working on bones to make endgame easier isn't wasted if your team doesn't get literally every totem would rock, as would introducing non-gen objectives survivors seriously want to do unless they are ridiculously confident. It is sorta wild we haven't gotten a "Thrill of the hunt" style perk but for the actual game rather than bloodpoints yet, and there is a pretty wide design space for that (ex: an inverted 'fired up' that wants you to have totems rather than lose gens, a cooldown based perk that gains cooldown time for each totem lost, ect).
-
In general you want brutal. Fired up does less early, which is bad because that is when pallets are going to matter the most. But the speed boost fired up gives to breaking isn't that impactful as brutal already makes the break animation fast enough to cheese hits.
Fired up is a sort of questionable 'final boss' perk (though with the changes to No Way Out it might actually work a lot better), and its more there for vault animation speedup, because even with Bamboozle it can be hard to get a hit on a killer vault, so the extra speed there matters more. Good on killers where cheesing a hit on a vault is a huge deal and who are extremely threatening late game, and don't need native stall.
I would not dedicate two perks to pallet breaking, even on killers weak to pallets. Most maps do not have enough strong pallets to warrant this and its far smarter to run spirit fury-enduring in this case.
-
@Edgars_Raven said:
I wish theyd turn it off in chase, but give bloodlust 3 when out of chase for 5 seconds. At least try it for a weekend 🤷♂️
I have thought about this, but it would definitely have to be an 'in addition too' mechanic, and not a replacement mechanic.
It probably also would need a more serious cooldown than 5 seconds so its not constantly resetting. It would be a good way to force survivors to not just M1 away and instead to try to reach a looping spot, and address immobile killers on large maps, but it would require pretty serious tweaking to stuff like chase detection.
-
It was a failure.
Firstly, as mentioned, it brought back quite a few infinites. A lot of relatively innocuous geometry becomes an infinite without bloodlust.
Secondly, it showed that bloodlust is really important 'emotionally' for killers. This makes sense, when you remember that Bloodlust was added in response to a 'killer strike' back in the 2017 era of the game as a sort of promise to consider balance from both sides, which was definitely not the case when the strike happened (To get some perspective, imagine getting a free dead hard to EVERY pallet in the game to get why killers would consider going on strike. 2017 DBD was... bad...). Removing bloodlust as a surprise little experiment at the cost of killers was a huge regression in BHVR's... behavior (heh) in terms of how they treat both sides of the community.
Bloodlust is, ultimately, a weirdly controversial mechanic for something that is so well designed and is... very normal in most games? Its a bounding mechanic. It forces you to display more than one kind of skill as a survivor and prevents matches from lasting forever if both sides are close but one clearly won't win. Almost no well designed game on the planet avoids infinites or recursion by just designing the game to have no chance for infinites or recursion, they introduce mechanized systems that put a cap on the payoff of any given mechanic: Doesn't matter how good you are at fighting games or what combo you tech, most games have anti-infinite combo detection that automatically resets you to neutral and forces you to earn another combo after.
So the greater information brought by the test wasn't 'are there still infinites?' (to which the answer is 'no duh') but how DBD's gameplay is affected by BL. Ultimately, as it turns out, its just survivor winging, because BL barely affects survivors negatively outside of situations they 'should' lose, but is very critical to the entire killer experience.
If, as a survivor, you can't lose chase for a few seconds to drop bloodlust, or drop a pallet so strong the killer has to break it... you don't get an infinite chase. Sorry. You get 1 minute 30 seconds, which is still a game winning chase if your team is still up. It doesn't matter how good you are at running loops, after 1 minute 30 seconds, either prove you can drop chase, or spend a resource to reset the chase.
But as a killer, bloodlust does a lot. It smooths out troublesome geometry if a survivor runs to it, making the starting conditions of the chase matter more. A big problem in DBD, as often its a biiiit too easy for survivors to reach 'safe' geometry before you can land a hit. Bloodlust rewards you for survivors being slightly out of position by an easier time looping, as opposed to starting a chase in safe geometry which makes the chase much harder. It also helps games close out if the survivors are good but clearly going to lose: Rather than going for a 4 minute chase vs a good looper when its a 2v1 with 3 gens left (which is nearly always an auto-lose for the survivors), you just bloodlust em down after 2 minutes and its over. In a 4v1, spending a minute in a chase to land a single hit is going to lose you the game, all the gens are done before the survivor is even down, but 2v1 just makes it harder for tenacious survivors to drag out a game for an extra 4 minutes by running strong loops endlessly.
So even ignoring infinites, it made killer gameplay NOTICABLY worse because now survivors could force you to sweat over a game that was basically over. Which is why the main effect of the test was absurd queue times for survivors well over a week after the test was done. It was, to be blunt, a pretty transparent mistreatment of killers that people who have been playing a while can recognize, so a lot of people just decided to take a break for a bit. I strongly suspect we will not see such tests again.
The reason bloodlust gets so much attention besides its effects being nearly invisible from the survivor perspective is mostly that big voices in the community such as streamers are more affected by it than others. Survivor streamers want to maximize interaction with the killer, which makes sense because that is good content. But it isn't good for the game itself to allow survivors to infinitely interact with the killer without spending resources, you WANT survivors to run themselves down if they can't close out the game or to be forced to ghost the killer a bit, ditch chases, and play subtly. So bloodlust is annoying to content creators because while it makes the game better, an 'ideal' survivor DBD stream is you running the killer for 10 minutes in a 1v1 despite that being something that really shouldn't be possible no matter how bad the killer is, because its boring for the game to test exactly one kind of skill and not other evasion tools or techniques.
-
Here is the deal:
Fun is an abstract, hard to define concept. But know what is even harder to define than fun? Fair. Reasonable. Common sense.
It is not your job to 'balance' the game via restricting what you do. Anything within the boundaries of what the game allows is fair game, as long as its not clearly an exploit. Any attempt to say someone who you don't know and will never communicate with should restrict themselves in that space for your benefit, when doing so directly negatively impacts them, is actually kinda selfish, not because we shouldn't care about other people, but because you made an implicit agreement to be that person's opponent, and the social contract of competition means you try your hardest.
DBD is not a 'competitive game.' But it is a competition. Most things people complain about (flashlights, camping, medkits, tunneling genrushing, slugging ect) are actually... just basic mechanics of the game? Yes, these all result in a negative experience for the other party in some way. But they also represent normal, expected behaviors of people in a game trying to win the game. You can talk about fair play all you like, but if your definition of it requires someone to try harder to appease it than trying to win the game itself, its a bad definition.
Lets take genrushing. As a killer, it sucks when survivors just do not want to engage with you and most of the game is over before you even really get into your first chase on larger maps. But the entire game is about tempo and survivors really can't... afford to let you get some good chases in before trying? It isn't their job to fix the bad maps, and most killers have tools to deal with this, so it isn't so bad, and honestly it often comes down to bad choices anyway. There are limited resources on each map, and most maps that are large where a few gens can pop before you really get into chases tend to be resource sparse (there are exceptions, but post ormond rework and the shrinking of the swamp maps this is REALLY true, and the devs seem to understand maps should NOT get more pallets the larger they are), meaning deadzones get created fast and the killer can snowball quickly. Most survivors (and the devs) don't take these complaints very seriously because they betray such a bad understanding of the game. Survivors need to get enough gen pressure on you so that you literally don't have time to kill them before they finish gens.
That is, by definition, how survivors win. Even though for the killer it isn't fun when they are 'too good' at it.
Or on the survivor side, slugging, tunneling, and camping all get a bad rap because 'it ruins the fun for people' but uhh... DBD is a game... with player elimination as a core feature? If your experience is going to be ruined by you not being able to participate in a match because your efficiently eliminated, you should not be playing it. The killer, much like the survivors, does not have time to screw around. Again, DBD is a tempo based game and the killer also has a very intense relationship with time. More than each individual survivor in fact: if the killer is not earing pressure and value every second of a match up until the first player is eliminated, they probably lose. And survivors have tools to avoid these strategies, and usually when they work really well it comes down to bad choices anyway (For example, looping near the hook, or sitting in bleedout under an active hook like a dumbass, or rescuing right away when the killer doesn't face gen pressure). Most of these complaints come down to 'the killer didn't pretend that I wasn't undoing their main objective' and most killers (and the devs) don't take these complaints very seriously because they betray such a bad understanding of the game. The killer has to get enough pressure on the survivors to the point that they can't repair gens faster than they die.
This is, by definition, how the killers win. Even though for survivors it isn't fun when they are 'too good at it.
This dichotomy is common in every competition under the sun. But DBD players have convinced themselves, deluded themselves, into thinking their opponent owes it to them to make it a fair fight (usually in scenarios where they feel like they can win, because as the saying goes: If you win, it was fair, if you lose it was rigged). And DBD, for all its faults, is actually EXTREMELY well tuned in how many mistakes your really allowed to make before you lose when the game is slightly close. If I am a great killer vs bad survivors, I can in fact afford to go easy on them, and vice versa. But if its remotely close and your not giving 100%? Your gunna get trashed. Like what am I gunna do as a killer when I see you unhooking your friend with another survivor next to you because you went for it 5 seconds after I hooked em and I am Bubba? NOT chainsaw you two down, then chase your friend slugging you two, to try to find some immersed Claudette? If I am a survivor and its a big map and I spawn next to a gen should I not repair it until I see you get a hit, even though at that point you may have burned through all 3 pallets on a given corner making that tri-gen impossible to get through?
Heck no. I am gunna try to win, and you should too!
But games can be unfair. Mechanics can be unfair. They are unfair when they subvert the spirit of the competition. Flashlight saves vs a tunneling killer and camping vs people who are over-committing to the hook are fair, they are a part of the competition you buy into: part of being a good killer is being aware of what the survivors are doing, part of being a good survivor is misleading the killer and not being an overt idiot doing stuff in their face.
But sometimes mechanics just don't add anything or are way too much: keys are good example, because not only were they powerful (which is fine) but they nuke the game space and basically make it impossible for one side to win unless they alter their play in a super artificial way that just makes the game worse, and mostly exist to ensure the killer literally can't win even if they do well, rather than to secure an advantage.
Another was old hook traps. While intentional, it created a scenario where survivors couldn't ever safe rescue even if they tracked the killer and cleverly saved when they were well away chasing someone else. Despite doing everything right, you were punished for even trying, which stunk.
Mechanics are unfair when they reward stuff we don't want to be rewarding, or shut down the game with no interaction. Survivors should not be able to freely track the killer with OoO because killer tracking is a huge part of the game. Keys reward survivors for doing bad in a way that doesn't add anything besides nuking the killer's ability to actually play from go. Old undying was comically punishing to survivors who skillfully were avoiding killer engagement like they should. Machine Gun Build was stupid and made every killer able to instadown all the time which was an unfair nightmare. Lampkin is a horrible map that removes most agency from an entire side at all points in the game and the only good thing about removal of DC penalties is I don't have to play there anymore. Iri hatchets were dumb. Ect.
These things are/were unfair because they push the game to a space that has no value, and either rewards bad play or makes skillful play unrewarding. But they aren't going to be fixed by bullying people into not using them. They are fixed by devs changing things.
But we DO want to reward killers who see you going for a rescue and punish it, or survivors who pallet or flashlight save, or killers who down someone in such a way that they can instantly start a second chase to maintain pressure without hooking, or survivors for collectively denying killer pressure while doing gens. These are in many ways core skills of DBD, so claiming 'unfair, plz nerf' is silly, forget about bullying people for doing them. You don't balance the game by bullying strangers. You either play with people who agree to a social contract specifically with you (like fighting game tournaments that ban items, for example), or advocate changes to the core mechanics.
Otherwise, if you don't like how a side plays, you can do what you want when your willing to play that side.
-
@Elena said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2329805#Comment_2329805
Off topic but you could explain 5 paragraphs to me on why you hate Dead by Daylight and I'd never get bored
Dead by Daylight is a complex love for me. A 'problematic fave' if you will. As someone with an understanding of game design its super interesting because its so unique and how it gets a lot of complexity out of simple systems.
It is, ultimately, tag with extra steps. But it has a lot of focus in psychology, long term vs short term tacitcs, bluffing, baiting, ect. A lot of the things people are super vocal about on a shallow level (ex: Camping, slugs, immersed players, whatever) actually are extremely interesting and complex outcomes of these simple systems that almost 'have' to exist the way they do for the game to work.
Basically there is a lot to think about while none of the pieces are too wild, which is why the game is so popular despite its flaws. In a weird way it most closely resembles a fighting game out of any other game in how much depth it gets out of simple interactions and how competitive it can be, while solving that genre's main problem of being inaccessible. Which is why a lot of FGC folk are super into DBD!
-
@GrimoireWeiss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2329921#Comment_2329921
Honestly I don't think it really matters. If you stayed 20 seconds without hitting a single knife and they started decaying you really shouldn't be commiting to this chase anyway. It's still going to take around 3 seconds to decay each knife and a good Trickster will either drop a chase he can't land consistent knives or just literally down the survivor.
The difference between 30 seconds and 10 seconds is huge. The entire reason I think it may be an accidental nerf is because, realistically, you are right trickster SHOULDN'T see decay in a chase they are in at 20 seconds... but at 10... well...
Breaking a safe pallet literally takes 2.5 seconds. If the survivor then uses those 2.5 seconds to get distance and turn a corner, your now already decaying. In the time it would take a survivor to start decaying, a survivor now will have decayed 1/2 their laceration meter. This is huge, especially because of how easy it is to deny Trickster's ability to hit more than one knife at many tiles (Ex: Shack next to basically any standard loop). So now there are many situations where he legitimately is a 110 killer with no power, which was not the case before.
Most survivors are probably not going to learn trickster counterplay, but what this does is make trickster counterplay worse. So your going to get dumpstered extra hard in the matches that dumpster you. He is now even more of a 'newbie punisher' without many other upsides compared to other ranged killers, which is the opposite of what he needed.
-
@Razorbeam said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2329680#Comment_2329680
I really appreciate how they didn't make him sound like an anime character that you almost half expect looking at him, he very authentically sounds like he's pulled out of some super dark Korean mobster/serial killer movie. All of the sound work on him is miles above the rest. I've spent most the day playing him for all his struggles he's super chill.
Tickster's visual design and what he brings to the cast in terms of themes and aethestetic is A++. He is a very 'real' psychopath. Very American Psycho about it all. There is something unsettling about how he could be a real dude and the way he acts and behaves is a lot like a real sadist.
Like it is unsettling to be playing against him and to have the thought 'this person is the most likely member of the cast to actually kill me in real life. Even Legion is a bit out there compared to a well off good looking psychopath in a position of trust abusing that trust to hurt people.'
-
@GrimoireWeiss said:
Reducing the knifes from 8 to 6 is a huge buff. Anyone who plays him with the USB addon knows how it makes strong way stronger and they basically did even better. 30 seconds of Main Event means you'll probably actually have a situation you can actually use it.
The issue is that while its true he essentially has basekit USB, he also now has decay on a ridiculously short timer meaning he can no longer spread pressure (Which is vital to killer gameplay) or even take too long on any given injure state.
So yes, its a big buff but considering his other problems with his power it probably won't be that transformative. Making the situations where a ranged killer is going to down you down you even faster is sorta... already the entire problem with Trickster and why he isn't good. Huntress doesn't want to give up strong burst damage at loops to down someone extra fast if she catches a vault, she is already ridiculously good at that and the tradeoff doesn't make sense.
-
@FFirebrandd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2329805#Comment_2329805
That is just flat out not true.
Case in point, a Survivor out in the open just after taking an injury. They're running at 150% speed and Huntress has... like 2.5 seconds worth of time where she physically cannot hit them again. Trickster however has no such 2.5 seconds worth of harmlessness assuming he got the injury with his knives.
You say that situations like that are rare, but they aren't. Now granted the most common situation where this happens you... don't actually want to be in, but that exact situation happens every game if you end up getting to late game. Against most killers, unhooking with BT = Free out. Not so with Trickster. I can routinely inflict 3 health states worth of damage with knives before they get out the door and that's enough to down the rescuer and the rescuee assuming I get 1 injury prior to or as the unhook happens. Also, Trickster can punish an unsafe unhooks far better than most Killers.
If you are accounting for Huntress's time to reload and re-aim, you need to account for the fact that it takes Trickster time to land multiple knives.
Your numbers seem logical here, but its actually deceptive because your tracking Huntress's full TTK, while not tracking how long it takes for Trickster to go through a full damage state, which is more than 2.5 seconds even ignoring speedboosts which make trying to use a ranged power immediately after a hit a bad idea in the first place, at least with old trickster. Realistically, the Huntress doesn't even practically speaking have a cooldown after hitting because of the realities of this speed boost, unless the survivor makes a huge mistake and burns their speedboost on a vault (in which case yes the trickster gets another hit, but the huntress should be able to M1 after 5-10 seconds. In that scenario knives are a 'win more' that don't actually help you that much because your already in such a good position you should be fine). Trickster could technically exploit this on a vault if the target is already mostly on their way to an injured state, like if they have 5 knives or something so they get the 6th, and then 3 more or maybe even a full state... but think about it. In that scenario, the Huntress should have already injured the survivor, meaning that while the Trickster can technically 'double hit' on a really solidly lined up vault, the Huntress should never need to do so.
In fact, one of the BIGGEST COMPLAINTS about Trickster is how much worse he is vs that speedbost. Huntress can't damage the survivor, but she is back to speed. Trickster needs to put his knives away and ramp up again, or try to land shots vs a speedboosting survivor now at long range which is... not a good idea. So in a very big way Huntress is BETTER at chaining hits in open areas.
New Trickster closes the gap a bit and may even lead to some situations where there IS more lethality (that 'double down' on vaults is more likely to occur if someone really is obvious about vaulting from 0 knives, for example), but its not so much that it will really be worth how little utility the power actually brings to the table. Again, cutting down a single aspect of a chase by 5 seconds when it would otherwise last 10 is not generally worth not projecting threat with your power at all within most loops. Trickster's biggest problem compared to Huntress is so much of his actual gains on her are 'win more' gains.
On the BT angle, Iagree that one of the few places Trickster actually beats huntress is against extreme survivor aggression. Like I said, his TTK advantages are only relevant when the survivors essentially aren't or are unable to avoid your knives, such as suicide unhooking, where almost all of the weaknesses of track aim goes away. That is, however, still relatively minor and not worth building a killer around IMO, though it should definitely be recognized its there. Its just your spending far more time in a match (or heck, over multiple matches, most survivors are smart enough to not suicide unhook vs ANY ranged killer because ALL of them are strong vs it) trying to win loops or chase over long open distances compared to stopping a suicide unhook. That said, yes it should be noted Trickster is much more defensively strong than Huntress, though as we saw with Old Bubba, this is really not worth losing 'large scale' chase power. If your at the point people suicide unhook vs you as Huntress you are almost certainly going to win or its not going to meaningfully change that much because the match is mostly over anyway: the strong part of your power being camping when gens are open vs BT is... interesting but I think we can agree you want your power to do most of its work during a match. And this isn't even a 'weak' area of Huntress, she is notoriously strong at defending hooks because, again, you really don't have to charge your hatchets at all and fire them much faster than melee.
Again, one solution to the Trickster problem might be trying to emphasize other strengths of the kit rather than him as a 'long range' character like Huntress, and while I wouldn't say he 'wants' to be a Bubba, making him a 'plague-bubba hybrid' isn't a terrible position for him: Making him really scary to be 'overt' against and forcing you to respect him more. But right now that isn't even an especially strong part of his kit, even with the ultimate you can't actually fully block an unhook vs a healthy target from what I understand, meaning its... a weirdly worse tool at this than just using two hatchets as huntress. At least she won't go into a fatigue state after.
Right now a big problem with Trickster is once you understand his 'win conditions' and how easy they are to avoid you never have to respect him. This change helps but ultimately you should not be bringing a killer power to give you what Trickster offers you. It isn't worthless, its just the opportunity cost compared to what you get makes absolutely no sense because in any situation where you need a power consistently Huntress does it better or doesn't lose much appreciable, assuming you can aim with huntress and know to use her power as a zone tool and are not trying to land silly Hail Marry shots.
Trickster really needed his power to be more versatile, or affect the game in a larger scale way than all or nothing pseudo-damage states, not to be more lethal, because you can't get very much more lethal than Huntress without being silly, and Trickster can't in most situations be more lethal than Huntress without getting unfair.
Again, there are things to like about him, and there is definitely a salvagable character in there, but it really needs to be understood that he is not going to work as a sidegrade to huntress as is without a lot of pretty extreme changes to how knives work. Like tightening the cone so good players can always hit their targets at close range. Even ignoring the math around theoretical TTKs in reality the fact of the matter is Trickster cannot reliably hit 5 knives on a target 5 meters away in a row that make a lot of this math somewhat pointless. Once you account for the fact his projectile deviation is so high that he does not have a 100% hit rate at that distance your expected TTK on even stationary or semi-stationary targets goes WELL below Huntress's. But changing that would almost certainly make him very oppressive and not fun to play against because DBD's design doesn't.... work great with track aim weapons without them having a lot of funky properties (again, looking at you Plague!).
-
@FFirebrandd said:
Huntress Hatchets take 3 seconds to fully charge and have approximately 1 second worth of Cool Down. Usually you need to fully charge your hatchets so the Survivors can't easily dodge them.
Trickster with this new buff can down someone in less than 4.5 seconds. Trickster will also have lost less distance on the Survivor in this time than Huntress will have.
That's why.
If the terrain permits, Trickster is insanely more lethal than Huntress. Does this make Trickster better than her? No because she can handle a much larger variety of tiles than he can. Essentially the difference between Trickster and Huntress will be similar to the difference between Bubba and Hillbilly. One's more flexible, one's much more lethal in the right situation.
In scenarios where trickster can consistently down someone via hitting all their knives in a row, Huntress doesn't need to charge hatchet.
Good example is vaults. Huntress is rocking a 2 second health state on a vault or pallet throw, which is a common event and its a space where you actually need your power quite badly. Trickster can... kinda do fractional damage on top of that if they get lucky or are prepared? But in reality fractional damage doesn't matter that much.
Trickster is only more lethal in very specific scenarios where the survivors essentially aren't trying to avoid your knives for multiple seconds. These scenarios are not realistic.
The lethality gap in that scenario is not relevant enough to make up for the case where the survivor is so bad you would get the down anyway. Having a TTK that is 50% as long as Huntress in some situations and 200% in others sounds fine and good until you realize the situations your getting that 50% TTK are situations the huntress has a 10 second TTK while the situations where you have a 200% TTK are situations where the huntress has a 30 minute TTK and are more common.
Once you actually account for what killers need as opposed to imagining white room scenarios, its really clear that Trickster has a lethality problem. Which, again, makes sense. 'Burst damage' is generally better in most scenarios, which is why games 'bias' towards sniper rifles unless you work hard to avoid it. This isn't a unique 'DBD' issue, its just that trying to make Trickster compete with Huntress... dooms him.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2329760#Comment_2329760
I can agree with your points on the 'flick' but what about in an open area? (where there is no LoS to counter a hatchet or a knife) where a lot of chases against both will ultimately take place. Trickster doesn't really need to aim, where as Huntress does. That has been the difference in my experience with both.
Trickster feels more casual about his aim than Huntress does.
In an open area the huntress can just 100% down you no problem, or just run up and smack you, to get a low TTK down. Trickster's deviation means your still gunna miss quite a bit, and still need to throw for at least 12 seconds to get the down assuming every knife you throw hits, and your not missing any due to speedboost or the fact the survivor is faster than you while throwing and thus can rapidly move out of effective range. Put another way: Sure trickster can't be dodged at all in a totally open area and you will eventually down if your close enough that the person can just zoom away while you aim and miss your first few shots... but in that case... you don't need a power anyway because that is what we call a 'deadzone' and trying to use it at all is sorta a liability. Just run up and M1 them ya goober.
In open areas, the huntress is, of course, the sniper rifle, so she is better assuming you can flick aim and properly zone with it rather than snap firing it in a way survivors can easily dodge. Slinger is even better of course, but its a super minor difference, and as has been noted by many people 'just run away' is a really strong response to Trickster.
In close spaces, the huntress is still a sniper rifle, but because the TTK and aim requirements on the SMG that is trickster were not tuned well (because if they were it would, in fact, be kinda bogus, and you want track aim weapons to be slightly worse at quickly killing people, as you noted it IS a more casual way to aim) the huntress still is downing much faster and more consistently inside the loop.
This is why comparing Trickster to Huntress is so common: it isn't just different styles of weapons (for that, look to Deathslinger and Huntress. They function fairly differently but ultimately still are about as effective as each other), its that Trickster has a lot of vestigial shooter design that doesn't fit into DBD, and a rapid fire downing weapon that feels accurate and responsive would be bonkers. It isn't an accident DBD's ranged killers that feel good are all either sniper style characters, or are Plague who's a 115 killer with a ranged attack packing an entire minigame inside of it.
This is why the rework feels so off. Trying to make trickster more resemble huntress is sorta doomed, because its hard to force an SMG into a place where it compares well with a sniper outside of situations that don't exist in DBD: You can't lurk mid and flank push to take out that AWPer in DBD. We already have a killer who rewards good track aim and is a more casual ranged experience: Plague. Trickster is being crammed into a box with Huntress and DS, but he REALLY wants to be an alternative to Plague, who has a lot of qualities that make her SMG 'fair' in DBD, like not having total lethality without conditions, doing an alternate damage type that rewards tracking a whole burst of her 'gun' but at the same time still giving a reward for 'chip' damage, and her having the option to default to DBD fundementals to allow her gun to be weak situationally and not super high reward.
Its super ok that Trickster isn't a viable alternative to Huntress and does what she does WAY worse. The problem is he doesn't really have any upside compared to her besides a way lower skill cap and skill floor because you spam knives that travel at absurd angles so it doesn't really matter how good your aim is and its more about persistence. Which is just not an interesting or good upside, and its why 'higher damage, faster decay' is probably the opposite direction they wanna go with this guy.
-
There are different kinds of aim.
Trickster demands some flick aim, and a LOT of track aim.
Huntress demands a bit more flick aim, and almost no track aim.
Flick aim is how fast and accurately you can bring your aim from one point to another. Track aim is how well you can maintain your cursor on a moving target. Thing firing a single high bullet vs firing a low damage laser beam.
*In general* weapons that demand high flick aim are mechanically favored because they dump all their value out in a single moment and while it takes a lot of practice to get good at them, once you are its a lot less demanding than track aim. Track aim tends to be 'easier' at first because if you make a mistake on 1 of 100 hitscan moments on your laser beam well... you only lose 1% of your damage output vs 100% on missing the initial flick, but once you get good at flicks you lose 0% of your damage, while its hard to not lose 100% on track aim stuff (Especially if deviation, recoil, cone of fire, ect is bad on the track gun), because your target will move and wiggle and duck into cover. Your also devoting more time to trying to get that kill and are committing harder to it: Once huntress tosses that hatchet she doesn't need to do anything, she can assume it hits or misses and start on her next task, while Trickster trying to land their 8 (now 6) knives has to commit to that process to get value out of it.
So in one sense, huntress needs 'more' aim because flick aim takes more practice and is less forgiving. In another, Trickster both requires some flick aim too (You want that initial knife to hit before the target rounds the corner, don't you?) but ALSO requires you to keep aiming over and over, thus requiring 'more aim.' Which is a really core problem with him.
This is ignoring other aspects of aiming in shooters, like recoil control, controlling fire rate, ect, because that... sorta doesn't work on trickster despite him having mechanics that are 'ghosts' of this kind of aim. Like trickster has a growing cone of fire not because it mechanically makes sense on him, but because that is a common shooter mechanic to reward you for firing in bursts rather than holding down the trigger, and to make it impossible to hold down the trigger and then track to the head so you can get ezpz headshots. But... Trickster's design is antithetical to burst fire, so it just exists because its 'a thing for rapid fire weapons' rather than because it makes sense for a character who has to commit to shooting by slowing down to be punished for shooting for long periods of time, in a game which is about mobility and where your targets will only be visible to you for a few seconds at most once you start firing. And DBD lacks headshots (As well as return fire, another reason to make holding the trigger bad, to reward calm players or punish players who delay shooting for too long) so letting someone track from the center of mass to the head while shooting someone doesn't... do anything. Making Trickster's increasing cone of fire weirdly pointless and frustrating.
So Trickster is secretly bringing more aiming mechanics into DBD, but they are mechanics that don't make sense in DBD's design. Like Trickster's blades are often described as a laser beam but they are fearsomely inaccurate for the targets your firing at.
-
@Boss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2329703#Comment_2329703
So much effort was put into that, i can't even think of anything to say.
But impressive nonetheless.
Thanks I am avoiding writing a paper and am taking out this nervous energy discussing shooter ludology online.
-
@Boss said:
Basically the question is: Do you want a sniper rifle or SMG?
As someone who plays shooters a lot, its important to understand the most important aspect of an SMG is not.
In many ways the Huntress's hatchet is a better SMG than the blades, because its actively better on the move, because the knives just... aren't a 'good gun.'
This is actually an area I think BHVR is insanely weak in, and its clear they don't have a ton of experience with how to do good gun design (Deathgarden for example, also had this problem where its rapid fire 'on the move' guns were terrible and you would ALWAYs be better off using more precise weaponry because the rapid fire guns didn't hit what they were aiming at even at optimal range). It is ok for different games to favor different methods of using weapons, but the issue is that BHVR consistently makes their 'guns' not useful in the scenarios of play that you are in: Bloom too big, too much deviation, too much of a penatly to firing on the move, in games filled with tiny rapidly moving targets. This made quickscoping with the sniper in deathgarden (or with the 'sniper' in DBD) way more effective for downing targets in high mobility close range situations than those actual close range guns.
Unless the Trickster can actively fire on the move and hit a target with nearly 100% of their shots at close range, it isn't an SMG, and thus it falls into the same trap: Its just... better in high mobility close range situations to go with a 'quickscope' hatchet than to try to do some ridiculous track aim shenanigans vs a rapidly moving target where even if your aim is dead on your likely to miss anyway because the weapon has default deviation so high that a center of mass shot in melee range will have a 50% miss rate, which also requires you to slow yourself down for longer and give your opponent more chances to out play you than an SMG. In most shooters, SMGs have the opposite qualities: They slow you down less, require less setup time, and have extremely high close range TTKs that are intended to make quick scoping non-viable compared to them. Obviously DBD isn't a competitive shooter, so stuff like 'SMG push pressure' giving an advantage on the sniper isn't a thing, but even ignoring that concept the knives are just a terrible 'gun.' In any shooter where the guns felt remotely good they would be considered bottom tier. TTK of some odd 6 seconds with a COF that is about twice as big as your target at super close range which slows you to fire? No thank you, I would literally rather use a meme gun like Dualies.
So its less 'SMG vs Sniper rifle" and more "Battle Rifle vs Halo 1 Needler." There is no reality you would pick the needler over the battle rifle, even in scenarios playing around that game's needler's 'strengths.' And this would be fine if DBD (or Deathgarden) if your killer's power was a limited avaliability thing and access to good ones in a match being unequal was deliberate, like Halo. But your choosing to go in with a terrible SMG that has a worse TTK than the sniper rifle with none of the upsides you would associate with an SMG. You need to be sporting a 61% miss rate on hatchets for the main advantage of knives (more kill potential 'per clip') to even resemble something useful, and at that point your probably better off M1ing them.
Obviously the new buff helps a bit (though, notably, huntress still has a lower 'TTK' vs a target say... vaulting, which is very silly) but it doesn't address the core flaws of Trickster, and as someone who was pretty into Deathgarden this 'Sniper vs SMG' comparison really is funny.
-
@TheClownIsKing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2329631#Comment_2329631
I don’t think that’s necessary. It’s pretty much based on logic.
Anybody could see this themselves by testing it in real life. You’re going to jump over something faster, and further when running straight at it. Attempting to do the same from other angles is going to slow momentum when engaging in the jump.
In my game design courses if your response to a conveyance issue is "Based on logic" you get an F.
Games are naturally abstracted reality. "Logically" you should vault slower when bleeding too, and the dude twice as large as you who could step over that window sill should get over it faster than you having to hurl yourself over it, neither of these things are true. Logically shining a flashlight at someone's face a few seconds wouldn't make them spazz out and drop someone 1/3rd their size, they would just turn their head away for a second.
"Real world" logic doesn't apply, what matters is the game's internal logic and how clear it is. This is why despite flashlights being stupid and non-sensical they work in the logic of DBD, and why Flashbangs are intuitive and easy to understand in function and usage because your already familiar with the logic of 'light=stun and escape' vs killers carrying stuff.
If the game doesn't tell you its own set of internal rules in a clear yet subtle way, you did conveyance wrong. And despite knowing about fast vaults personally I can definitely see why it would be hard to 'naturally' learn about them, especially because unless you already know about them you might never SEE a fast vault because it seems to make the most sense to try to come at the vault from an 90 degree angle to maximize looping around the wall.
-
@Jay_Whyask said:
I honestly feel like Wraith shouldn't get a speed boost after using his power. I've been trying to play safe against Wraiths, it works well but if The Wraith has shadow dance it completely backfires.
It makes me feel like a mad man typing this aloud but I think Wraith is becoming a lite version of Spirit. I get to a pallet against a shadow dance Wraith that's still cloaked and I just can't do anything without giving him a time advantage.
- Play safe
Pallet gets shadow danced, Wraith uses his cloaked and uncloaking MS bonuses to get a hit faster than I can find safety.
- Loop the pallet
The Wraith stands under the pallet and uncloaks using his MS bonus to wrap around the loop, because I tried to loop the pallet I'm on the opposite side of the loop and I can't punish him for walking into the pallet.
Am I ill? Have I been playing survivor to much? Am I becoming one of those people? Help.
Wraith not getting a speed boost after using their power is how it USED to work and it is what made him so unplayable.
If Wraith is forced to announce themselves to decloak then he is the worst stealth killer, as other stealth killers can get the injure state right away. Being visually concealed isn't that good on most maps and isn't worth him literally never being allowed to hurt people out of power.
The reason the speed boost is fair is because it isn't enough if you run with a plan. Wraith depends on you either being in a deadzone (in which case he doesn't even NEED a power), or for you to not start running the second you see his shimmer approach.
In your example, if wraith camps the pallet while uncloaking, if your not close enough to toss the pallet while he does the uncloak, you should be safe. Also, feel free to sit in front of a pallet and force Wraith to uncloak. If you do it right he gets stunned, you get distance, and he either needs to re-cloak to shadow dance, or he chases you at a big disadvantage while you still have that pallet vs him later. Shadow Dance is considered not suuuuper great because it actually projects no threat to the survivor if they are smart, as you can't hit them while cloaked. So they can just use your cloak against you if your trying to loop em cloaked by getting a 'super-stun' and combining your de-cloak animation AND the stun animation for distance.
-
@dedhardsux said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2329603#Comment_2329603
But it's extremely difficult to realize how the vault system works as survivor. I found out because i was watching YouTubers vault faster than me and looked it up, a lot of people won't do that and never learn how to run killers properly
This is more a tutorial/conveyance issue, rather than fast vaulting being bad. Including, for example, a little chime when you fast vault or a 'bad noise' sound when you slow vault, combined with maybe a visualization of the angle, wouldn't be terrible Maybe it could be an 'adder' effect to another perk with a useful effect to help make a 'tutorial perk' like fixated.
-
Medium Vaults don't just stop infinites. They also create a minimum amount of telegraphing on the survivor's part to prevent them from being able to freely fast vault after bluffing the vault. Without medium vaults too many vaults become too safe to bluff vaults on because the survivor can suddenly instantly be across them if its clear the killer isn't going to double back or whatever.
They add a LOT to the game, because now faking intent as a survivor has a cost. So clearly if the survivor is running right at a vault they are going to vault... unless they are faking it, in which case if you stay on them they medium and you get a hit... but what if they aren't faking it? Then staying on them makes you lose a lot of chase distance!
Its a VERY good mechanic and absolutely should stay.
-
Wraith imo is where he should be.
The thing is Wraith's power is two fold: Patrol power, and ambush power. A big issue is the devs were super afraid of his ambush power which lead to him just not being able to get any value out of patrolling, because the uncloak penalty was too forgiving for survivors who let wraith get close.
As is, Wraith is doing what he needs to do. For Wraith to be 'fair' you need to be nearly guaranteed to take hit if you let Wraith finish part of his uncloak animation before you start moving. Likewise, you need to be likely to take hits if your unable to position correctly while he is uncloaking because you panic.
This makes Wraith EXTREMELY strong vs survivors who don't run with a plan, but vs survivors who are relatively composed he is perfectly fair and probably a bit too weak. He doesn't need a buff though, because regardless Wraith is FUN, both to play as because being spoopy jumpscare man is fun, and against (As is the case with all stealth killers) because he adds tension back to gen repair. Being good isn't as important as having a fun gameplay loop, and while his buff was a buff, it was more important that it gave Wraith real value on sneaking up on people than it directly powering the killer up. Wraith really more needed the feeling of reward for sneaking up on folks (like Mikey and Ghost Face have) than actual raw power, even though he was weak, and getting both at once is just a nice bonus.
A killer being 'good' far more has to do with how interesting they are and how interesting (not enjoyable, interesting) their interactions with the survivors are. Wraith has good interactions now, even though he is relatively weak. Trapper's interactions are good until comms come into play, at which point they are bad. Spirit's interactions with survivors are very boring, so despite being strong they aren't actually that fun for either side unless you enjoy winning 'unfairly.' Demo's or Blight's are, despite being strong, so its interesting even for survivors.
So by this metric, despite being 'bad' Wraith is good, just because Wraith is enjoyable to enter games as and against. Really weak players will get thrashed by them, but you can't balance too hard around the floor. You don't want newbies absolutely getting thrashed (The "Akali" problem, if your familiar with oldschool league) but ultimately them losing relatively hard to a given option because they lack even basic mechanical mastery is fine.
-
@DelsKibara said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2329321#Comment_2329321
Pray tell, how would you fix a ranged Killer who can guarantee to down you if he can zone you enough?
It's the same thing with Deathslinger, Huntress, even ######### Demo.
If they can get you into a situation where they are guaranteed to hit you, they will hit you. DBD is about managing your resources as a Survivor, that includes hook states. Killers like Deathslinger and Trickster have basically zero map pressure. Their entire power is reliant on them getting downs quickly.
Yes, it can sometimes feel demoralizing and powerless. But that's just how it is when you play Survivor, especially in Solo Queue. You just have to hope your teammates aren't stupid enough to hide and not do gens while you go for a chase with the Killer.
It's obvious they aren't going to change the Trickster's design. So the only way to actually make him viable is to make him more oppressive midchase.
And I for one, am okay with that. I wouldn't mind seeing him do ricochets as a basekit power too since I would love to see him actually get some more usage out of his knives around tall walls.
Firstly, I want to note that I am saying 'Trickster is frustrating and unfun' from a KILLER perspective. The power is anemic and unrewarding and has so many built in downsides it legitimately feels bad to use.
As to how to fix them: I would take the focus off downing and ending the chase, and more into a threat of sorts. He should be able to do it, but it should more be a long term threat than a short term one that has delay that forces survivors to change their behavior.
For example: Remove ammo from the power, instead make it a cooldown and when he triggers the cooldown he fires off a few knives in a row. If every single one hits, sure he gets an injure state, essentially making his 'base power' his ultimate. Otherwise they just... stay in the target, and they need to pseudo-mend to remove them. If you get filled with knives, its an INSTANT down though, and not just an injure.
That already changes the dynamic a LOT and makes it so trickster is forcing you to spend time removing knives instead of repairing, but he isn't going in with the prime goal of downing you at the same loop. Getting knives on a survivor has value outside of getting the injure or down because it becomes delay, especially if removing each knife takes time. He is playing a longer game and each individual knife hit matters (So the fact its a rapid fire power has value still) while rewarding every knife hit you land (to reward mastery). And it rewards counterplay too, the trickster can't shut down loops utterly by existing because he can't just spam the power anymore.
The reason 'my only pressure is down threat' works for Huntress and Deathslinger is because their effects are 'instant.' You aren't just threatening a long range down, its single decision points that take off the health state. Trickster needs to move away from being a Huntress clone, because otherwise he is always going to be worse because demanding track aim from projectiles is always going to be harder and longer than just landing the hatchet. Its ok for killers to be similar if the way they do things is different and interesting that leads to different upsides and downsides, but Trickster doesn't really have upsides vs Huntress besides rewarding extremely bad play in a way that won't satisfy anyone. Functionally landing 4 knives on someone vaulting is WORSE than landing one hatchet doing so.
Is this a good change? I dunno, probably has more downsides than upsides. But its way better than the hot mess of "I am Huntress but worse and less fun and rewarding and it feels more BS for all involved, even the survivors" that Trickster is now. Almost nothing about his current design is redeeming.
There is an interesting concept stuck in there, but this instence on decay and it being a 'short term' power when its just objectively worse than other 'burst lethality' powers by a significant degree without any upsides or interesting effects to make it fun for the killer (ex: Plague, who gets to be 115 movespeed, gets detection off their 'spam' power, gets the ability to make it a lethal 'burst' power, and which comes with delay to offset all the downsides compared to Huntress and Slinger) is really holding Trickster back, and honestly I don't think he will be fun for the killer ever unless it gets oppressively good, it becomes a 'side gig' and he is made 115 movespeed, or decay stops existing and it starts to operate more like Plague where the laceration meter does more than merely threaten an injure state and is something that comes with side benefits.
-
While this is a buff to Trickster, it doesn't address why he isn't fun to play or play against.
People may have been asking for a buff, because the trickster has super obvious problems. But in reality the Trickster's issue was the gameplay loop of the killer sucks and isn't fun and is super at odds with itself.
This may have buffed him, but it makes the problem worse. Its far more important for a killer to have a fun gameplay loop that lets you feel good about using their power than to have a strong power. Good examples of this are Trapper and Pig: Their powers are pretty weak but they have a lot of die-hard loyalists because their abilities are extremely fun and make a certain 'internal' sense mechanically and mastering these powers offers you a lot of very visible reward that lets you try to control the game even if they aren't up there with Spirit or Nurse.
What trickster really needed was to make tossing knives less of a commitment and less clunky, and for them to be a 'longer term' effect rather than a 'I am gunna down you for vaulting' effect. The first is the actually unique thing about the power (it can build up and lets you build up rewards over time without it being all or nothing if you miss) while the second just makes it a worse version of huntress. This doubled down on the 'down at vaults' effect while almost making the long term effect of being hit with a knife worse, so the killer is now even more nonsensical and not interesting, despite being stronger.
So it was a bad change. People asked for a buff, sure, and they got it, but it was a bad buff that didn't actually solve the problems people cared about. To paraphrase Mark Rosewater: People are good at spotting problems, but bad at identifying solutions (or, in my opinion, ROOT causes). Case in point: People think they don't like Trickster because he is weak (And he is) but in reality he is just... unrewarding and actively frustrating.
-
Only if every Bunny Feng admits the truth.
-
In DBD, the main killer skill isn't efficient looping (though that helps). Much like with survivor, those moment to moment loop decisions have a very low skill ceiling and don't actually provide that much longevity to the game.
The actual skill behind killer is time management, and applying pressure. Pretty much the entire killer meta is giving survivors something to think about other than committing to a gen. Likewise, on the survivor side loops are a bit more fun but ultimately good survivor play is forcing the killer to think about something other than tunneling a player down.
As such, if you actually, unironically complain about 'tunneling' your... kinda a bad player? At least, if you blame the killer for tunneling.
You notice this if you watch good players stream. When they get tunneled, they don't go 'dogshit killer tunneling me.' They get mad at their TEAMMATES because its not the killer's fault for playing well. It isn't the killer's job to mediate your experience. Because the entire skill aspect of DBD is meta strategy and trying to keep your opponent off balance, you can't demand the killer to it to themselves anymore than you can demand a tennis player not position to chase the ball for a return: It undermines the entire experience.
'Tunneling' generally occurs when the survivors are not correctly applying pressure or are being extremely sloppy with rescues. A good rule of thumb is you don't go for the rescue until you confirm the killer is not near the hook, and you ensure people are doing gens non-stop to ensure that even if the killer doubles back on rescue for an easy down they lose so much pressure they lose the entire game. If the killer spots you near the hook, don't sit there like an idiot.
And for the love of god don't loop the killer near the hook.
Will some killers still tunnel through this counterplay? Yeah. Will that not be a super fun game? Sure. But it isn't the game designer's goal to make sure nothing bad can ever happen ever. Killers who do this incorrectly should naturally derank and it shouldn't be a problem at any respectable rank. It is a really common issue in most games where if someone refuses to adapt to counterplay the game is boring for both sides. But those games don't burn down their entire design to avoid that, they just ensure they have good ranking systems so people refusing to do anything besides Photon Canon Rush every game will de-rank, rather than banning any highly counterable strategies that create boring 'cheesy' games because they tend to be important for other parts of the game. And Killers being able to tunnel is SO ABSURDLY IMPORTANT FOR DBD.
The killer legitimately does not have time to 12 hook the survivors never eliminating a player until everyone is on death hook. The MINIMUM time it takes to do that assuming the survivors just run straight forward is some odd 8 minutes, ignoring hook travel time (which is such a relevant mechanic its literally why slugging is considered the pressure play as opposed to hooking, slugging disables survivors longer than an unprotected hook and doesn't cost the KILLER time). 3 survivors (assuming the killer has 100% chase uptime) can do 5 gens in about 2 minutes, again assuming no gen travel distance. The time disparity here is... super obviously extreme, and it makes it extremely clear the killer is not intended to avoid taking advantage of bad survivor play.
Its... also a really obvious intentional game design feature that survivors who get caught are easier to get caught again? Injury noises are a thing. Blood trails are a thing. It wouldn't be hard for an unhook to result in an instant heal, or the survivor teleporting across the map. But they didn't do that because tunneling is intended behavior.
And this isn't just inference based on mechanics. In the beta dev diaries they literally talked about tunneling and the killer exploiting the psychology of altruism as one of their main strategies.
Of course, this is also more a problem with solo play, as there is no in game communication or way to share information or coordinate rescues (which involves, contrary to what a lot of terrible SWFs think, not charging at the hook with all 3 people, ezpz win, but timing it so you start popping gens really fast so the killer gets nervous and leaves), but, again, that isn't the killer's fault.
Part of how competitive games work (And while DBD isn't a 'competitive gaming' game, it is competitive) is that they default towards requiring optimal play. The killer does not really have the luxury to be 'nice' until they are willing so hard that its sorta mean to not just end the game. BOTH sides have to assume the other side is bringing their A-game, and while its valid to play more casually, you can't demand the other side does as well when you have no prior relationship and your in a prisoner's dilemma situation where the killer knows if they bring a goofy killer with a goofy strat and don't sweat at hooks they risk just losing the game in 4 minutes vs an uncoordinated but serious group of solos.
Essentially? Calling tunneling out as a survivor is an egocentric problem that pins the blame on what is happening to you on the one person who has no responsibilities towards your experience at all, and causes you to delude yourself into being a worse player because you imagine losing the killer or the killer not chasing you is something your entitled to. But that is a scrub mentality. Complaining about tunneling is like complaining about getting thrown in Street Fighter because you clearly can't throw tech or counter and are just turtling: it isn't on your opponent to ignore the fact there is a super obvious way to beat you just because you don't like that happening.
-
The only thing I think is overtly 'toxic' at the moment are keys, simply because they almost solely exist to screw the killer over, rather than really add anything to the game or give you a real advantage outside of the massive amount of pressure it puts on the killer due to how punished they are for letting you hatch escape. As a survivor you probably don't need the escape to pip, but the killer REALLY needs to hook everyone to pip and keys destroy the normal relationship of the game for the killer by actively punishing them for doing what they are meant to be doing, which is snowballing.
Syringe, obviously, is there to keep you up in a chase, the utility personally is obvious. Yes, it stinks for the killer to suddenly have to get another hit in the chase, but why a survivor would want this is clear.
BNP, likewise, lets you finish an objective faster. While it puts pressure on a killer to do it early, its actually the wrong use of it to use it early as you don't need to rapidly do gens early. Ideally you use it late to avoid a tri-gen, which is its most powerful use case and is far less 'feels bad man' for the killer.
Blood Amber is annoying but you get a very limited usage of it. The bigger problem with blood amber is you get the ability to directly attack the killer's score and nuke it from orbit for free alongside it.
This is why players will do ######### stuff like key-swap in lobby. The fact they are doing this is... kinda indicative that they KNOW that keys are a problem because killers will refuse to play vs keys, or actively will bring counters for keys over other items. Part of the intended advantage of killers is to know the items they are up against, after all. And part of why keys can be toxic despite being in the game is that they are an 'unmotivated' design: Their function in the mechanics is so far removed from what they were intended to do (No one brings a key to PERSONALLY escape with it, they bring it to make the killer unable to freely play the game), and the function is basically to ruin the game for another player. So in order to get games with it at all they need to hotswap characters in the lobby at the 16 second mark, and then pull a surprised pikachu face when the killer doesn't just play normally and instantly lose to the key and instead is forced to play scummy and tunnel them down (And, to be clear, 'playing scummy' is just the term I am using to describe highly motivated player removal. It isn't actually scummy, tunnel to your heart's content it can be a good strategy).
They absolutely know what they are doing is toxic, its why they are going to such an extreme measure to do it at all. And then they pretend they have no idea why the other side isn't just playing normally.
In the vast majority of cases, something not being fun to play against or feeling very powerful is fine. Arbitrarily declaring mechanics to be toxic rather than embracing these mechanics and coming to understand how they work and how to beat them is going to make you a worse player. It is what in the competitive scene is called a 'scrub' mentality: Shouting that throws are broken and refusing to learn to tech them or counter throws because you feel like you shouldn't be able to be hit while blocking doesn't just make you a bad player, it means your demanding the game be made worse so you don't have to learn.
Syringes, BNPs, aura reads, camping, slugging, flashlight saves, whatever, are all deliberately tools in the game that exist for a reason to make it more interactive. It is valid to say 'this isn't good for the game and should be changed' but complaining about how the players in a game use the tools given to them is, in most cases, not a good idea. Usually it takes a tool being supremely uninteractive to be worthy of actually changing though. Like Keys don't add anything to the game that is worth having in it, they just instantly make the lobby not fun for one side by their mere existence with nothing that player can do to actually change their impact on the game, just like old-old DS didn't offer anything to the game, but syringes do add something to the game, even if a lot of the time it does just feel like they got an extra hit 'for no reason.'
-
Ultimately any attempt to shame the killer into playing 'clean' for the sake of strangers they are in an oppositional relationship with is an argument that depends on refusing to recognize the feelings and humanity of the killer player by exalting the feelings of the player who got hooked over the feelings of the killer.
If you hook farm, you put two other players in a bad situation: If the killer doesn't tunnel, they probably lose because they are losing a ton of value the hook generates and are getting negative tempo because they wasted time to hook that person and aren't getting an easy chase out of it or them off gens for a reasonable length of time. If they do tunnel, that person they tunnel have a bad time.
It isn't even a 'be mad at the hook farmer' situation. It is a 'Its a team game and its on you to understand how team dynamics work and accept team games naturally involve you not having total control all the time because it is antithetical to the design of a team game for one player to have so much input on the outcome of the game that they can overcome any situation regardless of how bad their team is.' situation.
The person hook farming is just a bad teammate, and you should walk that off after (hopefully) explaining to them why that hurt their teammate. Complaining to the killer that they failed to be cooperative with the unhook is insanity and will never work, your just sabotaging your long term growth as a player to assume that the killer has any obligation to not play as mean as possible against you, especially because the game is tuned assuming they will do just that.
-
@Verconissp said:
All they need to do.
Keys need to take 12 seconds to open the hatch Uninterrupted.
Literally same time as a totem or chest search, Good nerf to it and will not make it Op at all
That and keys can only be found in a chest, in general,
Can no longer escape with it to play it next game,
This doesn't solve the fact that a hatch escape nukes the killer's emblems, or the fact that the killer has to throw the rest of the match to close the hatch, or how keys directly punish the killer for doing well.
-
I think a lot of SWF problems need to be addressed, but ultimately SWF is important for the game's success. A big problem with the killer population is killer is a super lonely experience, and once you get up to purple solo Survivor also feels really isolating and awful if you get a bad team.
Balancing around SWF is important. I don't think this should come as purely mechanical buffs to solos (like a 5th perk slot) or mechanical buffs to killers facing a SWF team. But you could do a LOT to make SWF and solos have less of a gap so the game could be balanced always assuming SOME SWF style play.
For example? Default voicecoms. Opt out optional, obviously. But default voicecoms are kinda an industry staple and while it made sense to not have them when solo only was the way to play its just strange there is no default voicecoms.
Another big fix would be giving killer more offering slots. Right now a huge problem with maps is SWF can really force realms super hard in a way that isn't fun and killer has so little control over the match. Likewise, reducing the power of any perk that allows 'direct' confrontation with killers or intends to be a general 'reversal' perk that gives survivors all the power in a given interaction would be important. The DS nerfs are a good example, it just *does not make sense* in DBD for a survivor to know they are safe if they just sit in front of the killer doing an objective. No survivor perk should 'lock down' the killer and it was a good choice for them to make the anti-tunneling perk as weak as it is in terms of openly defying the killer while still making it essentially game winning if it 'fires.' Survivor perks should be more 'meta' and 'long range' than 'In your face.'
Stuff like adding some innate totem protecting would also help, as well as adding a totem tracker. With default voicecoms and a tracker, as well as some sort of 'safety net' for totems, you would 'even out' how bad totems are and would fix a lot of the disparity between 'Its gone before I loaded in because its a 3 man in red ranks' and 'They never even looked for the totem despite it beng next to a gen.'
A big problem with these fixes though is DBD players tend to freak out in regards to any 'bounding' mechanic, despite those being normal and important. Like the fact people think Bloodlust is a 'bad mechanic because it gives killers free chases' shows a lot of illiteracy in these sorts of mechanics that create 'upper bounds' or 'lower bounds' on interactions which DBD desperately needs in order to solve the SWF problem. Because a LOT of DBD's large scale issues are issues of bounding interactions and how much value you can get out of X, or know you will get from X no matter what.
Like a big problem of SWFs is that a LOT of mechanics just do literally nothing to a SWF (traps, totems, a lot of stealth mechanics, basically ANYTHING requiring the killer have hidden information) but mechanics can't be designed around SWF coordination or else you get pub stompers like Freddy (Who is fair vs SWF because you can track him and coordinate waking up, but vs solos every single one of his mechanics just makes him a... Nightmare that grinds the game down because you can't track all of his effects and need to always treat being asleep as a threat so you never finish gens).
-
@whycantIwin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2147797#Comment_2147797
it's true removing the recoil would be a very good thing
Kinda? The issue is that while Trickster requires good track aim, and that requires your recoil and deviation system to generally allow your player to hit most of their shots when aimed center of mass at their target in the ideal range, a track aim killer without significant downsides that make it not the 'main' way they down people (ex: plague) would be really boring.
I think "The DBD devs have shown on multiple occassions they have no idea how to make good shooter gameplay" and "The Trickster's core idea isn't good because the second he feels good to play he becomes OP and kinda needs an entire kit rework and also low key a namechange which they clearly are considering based on the feedback forum" can both be true.
Like, BHVR with both Deathgarden and now Trickster REALLY showed how they have no idea why recoil and deviation are in games and tuned at specific levels because they keep putting stuff that would be extreme for say... hipfiring with an scoped rifle, forget a weapon that your INTENDED to fire rapidly. If they talked to anyone who seriously understands shooter design they would get adding a rapid fire attack with serious recoil in DBD that still expects you to track aim is downright stupid and if it was required for Trickster to be fair, it would make Trickster a dead end design (much like how Deathgarden's guns felt awful to fire in 1.0 and were just death laser beams in 2.0, there was no way to really make being chased by a dude with a machinegun feel good without gimping the gun so hard the game felt awful to play as the machinegun guy). It is so strange they keep making this mistake.
But at the same time... its sorta integral to Trickster not being kinda stupid to play against that he can't laser beam you down? There is a reason Plague feels good despite demanding more track aim rather than flick aim because she is rewarded a LOT for getting even a tiny hit but also she isn't rewarded that much if she perfectly nails it all, and a lot of her skill comes more down to map pressure and planning out your corrupt fountain usage. And it also happens to be a particle based attack (even though mechanically its a stream of projectiles, that is true for a lot of particles. Like that is exactly how Pryro's fire works in TF2, for example) meaning its very forgiving, which is good for a weapon that requires you to slow yourself down in a game where everyone is running all the time.
I think Trickster really needs to be made into 115 with a very limited ranged ability (like... maybe he can ONLY throw knives in main event, which is on demand, doesn't slow him as much, doesn't have any deviation or recoil, and which which never decays, so he is mostly winning chases normally but if you try to W away or he gets the drop on you or he is defending something he can suddenly dump knives into you) because this idea of him as a huntress sidegrade is just a total dead end.
The ONLY upshot of a slow TTK rapid fire weapon over a high damage pseudo-hitscan is if your aim is bad. But Trickster's knives are so low lethality due to their mechanics both in terms of requiring multiple hits AND the deviation, that your legitimately probably still better off spamming huntress hatchets and Trickster's knives. Sorta like how even if your bad at quickscoping sniper in TF2 your better off trying it if your getting bombed by a Soldier than using the SMG because in that scenario even if you hit every bullet (which you won't) you still will die.
The reason bullet hoses work in shooters is because your generally allowed to move when using them (and Trickster rightfully isn't) and because the TTK is very low if your close up compared to being shot with a sniper, and you being mobile while your opponent isn't is a big advantage. But in DBD your opponent is always running so a bullet hose is almost never going to be in its good range unless its generous (and the trickster's deviation is very bad and due to the height difference its artifically worse), and your not trying to ambush a stationary target and just magdump their chest, so there is no reason not to go with the meatier attacks like the pseudo-hitscan stuff. It just never will be the good option until it gets dome and Trickster can 'laserbeam' people down at mid range.
-
The problem definitely lies in the ADS as @Iagosta noted. In most shooters DS's ADS would feel perfect and buttery smooth, but as is it is too good.
Probably adding an ADS recovery time and making him take some aim in time would fix him. Probably decrease his reload time a bit to compensate for the fact he is now going to be missing 'clean' shots rather than just shots at corners and the like.
That or make it so that his aim in has a 'charge up' like Huntress and if it isn't charged its slightly slower. So it still feels buttery smooth to aim in, preserving that gamefeel element and making it not feel clunky, but you need to hold the shot for a few seconds to land it with 100% accuracy, which gives time to react.
-
@Dustin said:
As a side note Dead Hard is also why I quit playing Trapper. Too many instances where a survivor can just give the middle finger to my trap. Dead Hard is a charge not a ######### jump it shouldn't bypass traps I don't care what anyone says. It's one of the most common perks in the game and makes playing Trapper harder. Yeah I get it you need good hidden traps but it nullifies being able to deny certain things like doorways.
Unless it's been changed to not do so anyways but I haven't played Trapper in such a long time because of this.
This is a greater issue with Trapper though where devs just feel super comfortable letting tons of perks have unique interactions with his traps because he was designed in an era where the devs didn't get that powers should supercede perks (And items while we are at it).
That is slowly being phased out, but they really should just do a 3.0 trapper rework (Its amazing how little they did with 2.0) that in part says 'Traps have priority over any mechanic' and be done with it. Trap tracking and bypassing just shouldn't be a thing for Trapper, as an entirely seperate problem from DH (Because DH is fair in the context of dodging MOST killer powers, and is unfair in distance scenarios).
-
I think the core issue I have with trickster is the deviation and recoil on the knives. Any change that doesn't address how terrible they feel to use sorta misses a big problem with the trickster: He isn't just weak, he feels bad to play.
Like... the fact you just do not consistently hit survivors at very close ranges even with perfect aim is a complete dealbreaker for DBD. Its identical to a lot of the problems the early guns in Deathgarden had, which made the gameplay feel miserable from the hunter perspective. But, of course, the problem is once they get accurate it turns out the gameplay of running from a guy with a machinegun isn't interesting.
So I think maybe the core concept of trickster is broken, and the way you would fix them is... well basically make plague 2.0? Which they already have a lot of similarities too, but its ultimately the same concept, a 'spam' ranged attack on a character who can't use it to burst down a kill but who can use it to supplement regular chasing fundementals.
-
I think BT's main issue is more that it creates a super binary system for hook defense where the killer either is in position to punish BT VERY close to the hook, or they get no real value out of the hook, no in-between.
Pre-BT, it was too much, the killer just had too much power to lock down a rescue. But pre-nerf BT was too much as the killer got no value outside of a grab. Now the killer gets value from any hit before the unhook is done because it generates an insta-down of the rescuer. But that is still pretty narrow.
I don't think this is bad per-say, its nice that survivors can at least let an unhook become a chase. Its more a problem with how little value hooks give a killer by default which really forces them to be meiserly about unhooks. The ideal balance point would be killers wanting to defend hooks because they can get a lot of value out of them, but not sweating if they don't. Stuff like BBQ and pop are good angles, but games are too fast for 'instantly start another chase' or 'instant regression' as perks to make a ton of sense outside of mega mobile killers.
So I don't think BT needs to be changed. I think 'basekit hook mobility' may be the solution to fast rescues just being way too crushing for killer despite the fact they won a major interaction. The killer isn't too weak defending the hook, its more like hooking is too weak unless you snowball directly defending it.
-
Main issue I think hook swarming has is that the grab animation system is broken right now
Even with that a good killer should always be able to get a down and possibly a bonus injure off a hook swarm which is an amazing outcome. It is sorta like the 5 second stun of DS where it doesn't seem like much but its actually so good that a good player should probably win off the exchange and buffing it would just be too crushing a benefit. Instead of a free 40+ second chase, it ks a 0 second hook where you got free pressure on at least 2 survivors, and you probably can convert into another down before a rescue.
Think about it: You got a completely uninjured survivor to down in zero time, another survivor is injured and nearby and can't rescue, and now a third needs to come rescue and probably won't make it before you down the other. That is at best 1 survivor on gens with 3 downs for the price of one. Its huge, that is 1/4th your hooks done.
Now there is a real problem with unhook diving and the hook system in that its very binary: You either are in position to get a double hit on the unhooker or you get jack all. This is bad both because its frustrating for the killer AND encourages hard camping rather than more nuanced play because your only rewarded for anticipating the unhook if you are ridiculously close. THAT should be fixed, but I don't think killers necessarily need more 'close range' defensive strength that would benefit them in a 'hook bombing' scenario.
-
The main issues I have with windows is how auto-aim screws over killers at them.
Otherwise they are great. You need to maintain a pretty respectable minimum distance at a window as a survivor to actually block a hit with it, otherwise it forces the hit to happen and you are only getting a minor distance increase from the vault.
If windows blocked hits more than they do now a lot of loops become unmindgameable and the game would suck ass. Its like old vacuum pallets but in theory infinite on some tile setups. So absolutely no to any sort of window hit nerf, that would be like a reversion to the 1.0 days when farm was like 90% infinites.
-
A tunneler is going to tunnel regardless of the counter.
What the counter does is give more information to killers who are at the mid level but are making 'tactical' choices rather than 'policy' choices. IE: "Should I finish this person off, should I really commit to this chase?" and not "I am going to tunnel every time as a policy refusing to ever drop this chase" tunnel.
The hook counter probably makes tunneling LESS attractive because it A: Lets the killer keep track of their 1 hook on everyone for devout, and B: Makes it so the killer doesn't get an info disadvantage for not tunneling off hook.
Its just kinda entirely stupid they didn't add this to 'try to prevent tunneling.' Because tactical tunneling is the SURVIVOR's fault, and policy tunneling is unaffected. It just makes the gamefeel worse for killers to not even really help the survivors so much as rub in the killer's face that they are a second class citizen, and adds to the already unfun 'hecticness' of the killer where winning interactions feels unrewarding and you just have way too much to juggle at once compared to both the survivor team as a whole and each individual survivor especially. If either side needed info tracking to help reduce the mental load of the role it was KILLER. Survivor is already so mellow and slow that it can be kinda boring.
Oh, and the argument that its akin to showing the survivors where gens are is stupid. That is not information you get for free but isn't tracked. The equivalent is... telling survivors how often their allies have been hooked. Its information you technically already get but it just tracks it for you to make it easier and the game easier to follow, rather than new information, so you can make better choices. Both sides absolutely should have it.
-
@justbecause said:
I rather want devs to focus on bugs then us having to report players when we know nothing will be done about it I think they should always priorities fixing big bugs that are gameplay changing
This is the actual solution that most studios that aren't dysfunctional use.
You want to avoid discouraging players from finding bugs and exploits by banning them if they share them, and it isn't on players to understand more nuanced 'is it really an explpit or a result of combined game features?' question. It is on Devs to make the game work.
BHVR probably won't do this because their priorities are pretty whack though and they like being able to ignore bugs.
-
@Gladonos said:
I don't suicide in order to punish the killer but at the same time why should you not suicide? Why do you care if the other people do gens? What does that give you?
Why do you refurn the shopping cart rather than leaving it in the parking lot?
-
The devs seem to have some sort of allergy to any sort of reasonable concession mechanic that doesn't allow one side to BM for multiple minutes.
EGC was the weakest way they could implement to stop survivors holding the game hostage once gens were done and doesn't solve the problem at 1 gen. Bleedout is weak, and now suicide on hook is weak.
Obviously you don't want to encourage that sorta play, but it does really stink that A: the killer is punished so heavily for survivors giving up when its outside of their control, and B: ALL players are forced to play out games no one wants to play out.
Definitely shouldn't be solved by bans, structurally systematized solutions are the only way to go here, and ones that don't affect normal play or encourage giving up first down, but something like an EGC 2.0 would really help DBD a lot, this time without the clear design intent to let survivors teabag for 2 minutes at the gate or creating a situation where the killer is encouraged to slug and just be a jerk.
Ideally, the killer should care way less about the 4th hook overall, both because it helps stop the 3rd man slug, and because the game is at its healthiest when a lone survivor is allowed to be selfish and win 'with' the killer by playing to 2 gens and the hatch rather than escaping together.
-
@RenTheCat said:
Nemesis was never iconic. RE3 is literally the least popular game of the franchise, even the remake did poorly.
Nemesis is paradoxically the most iconic monster while being from the least popular game.
Birkin is probably one of the less iconic monsters despite being from the most popular game! Though the motifs of the G virus (Lots of eyes and a big goo kaiju) are pretty iconic despite Birkin being not so much, which is why elements of the G-virus design snuck their way into T-Virus creatures so often.
RE is weird like that. I doubt we will get Nemesis for the killer (but it is of course possible) simply because of how Nemesis might be hard power wise. But I could see Birkin either as the killer or as a Blight skin. Likewise, I could definitely see a Dr. Salvador skin for one of the chainsaw boys.
-
@Harold_Shipman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2116920#Comment_2116920
So do Umbrella manufactured experimental bioweapons, but, well, look how well that worked. Hunk would ######### have the entity itself
No he wouldn't.
Hunk is a huge badass, but he is a huge badass because he canonically is moving like a speedrunner with absurd precision in close quarters with a bunch of B.O.Ws, not because he is so good at punching things that he can shatter eldritch beings. He literally won't survive the 4th survivor scenario if you try to fight your way out, its all about jukes and using your tools to bypass stuff.
Sounds like good survivor material to me!
-
@RenTheCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2115429#Comment_2115429
Why do people keep pretending Jill and Claire are even relevant lmao. Jill has 2 games, her path in the 1st game is not even canon and RE3 is the game that sold the worst of the franchise, even the remake. And Claire only has RE2, nobody cared about the spin offs.
Neither path was really canon, in RE1 canonically like... both paths kinda happen? Canon paths of the earlier games are a bit weird. 2 kiiiinda had one (Claire A, Leon B) but even that is a mess and its sorta a mix of Claire A and B, and Leon A and B. That said, more elements of Jill's path are established as canon in 1 (Ex: Barry continues to be a major character, while Rebecca does not).
Also lol no Jill is easily one of the most popular characters in the series. Jill's absence from 5, 6, and 7, was extremely noted and resulted in a lot of backlash from the community as Capcom kept focusing on Chris, who is generally considered less popular and interesting a character. Like... Jill not being in 5 was such a huge deal they literally made two DLC to put way more focus on her as a character because of how popular she is.
Hell, a big reason both RE:Revelations games became best sellers in the series is because Jill FINALLY was a main protagonist again after so long. I would say her and Leon are probably the most popular characters in the series overall, and it is fair to say Jill is the most iconic character in the series, compared to Chris 'I am such a meme of a character that Chrisposting is a thing in the RE community' Redfield.
Now for Claire? Yeah she doesn't get a lot to do, which is... kinda lame and BS. She suffered a lot from the 5-6 era of the game where Capcom came out and said "we want this to be a generic action game that we re-release every year here have a super roided out Chris, do you like Chris? Please like Chris. Why does nobody like Chris?" that kinda low key ruined the series for a couple of years. That said, the remakes along with the movies indicate they plan to return to the interconnected lore aspect and stop trying to make the series Resident Chris, so maybe we will finally learn what Billy Coen is upto.
-
@Kuchiyose said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2111684#Comment_2111684
I don't believe it's unfair. Survivors gain their power from their numbers. 2v8 is just a basic math, it's not how it works in game, let me give you another example of that math, when you add an extra killer into the game you add 4 more perks, but if you add 4 more survivors you basically add 16 more perks which is actually unfair. and imagine all thoso sabotages, flashlights and bodyblocks. The more their numbers the much more power they get.
The issue is killer is balanced around being a singular presence. While I agree in 1v4 perk disparity and especially offering disparity are a problem, two killers just totally warp how chases work because the killers could split up to close out loops instantly. Having extra people running sabo doesn't matter if literally the second your in a chase you get downed because you literally can't loop vs the killer ever and there is no skill interaction in avoiding being hit. I don't even subscribe to the 'looping is the only way for survivors to protect themselves' camp but holy crap that applies to like... 'Playing around an anti-loop killer by being a bit more stealthy and utilizing the weaknesses in the base kit most anti-loopers have' and not 'playing around a deathsquad duo.'
I do think a 2 vs many mode is possible, and probably even something BHVR is considering based on their recent poll that really clearly was trying to figure out why the killer population got so low. If we get a lot of 'I don't play killer because I can't play with my friends or recruit friends' and a lot of 'I joined the game to play survive with friends' a 'Kill alongside friends' mode might very well be worth it for the devs.
But it would require so much more effort than just increasing survivor count and tossing the killers in, because most core mechanics are based around killers being highly localized in power. Jury is out on how well this works (W meta kinda... makes it rough on most of the cast because the amount of time investment to win a chase is just so high they actually AREN'T that good at defending, but good killers can get stuff done), but it is how the game design works, and two killers are much more powerful than 'twice as strong as one killer.' Like, two killers could end chases in 30 seconds every single time no matter what, as well as pressure way more gens on the map, ect.
Again, I think it is worth the effort because I think for DBD to grow killer also needs to be a 'social' role, but it wouldn't be as simple as 'toss a second killer and 4 or even 8 extra survivors and extra gens into the game.' It would require specific maps or map alterations, a way to integrate it into standard queues, a way to make two killers running a loop at the same time not bonkers, and all still need to be satisfying for both sides, and that legitimately would be hard.
Even some solutions as extreme as 'only one killer is active and the other is able to move around the map invisible waiting to 'activate' gives the killer role a LOT of map control that invalidates entire killer powers, and would result in unfun metas like a trapper doing setup and then not playing for the rest of the game for example, nullifying a lot of the benefit of a two killer mode in terms of allowing social play.
It should happen but it is like... not even a can, but an oil drum full of worms.
-
@VexTheHex said:
Really don't get the radius decreasing for each totem cleansed. Someone is already sacrificing a perk slot purely on bone munching.
It makes the perk BETTER as you cleanse, not worse, as it lets you more precisely find totems once there are fewer of them and thus your less likely to stumble onto them.
@Azshhh said:
There was literally no need to remove it's ability to detect killer traps either
There absolutely was. Trapper's power had a lot of nonsense 'tech counters' baked into stopping it at launch back when BHVR thought it would be a good idea to have lots of interaction with powers (lightburn is another good example).
The issue is Trapper is making massive sacrifices to use traps. For one, it is his only power, so he gives up say... an on demand instadown like Bubba, and for another it takes him a LOT of time to set up. There were way too many effects in the game with strong interaction with his traps (old sabo, small game, OoO), as well as items (toolboxes, maps) that effectively made him worse than a regular M1 killer if he wanted to play around his power.
A single perk or item shouldn't hard counter trapper. Survivor perks actually need to be minor gameplay alterations that allow them to hone their strategy, rather than completely dumpstering a killer.
Put another way, imagine if say... Hex (Third Seal) not only blinded you, but broke you, disabled your perks, and made it so you couldn't vault, to get how absolutely crippling it was to have your traps revealed as Trapper. He is forced to just M1 around because the second he lays a trap (which takes him multiple seconds even ignoring having to carry it there) a survivor comes along and resets it in less time than his setting time.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2101251#Comment_2101251
It's weird. Borrowed time helps with unsafe unhooks, let it be because the killer is camping, the hooked person is inbetween a 3 gen or the hooked person is in the basement or whatever. So because of that I personally found it weird undetectable just ignores that.
I can see the legitimate theoretical problems this could cause but I believe its healthier for the game
But I would prefer if it had a 32 meter range instead, that the effect just gets applied is weird
Removing the range at all makes sense. It is, ultimately a good perk for the game. It just is in a tricky spot because it creates the classic game design problem of 'negative reinforcement encouraging the undesired behavior more and causing LESS interesting gameplay.'
-
@[Deleted User] said:
I can already see some salt from the killer side because of borrowed time and freddy
While I abused the undetectable part myself it's nice killers like Pig can no longer cheese it
My problem with it is that a LOT of the power of undetectable was countering BT, and BT has been a long term problem in how it weirdly ENCOURAGES camping because it makes the zone you can punish a sloppy unhook smaller.
Uts still better than launch BT where you had to actually grab the rescuer to get anything off the rescue, and I get why TR interaction was a weird requirement, but I would vastly prefer something that makes it more of a 'shift your target' perk rather than shutting down wide patrols so hard.
Legitimately tricking someone into thinking the rescue is safe (rather than sitting in a dude's face crouched as pig) is super interesting play that should be rewarded but now if you want to snowball off an unhook you REALLY need to be close enough to at least get a hit during unhook.
-
@n0suchluck said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2098785#Comment_2098785
Ok so first off you never answered my question about the size of the population of swf. But your reply alludes to the idea that you believe its the majority ( I disagree but whatever). The counter to your argument is by relaxing the matchmaking for those players you now pit the sweaty seal team against casual lvl 12 killer who in turn is going to get gen rushed, baited into locker stun chases, flashlight sniped and teabagged at the exit gates. Don't you think that will ruin the experience for those people and than they will stop playing and ultimately create extremely long queue times because the only peeps having fun are the swf's???...Which, btw, are most likely the minority of the community
1 in 4 is not 'the majority' so I don't get how you think I implied that it is.
1 in 4 is still a huge portion of the base though at red ranks, and them suddenly not finding matches, and vice versa, would be bad.
-
@n0suchluck said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2098762#Comment_2098762
Why do the devs have to cater to swf? Like how much of the population is swf? And when I say swf, I'm talking 3-4 man groups because those are more than likely the ones that will be paired with the top tier killers
If they don't relax the matchmaking those players leave and suddenly the top tier killers don't get matches. We saw this with the MMR tests, Q times for both sides were absurd, like a top tier Twins main had to manually create a game by contacting good survivors to 'stream snipe' them after they waited an hour for a match.
Having the top end players of your game get punished by not being allowed to play it is a really bad strategy for game longevity.
Furthermore, 4 man SWF is pretty common. Around 1 in 4 matches at red ranks as killer I play are 4 man SWF. Even 2 man SWF is a huge advantage as two players together are able to guarantee a win pretty much every game, and 2 2 man SWFs are about as strong as 1 4 man.