dezzmont
dezzmont
About
- Username
- dezzmont
- Joined
- Visits
- 967
- Last Active
Comments
-
@freddymybae said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1803429#Comment_1803429
so just ignore them and never put them in a game got it
Yeah sure you can pretend I said that if you want if it helps you sleep at night. Its kinda transparently not though.
-
@The_Krapper said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1803402#Comment_1803402
I understand what you're saying and like I've already said I'm not opposed, I just think it's dumb to add anything straight or LGBT in a horror game that literally has nothing to do with any sort of sexual relationship straight or not , I don't understand why people feel the need to sexualize a video game and try to make it like real life
Your imagining being LGBTQ+ as purely a sexual experience. Like mentioning someone is LGBTQ+ is bringing their sex life into the game.
So do you think its dumb that BHVR brought the sexual relationship of Sally Smithson into the game? Do you think that its silly that people think its cool that we have a story behind the character that is relatable and creates a sort of 'reality' to their choice to kill people?
LGBTQ+ aren't inherently more sexualized than straight people. Its just that straight people don't get that they talk about their sex life ALL THE TIME and don't even realize it because its superliminal. It is actually just as weird once you start thinking about how often people very openly declare that something is occurring that proves they had sex with someone of the opposite gender, for example. No one thinks that shouldn't be done, but the second someone says 'I have a boyfriend' people instantly get really invasive about their sex life because they see being gay as purely a sex thing. Like its a kink, rather than, you know, love.
If no? Then you have a double standard here: It is only weird to want more reality in the case of that reality reflecting the existence of LGBTQ+ people.
If yes? Congrats, your... kinda weird... I don't think DBD would be as successful a game if it used an abstract art style, had no lore, iconic characters, story bits, ect.
Hell, the the narrative of the game actually even has in game effects, you ever notice pig mains are weird and often invent little games to play with survivors when they are winning? That is an example of elements that aren't strictly mechanical gameplay elements elevating the game. Those moments are fantastic.
-
@freddymybae said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1803382#Comment_1803382
you dont get my point lets look at cyber punk they had a poster with a trans man/woman on it they people went ape ######### over it because you could see the big pp saying it isnt good for the trans community or some ######### but if they wouldnt have it they would cry for not having it in the game sjws will cry about legit every thing and do anything to get what they want
Its actually a lot more complicated than that, because fetishization of trans bodies is a huge issue and generally is rooted in people disrespecting their identity and over-focusing on the parts of their bodies that make them feel the worst about themselves.
Also, in a super screwed up way, fetishization of trans people in the style of Cyberpunk's depiction is heavily linked to populations that are EXTREMELY hostile to trans people.
For example, trans porn is absurdly popular with heterosexual conservatives. Also gay porn weirdly. But these depictions are awful, usually somewhat violent and focused on this fantasy of perversion or transgression in a manner that measurably makes trans women and men less safe, and just... generally does a good job of confusing what the trans issue even is. Like its really not great that the states where trans people are being banned from bathrooms are also the states where 'shemale' porn is literally the most popular category of porn on pornhub. So you have these people both intensely fetishizing trans people, while also denying them basic rights and attacking them, and that fetishization is also done in a manner that denies them the ability to even be like... human in the works they are depicted in.
Basically the concern is that the power is playing into the really ######### up history of 'Tranny porn' and its very real effect on violence and political action against trans people.
It doesn't help that 2077 had some... other stuff going on. On its own the poster would probably just have been a misstep because, you know, not everyone can be educated on everything and sometimes its downright just a ######### catch 22 scenario because everything is problematic and its way more about implementation and intent than actually what is literally displayed.
-
@The_Krapper said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1803366#Comment_1803366
I'm not opposed I just simply don't understand why it matters I guess? If they added it tomorrow I wouldn't care lol
Ok, so try to exercise some empathy. Imagine what its like to be the kind of person who is often demonized or villified, who has to make all sorts of choices about their own safety and relationships with other people every time they meet someone new about if they should share something about themselves. Imagine your someone who knows that people like you sometimes become homeless because their family members don't accept them. And imagine that society is so obsessed with a specific variation on relationships that entire genres are built on it, and its used as incidental or core aspects of character dynamics, but that relationships that are relevant to you are rarely if ever seen and when they are generally don't involve any main characters.
I fully believe you wouldn't care if a LGBTQ+ character was added today, because you don't have to think about the experience of being LGBTQ+, but at least try, for a moment, to imagine how hostile the world can feel, in part because the stories we constantly tell rarely include anyone like you being an important character, a good character, or a character you might like.
This is the concept of privilege. Reactionaries have twisted that word to make it into something people joke about, 'check your privilege.' Like its total nonsense: you don't get a cookie and a pat on the ass for being straight! But actually, in social sciences, privilege is a super real thing, as real to our discipline as say... gravity is to physics, and its an intersection of sociology and psychology. It doesn't mean you have any formal benefits or institutionalized, universal advantage. What it means is you don't have to interact with an aspect of reality someone else does at ALL. It can be invisible to you. Which is part of why it was easy to twist into something silly: the word is literally defining something that the dominant cultural group of a society doesn't ever have to think about and might never notice, so pretending its some delusional screeching is easy, when in reality its... quite obvious that straight people have certain privileges society grants them that they wouldn't even notice?
Like have you ever had to decide if it was safe to come out as straight to someone? If admitting to someone you were straight may cost you a job, or a vital bit of your support structure? No? Obviously not, the idea of having to do that is absurd, but the endless process of coming out (because it doesn't happen just once, its a very long term thing and kinda never ends because you need to decide if your going to be out in ANY social interaction where your relationship status or preferred type of partner may come up, which is a shocking amount) both has a mental cost, as well as social and material ones.
Likewise there are actually measurable mental health impacts of representation. Like a measurable reduction in suicide rates, and that, again, seems absurd to someone who has never had to think about this, but its... again... really obvious the current media landscape is super hostile towards lots of different types of people in a way that resembles constant low level abuse. For example, ignoring the very obvious instances of actively negative representation where queer people are actively to be reviled or hated, queer characters are far more likely to experience violence in media than straight cis characters, which kinda matters a lot, because a huge point of mass media is to create and normalize culture. Like you can actually track rates of things like bullying and harassment in schools going down with queer characters in popular children's cartoons and videogames among given age groups.
Which is why people are willing to get loud about positive representation when it seems silly to you: because to those people it actually means quite a lot of very real things besides just "I want it."
And also, you know, it doesn't really cost you anything for people to get this W. So you tossing yourself into this conversation implying its dumb to even care also is... part of the problem, even if you weren't trying to be. It implies that it is silly to want to be treated differently than you are currently being treated, when I think any reasonable person would agree LGBTQ+ have every reason to demand to be treated differently than they currently are.
-
The actual long term fix to OoO is to make it mirror Rancor and occur in timing windows so its not a permanent uptime on killer detection.
The worst part of OoO is that the only time it triggers is the point where the downside of making it easier for the killer to find you isn't relevant. Changing the trigger condition itself from being outside terror radius (which also has the problem of making it counter perks explicitly about the killer avoiding detection like M&A) to something else.
That or making the downside of OoO actually very relevant to staying alive even if you want to just passively use that perk as a radar dish. Like the big problem with OoO is that its so playstyle defining someone will be in a game PURELY to use OoO and that is a good use of a player even if they can't do gens because of it (and they can still do gens!).
Another way to think of it is that having permanent aura read on a killer is so strong its kinda... worth it being a 3v1. The core interaction is the problem.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1803359#Comment_1803359
Alright, you made me laugh. Take the upvote.
You have chosen wisely. Nurse shall be spared. Not because nurse being gay would be bad, but simply because it is not in our whims today.
For real though I am a social scientist and queer myself and this is a huge part of my work (I actually specifically am trying to specialize in queerness in gaming related spaces!) and its both... kinda enheartening how our culture has adapted to this juggernaut of memetic warfare, but sad how that came about due to necessity in order to squeeze representation from a stone.
Like if there was a push to do so I am 100% certain that queer people could make anything they want a LGBTQ+ icon and no body could stop them. Babadook kinda proved it.
-
@KSzerker said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1802902#Comment_1802902
Crossdressing is not LGBT...
Drag is a part of LGBT culture as a method of performative non-conformity with gender expression, and playing with presentation, but I don't think that skin is like... Bubba's Drag Persona.
I mean unless we pull a Babadook. Us LGBTQ+ folks are cultural coup masters. Surviving so long with everyone refusing to give us representation has made us masters of making things into mainstream gay icons in order to create a place for ourselves in mainstream culture.
Fear our power! We turned leather gay and we could do the same to the killer you main!
-
Firstly, its important to note that while this seems like a reasonable argument, trying to say 'we shouldn't have bad representation' what it actually does is create an artificially inflated standard on LGBTQ+ characters.
Specifically, a LGBTQ+ character should be able to fill every role a straight, cis character does, and implying that you need to meet certain qualifications to be a 'good' LGBTQ+ character itself is part of the problem: Your trying to force people to justify the existence of queer characters. So lets drop pretense.
You wouldn't bat an eye if a male character mentioned that they had a wife in a story. But if that same male character said they had a husband, you would apply different expectations to the inclusion of that character in attempt to declare that they are 'pandering' or 'forced in' or whatever. Even if they are exclusively there to be a male straight character in a relationship. Like "The Hillbilly's Mom and Dad" are explicit characters in DBD, who SOLELY exist to be a heterosexual couple who abused their child, but no one is saying they are arbitrarily forcing romance into the game. Likewise, Nea isn't Sweedish just to force 'a token Sweed,' despite the fact that Nea being Sweedish has NO impact on the game and is something you would never learn through pure gameplay because it exists entirely in the backstory, its because it would be weird if The Entity was capturing killers from all over the world and across time from all walks of life but mysteriously was only nabbing white American survivors.
In essence, your assuming straight and cis is 'default' or 'regular' or 'normal' (In fact, you pretty much said the quiet part out loud there) which is the entire problem: Because you view straight and cis as 'default' any deviation needs to be justified, that queer people are only allowed to exist 'for a reason' because otherwise you made someone 'not normal' for 'no reason.' When that reason can be as simple as 'queer people exist.'
Gay characters can be as one dimensional as straight characters, they can be as dynamic as straight characters. Their relationship can be all their character is about, just like many straight characters in stories, or it could just be one facet of who they are. All of those should be good and shouldn't result in any increased burden on the creators to justify it. Sometimes people are just gay, or bi, or trans, or nonbinary. Stories can be about the unique issues we face, because in many aspects of our lives our identities can be extremely important to our experiences, or those can be incidental because in many aspects of our lives that identity is incidental. So it isn't even that 'the character doesn't have to JUST be about their sexuality as a flat character' but 'Gay people should be able to be any type of character. Not every character in a story is a dimensional character, in fact most characters in a well written story are flat and non-dynamic, why can't some be gay?' And why can't some dynamic leads be incidentally gay in stories not about being gay?
As to why people specifically want an EXPLICITLY LGBTQ+ character?
Because 'assuming anyone could be gay' isn't equal representation. It is, again, a pretend way to say 'we already have it' when we clearly don't, because characters are confirmed straight all the time. Again, you just internalized it as 'default' so much you can't see how stuff like 'The nurse had a husband' is confirming her to be straight (or at least presents straight, I mean she is from somewhere around WW1/WW2, one could argue she had to marry a man to survive, but its implied her marriage was happy), meaning that its acceptable to reveal the sexuality of characters...
...As long as they are straight.
And yes, these reveals are advancing the story of these characters because your love life informs a lot about you, so they aren't JUST revealing that they are straight, but there is little reason you couldn't do the same for LGBTQ+ characters. It isn't that Nurse should be a Lesbian from the 1920s (It would be hard to make that not the case without seriously altering her background, and it would play into some truly horrific tropes to have the first gay character be a killer driven to madness by the tragedy of being gay), It isn't just that the new survivor had a boyfriend or whatever, maybe their boyfriend got kidnapped by the entity too. Or maybe they got lost on a mountain and they were part of a rescue party and got nabbed. Or any number of potential stories that include people who aren't straight.
If its a worry the character will be one dimensional, they could always make an existing character gay just as part of one of the background bits. Would Meg suddenly become a 'token character' if it was revealed she was into girls, despite all this interesting stuff we know about her like how she is both absurdly driven but at the same time gave up what she was driven about to take care of someone she cared about? Obviously not. So why worry a new character who is gay would 'just' be gay? That is a silly thing to assume and is pretty clearly trying to reduce a reasonable request to a ridiculous one by pretending that what people asked for ("a character who is LGBTQ+") is actually something different and unreasonable ("I want a character who's entire identity is their gay identity").
Also, to be clear, some people do live their life very openly queer and make it visible and a huge part of their identity. And most of those people are ######### awesome people because they chose to do that to make other people safer and to normalize being queer or not conforming to gender expectations that hurt real world people, as well as to create non-traditionally masculine/feminine role models for people who might not have them, or to visibly show them that queer people exist and they aren't alone and that being out is a thing you CAN be. The IRL queer equivalent of being willing to loop the killer to protect green rank baby queers trying to figure themselves out. So if your implying someone with dyed hair and a rainbow pin or whatever is 'making being gay their entire personality' you missed the point. Some LGBTQ+ people wanna be unassuming gen jockeys because it empowers their community, others wanna be loud and proud because it protects their community. Both are freaking rad and no human being has to earn your respect for who they are if who they are has absolutely no bearing on you.
TL;DR: Because straight characters are confirmed all the time and are never questioned for being straight regardless of how 3 dimensional or dynamic a character they are. Any type of character should be possible to confirm for being gay. It isn't just 'oh we don't say explicitly so it could be anyone' because its said explicitly a LOT about straightness.
-
Twins definitely is a killer like Blight, Nurse, or Huntress where the people who get good with them will get EXTREMELY good. Using Victor as detection early and then after landing a hit suddenly turning into him and finishing while they run towards you are the kinda absurd plays Twins can do, but it requires you to have a lot of map knowledge. They weirdly almost feel like a trapper, which is great because Trapper was my favorite killer till I got to red ranks. They reward pre-planning a LOT.
I don't think they are weak, they suffer the same problem any killer who depends on injuries to stall does, in that its easy for them to get snowballed. But they snowball hard too: A bad twins game feels REAL bad.
I also think they are super clunky and definitely could use some power tuning: The inability to release victor near hooks is frustrating and while I get the intent it could have been done differently. The inability to just 'undo' Victor is likewise a problem. And the charge time for pounce can lead to some silly infinites vs Victor.
Overall though I like the killer. They more need QoL love than buffs. Stuff like "You can release Victor while near a hook but if you do waking up takes longer, you can leave Victor near a active hook but he doesn't scream if you do and takes longer to switch too, you get to visually see the area around a hook, you switch a bit faster, and you can call back Victor any time" would be my fixes for them.
-
@hillbillyclaudmain69 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/211746/ooo-rework
I like the idea, but you do realize that the devs aren't reworking OoO because of the high kill rate on people using it right?
Right, this is the problem with just blindly following contextless statistics. They measure EXACTLY what you are looking at, but are rarely representative of the whole picture.
In the case of OoO, we SHOULD expect a low survival rate, because its 'default' use is inherently extremely dangerous and offers little upside: Its very easy to track the killer with other better perks like bond.
What OoO does is completely warp the game for SWF lobbies in a way that is truly unfun and frustrating for the killer and promotes weird stupid play where the survivors, who already have an information and map presence advantage, can completely shut down all interaction with the killer and any mechanics that require the killer to do anything that can be observed.
OoO isn't 'too strong' it just does really dumb things to the game and makes high ranked lobbies that use it not fun to win against, which is the worst thing a mechanic can do. It actively punishes you for trying to play DBD.
-
@hillbillyclaudmain69 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/211746/ooo-rework
I like the idea, but you do realize that the devs aren't reworking OoO because of the high kill rate on people using it right?
Right but this is a good example of why contextless statistics are bad to over-depend on. The universal death rate of OoO SHOULD be very high because its a perk with a very big downside to use just as a 'I can see where the killer is' perk on someone playing normally.
OoO is a problem not because it has a high winrate, but because it has very game warping effects on high rank SWF lobbies. The perk arguably is not functioning how its intended because the best way to use it is to have someone basically not play DBD at all and just give a play by play on the killer in a manner that shuts down a lot of strategies and makes killer gameplay... objectively awful.
Win-loss rates are important, but they are not everything. OoO does the worst thing a gameplay mechanic can do which is make the act of winning a game and playing well deeply frustrating.
-
@dspaceman20 said:
It seems like whenever I'm in an open map I always have the worst time. I can't do anything because the line of sights are far away. An tips to help play against really experienced nurses?
If your not in SWF voicecoms, there is very little you can do vs a truly amazing nurse on a very open map like Ormond.
The main weakness of Nurse is that she either hardcore telegraphs her approach in a way that lets you book it to an obstacle laden place that can mess with her auto-aim, or she struggles really hard to patrol, meaning that stealth is better vs her because she loses more gen progress not getting into chase for each gen she checks.
The amount of good nurses however is EXTREMELY low. A lot of nurses seem really good simply because they got good at countering the most basic attempts to juke nurse so it seems like you can't do anything. Vs a nurse you are rewarded with basically forcing her to use her power again if you successfully juke the port, which is possible, its just a hard skill to learn due to the rarity of nurses and the fact that you can only screw up twice before your practice session is over.
When in doubt: Counter a killer by making being on gens your job, and avoiding engaging in chases in the first place your preferred solution. While vs most killers you want to try to draw out chases rather than hide, the most common killers survivors have issues with come down to them rewarding stealth play far more than looping.
Also, as a survivor, YOU have control over the map. You should never be playing on a map of the killer's choice unless you get really unlucky on offering RNG, its always going to either be a map you chose or a random one. This makes killers that over-preform on some maps less of an issue than it might seem: Sure Doc is insane on Game or Hawkins but he can't force that map unless its against a non-SWF group that doesn't agree on who is using a map offering in the lobby.
-
Congrats on the chevo! Good insights!
I am finding the Twins are decent, and more suffer from 'ergonomic' issues than power issues. They are like any 'kill' oriented power in that they have a lot of snowball potential and played well can do extremely well, but they risk getting snowballed very hard, which people mistake for weak.
The killer is, however, needlessly clunky, which I think actually is a problem. For example, the area you can't use your power to avoid hook camping probably could stand to have a very slight 'aura' at the edge to make it easier for the killer to gauge where they can deploy Victor.
Coup De Grace is interesting and made me realize how often I overused lunges. The need to save the tokens is generally not bad and any situation you HAVE to lunge is a good situation to Coup De Grace. Having multiple lets you force a down, especially if you can keep people injured. Main issue is less 'its weak' because its probably the best chase powerup in the game, and more that chase powerups are in a weird space as killers really want to save their perks for stall and (maybe) detection. In a reality where we had a better 'one and done' stall perk I think we could see Coup De Grace a lot more, because your right it basically forces a down if someone is injured. Its just that without stall in high end games it can be hard to really get any tempo to start chaining chases to really make forcing a down shine.
-
While I think the Twins have a lot of issues, the hitbox isn't one of them. If we wanted to make it less lolrandom zigzaggable (which I have found to some extent doesn't work great if Victor just waits to launch for a sec) then shortening the charge time (which would also make it less loopable around very tiny objects, a nice bonus) would help more.
-
Slug camping is a survivor sided issue that only occurs when killers don't feel like they can properly contest the hook.
Devs have tested hook dynamics a LOT over the years, and basically concluded this very firmly in 2017, which is why they tend to not nerf slugging. If killers are slugging a lot, it indicates there is some other problem in the game because of how inefficient it generally is.
Also, slugging is sometimes just the correct play. A good example is pig when someone has an activated trap and a lot of survivors are trapped. Its usually better to slug an active trap and force survivors to pick up while continuing to hunt than to hook.
If your seeing a lot of slugging, it may be your 'too good' at rescues and rescuing too fast. Have some tact. Or you may have very obviously telegraphed DS, in which case your DS is getting bonus value by forcing the killer to wait the duration of a relatively long chase, when normally it just gets you the chance at what is likely a short chase. Or maybe your signaling 'You can snowball' to the killer, like if someone goes down and the killer visibly sees multiple survivors near the downed survivor. If that is the case, they have VERY little reason to hook because suddenly if they start a chase they get the ability to pressure the entire team, which is excellent killer play punishing a truly BONEHEADED survivor move that absolutely deserves to get the entire team ground into the dirt.
Slugs, again, are a problem with survivor play, not killer play. And once you go down you ACTIVELY are denied agency. A key component of DBD's gameplay is that if you screw up as a survivor you get nothing, you lose, good day sir. You don't get a kiss on the cheek and a slap on the ass, you go from a participant to a piece of the environment, and its not just the killer's right, but the entire pacing of their role, to use you as a tool to further their own ends from that point.
If this wasn't a key feature of killer tempo, the game would just have everyone trigger something like Pyramid Head's cages for every down, rather than having the hook, which as an active design choice creates a new map objective that every player knows about and which (unless the gates are open) heavily favors the killer if both sides engage each other near it. That is a design choice, not an accident.
Also, you do not want weaker downs/hooks. Weaker downstates/hooks lead to a Deathgarden style game. Deathgarden died in a huge part due to how it mucked with the elimination formula compared to DBD to try to give downed players more agency or a more guaranteed way back into the game. It actually is awful and helped make DG one of the most disappointing releases of 2018. You seriously don't want it, its one of those game mechanics which players think they want but kinda ruin the game and which make designers say stuff like "Never ask me for anything" because if you think about the core gameplay loop of DBD for a SECOND you would instantly understand why the killer not having long term ways to incapacitate survivors or create new objectives would sap the life out of the game.
Specifically, in DG's case, when the killer doesn't have the power to actively twist the knife if someone goes down, it makes the killer feel impotent and makes something that should shift the dynamic of the game not really matter, causing the entire game to feel the same from start to finish with no real spikes of triumph for them. For the survivors, it turns the game into M1 simulator because losing chases doesn't have serious consequences for your team if the killer can't actively punish them for you going down or use it to build tempo. You never have anything you dread or want to avoid, so you don't really... give a damn about anything that happens because winning is sorta this rote thing of do gens, loop as best you can, and not really care if you lose a loop, meaning you don't stress stuff like resources or map pathing or what gens you do first. It just is... super awful.
Again, can't stress enough, a huge part of why DBD is fun is because someone going down is a true disaster for survivors that puts the game into a new stage, and a huge 'MUAHAHAHA' monent for killers.
-
There are 3 realities that can occur when Twins camp:
Scenario 1: Charlotte is camping, Victor is hunting.
Scenario 2: Victor is detecting rescues, Charlotte is hunting
Scenario 3: Victor is detecting rescues AND Charlotte is nearby
Scenario 1: Most of the counters to proximity camping still apply: BT still works for example. Eat the hit for the person getting rescued if you must. This is arguably less valuable than Demo camping with a portal because at least Demo can use Make your Choice and counters BT, and that isn't very strong. Worst case scenario if your solo: Treat like a facecamper. If they hit ya with Victor its like... 'whatever, now you have to leave the hook or what was the freakin point?' Its a super minor amount of pressure because you can just move and heal up, the twins can't even kick your gen while you are doing it.
Scenario 2: Crawl to rescue. Unlike Hag, Charlotte CANNOT instantly be there, only Victor can. This means that as long as you bodyblock for your rescued bud Victor cannot secure the down on his own unless you messed up and triggered instinct before the unhook. In which case you messed up dweeb, I bet you complain that you can't rescue vs Trapper either because you get caught on a trap you didn't see. Much like how rescuing vs Trapper has you assuming 100% every path towards the hook is trapped and you slow walk over to ensure you don't step on it, just always assume the approach to the hook has Victor unless proven otherwise.
Scenario 3: The killer is devoting 100% of their resources to blocking the rescue. Treat like a Basement Bubba: Genrush to punish. Sucks for the dude on the hook, shouldn't have lost the first chase.
The twins are GOOD at defending the hook, because they can punish bad thoughtless rescues. But in DBD, you never HAVE to rush to rescue, you can always take your time. So use that time, figure out which of the three scenarios are in play, and counter that scenario. If you don't want to do that and want to just bumrush the hook from the word go, get ready to lose some games vs Twins, because the entire point of the power is to let them try to pressure and gain info over multiple parts of the map, and you don't deserve to win if you REFUSE to respect that.
-
Knowing their spawns is different than "I can clearly seem them in the open."
Even being forced to go to a specific spot to CHECK spawns is an improvement.
-
The hatch is actually a pretty solid design and a perfect example of how an asymetric game doesn't mean everything has to be equal.
Case in point: What is the survivor equivalent of preforming player elimination on the killer? There isn't one, because the role of the survivor doesn't really make that make sense.
Likewise, while there are MANY killer sided problems where they get the short end of the stick for no reason, the hatch isn't one of them. The hatch more exists for the benefit of solo players to allow the game to retain a skill based element even if their random teammates are total potatoes, than to just rob the killer of a kill. Solo survivors have a need (Specifically to be rewarded for excellent play and still be able to win if they do well, even if their team stinks) that SWF and killers don't have. For SWF, you can curate your own team, so hatch mostly exists as a dummy prize because the team as a whole lost pips if the hatch is in play (barring keys, which ARE broken). For killers, your a team of one, everything is on you and because you don't depend on anyone you don't need a 'release valve' for if you do really well but your team held you back.
But for Joe Solo who ditched chases well, did a gen or two, and found their team wasn't doing anything? Or who sees their team is just constantly hook bombing and its clear that everyone is going to die 2 minutes in without doing a gen? The hatch is critical. A solo player who is good and plays evasively trying to avoid detection can easily hammer away 2 gens on their own, spawn in the hatch as people are playing musical chairs on the hook, and get out most of the time, meaning that trying as a solo with a bad team still means something, while without the hatch that player is just screwed through no fault of their own.
I will say it might make sense to make Hatch escapes less negative for the killer emblem wise (it is... REALLY not good that if a killer does 'too well' the hatch escape often robs them of their pip, when the design of the hatch clearly favors the survivor in this scenario and doing dumb stuff like slugging to search for the 4th/hatch isn't fun), but the killers don't really need a hatch equivalent.
Likewise, better concession systems for the killer may be warranted. Anti-snowball stuff too (Survivors have a TON of that in the form of stuff like BT, DS, unbreakable, ect) could be nice as base kit for killer and help make endgame less demoralizing. But I don't think the hatch existing with no killer equivalent is a problem.
-
I think that there definitely could be some sort of effect that lets a killer punish overly agro bodyblocking, as it isn't fun if survivors get to be really overt and in your face with essentially no consequence, but protection is an important part of the game and how it works.
BT as a protection effect is not thematic, but its fair.
Forced Penance is trying to be this but it isn't super amazing at what it does because you often really don't care about landing that broken effect in cases where protection hits are relevant. I would love it if killers could do something like insta-down if they do a lunge while in contact with a survivor who is moving into them and then hit: A good block is still amazing vs that because the killer loses distance, but you can't hold the block indefinitely or else the survivor goes down and if your target is close enough them being forced to stop the block might still result in a hit. Programing that might be really hard and frustrating though. A sort of 'bodyblock bloodlust' where you are rewarded for clever play but you can't push the strategy to some extreme space that becomes silly.
Though, again, winging about how survivors really get away with too much nonsense aside, the concept of blocking and protection hits IS sound and a key part of the game's strategy.
-
@doglover53647 said:
I mean going to a area where there no pallets or windows is not fun it’s to the point that you can’t even do anything
Then don't go to the deadzone my friend.
Deadzones need to exist to make survivor play require ANY level of skill. If you could just wander anywhere or start a chase at any range and be sure you will reach a resource to start a loop, then suddenly you just endlessly are looping and you don't have to worry about map knowledge, resource management, tracking the killer, ect.
Areas that are bad for the survivors need to exist to give context to the good areas and create areas of danger. Otherwise there just... isn't a game and you get complaints about how the game is a M1 sim at gens because survivors don't have to care about anything that happens during the game and thus stuff like doing an 'exposed' gen becomes really boring.
This was basically the main survivor complaint about the game up until vacuum pallets were soft reverted for the exact same reason: Survivor is really boring if your never worried about the start condition of a chase, because SO MUCH of the tension in survivor is based around the desire to detect a killer early to run early to get to a better chase location.
-
@StrickxNyne said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1787716#Comment_1787716
If anyone is having a stealth game vs your doctor, absolutely nothing is to blame but you. Dr can shock half a map, whispers tells you where to land to let off that huge shock, didn't get anyone? Check the lockers. Sounds like you run a monitor and abuse Dr and are upset you couldn't stealth back. Dr isn't a stealth killer and if you want him to be, no one is going mad.
I was the survivor in this game. One of the two he never found.
-
@Sluzzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1785328#Comment_1785328
I know killer mains are celebrating, but when all the survivors are gone you won't have anyone to chase but an empty graveyard with no pallets.
There is such a comical overabundance of survivors. So we aren't at risk of that.
There are a LOT of survivor sided maps, and there is still a single map realm that survivors can force. Its just wild to think that survivors will quit en-mass because they have to DOWNGRADE to Haddonfield or Farms.
If your solo, large maps actually are good because solos should be avoiding being the looper and should focus a bit more on stealth (Not going full immersed obviously, but trying to hide when the killer is near rather than starting a chase) so they can ensure they aren't the first on the hook and maintain control of the game.
SWF who want to loop... have map control. So you don't have a chance to get sent to Ormond unless the killer burns a map ward, or uses an Ormond offering themselves, meaning you still have a great chance for your preferred map because you outnumber them.
Ormond was actually a problem for the killer population. It was a negative and the fact it was by far the favored map offering indicated a huge issue in balance. And it isn't even just survivor sided, it was the worst kind of survivor sided where you had the worst of all worlds: a large map, a powerful and huge central building, lots of safes of both the high wall (So ranged and stalker killers could be screwed) and low wall (so you can't be mindgamed if it isn't a huntress, slinger, myers, or ghostface) types.
There was something learned about map design with Ormond: A larger map should NOT mean more pallets evenly distributed, because pallet distance while relevant isn't as critical as pallet count, and large maps inherently are survivor sided because of longer gen patrol times and a harder time tri-genning. So you balance a large map by cutting it into smaller chunks, which means deliberate deadzones around safe areas, so that resources are sorta sectioned off. Another option is to increase the number of unsafe pallets that can buy a single hit and distribute them around evenly, but reduce safes so that you burn resources faster, but that would maintain the old problem where you can just get sent on a grand tour of loops on Ormond and lots of pallets are frustrating for rookie killers (who should not be balanced around, but who DO matter and choices that reduce their NPE are good for the game).
Ormond is better because it rewards a different style of play while still having clear advantages for survivors (You ever manage to succesfuly do a stealth run vs Doc with all 4 living in a solo game? Happened in Ormond literally today to me, it was a miracle half the survivors didn't even have madness 1 at purple ranks!) but isn't just a miserable experience for killers anymore. There is a clear upside and downside for both sides, meaning the map is fair, but still heavily affects the game compared to going to say... the Estates, or Farm.
Which obviously means it isn't good enough for survivors because they can still force an unfair map, but hey its progress.
-
@LapisInfernalis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1785925#Comment_1785925
I understand the problem very well, but sometimes these dead (or death) zones spawn really bad. if there is no pallet in 40m radius but 2 gens, something is wrong. I also think that Ormond was too strong, but now it has the same problems as Shelter Woods and Wretched Shop. I understand that they removed the god pallet on the top floor and one of the windows downstairs, but now there is literally nothing exept the gen and a weird unsafe window.
I would rather get some unsafe pallets wich you need to play correctly, than a single mediocre pallet in an area where 2 gens are.
Or they should make the maps smaller.
I think unsafe pallets are a great way to 'shrink' the map in some ways for survivors to get from one safe zone to another, but there is a question of how much is too much. Remember, even ignoring the amount of resources, big maps inherently favor survivors over most killers, so making it too easy to just go on a grand tour of the safe areas is problematic. Ideally survivors should 'exhaust' safety in a local area and create a deadzone after some time on a big map. Otherwise the map gets harder over time too slowly and that is an issue that causes maps to become way too survivor sided.
It isn't bad that maps can be big, but the design needs to account for this inherent downside. I think its fine for standard looping to want medium sized maps, with larger maps encouraging stealthier play. This helps make the maps feel different and forces survivors to take advantage of the unique features of different maps.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1785925#Comment_1785925
I haven't played new Ormond yet so I can't comment on that, but it's problematic if a map isn't balanced either way since killers have map offerings as well. If the dead zones are anything like they are on Sanctum of Wrath, which it seems like they are from the screenshots I've seen, it could be pretty brutal for survivors.
Chapel's an interesting example too - kinda besides the point, but that's one of my favorite maps in the game for both sides. I've always felt it was well balanced.
While both killers and survivors have map offerings, survivors have control over the realm because they have 4 slots. The maps need to be designed assuming survivors can force the map they want with map offerings, hence why almost every 'single map' realm is very killer sided.
This is obviously not ideal and plays into how helpless killers often feel, and ideally would be solved just by giving killers a second offering slot, but it is the reality that we live in that in red ranks killers often constantly played in Ormond with survivors forcing the issue via two map offerings. Even if you used your own it was more likely than not, and anti-map offering wards are too rare to depend on.
-
Killers as a whole don't need a huge buff. The game is in a relatively balanced state now that they balance the game pretty hard around SWF.
The reason a lot of people don't play killer is because of a lot of NPE in some survivor design, and major QOL issues for killers. The game is pretty balanced outside of scenarios like keys or BNPS (Yes, they are still an issue, just not as comically terrible as they used to be), and its actually possible for killers to be oppressive in some map-killer matchups. Its just that playing killer feels really bad, the ergonomics and gameplay loop can be very frustrating in a way that discourages its play.
The biggest example is the fact that killers are the first person role and yet have an endless amount of camera lock and visual interface screwery that REALLY can make killer downright nauseating to play. This is understood to be pretty bad by most modern game design texts, and is a huge reason Deathgarden 1.0 flopped hard.
Some things that could be explored to make killer more attractive without really buffing them, or by giving them 'hyper targeted' buffs that make them more powerful in very specific situations:
Yellow moris as basekit.
More control over the trial, such as giving killers two offering slots.
Giving more functionality and flair to non-hex perks that are mostly 'invisible power' so that killers feel like their perks are as 'razzle dazzle' as survivor perks. No one is excited to bring brutal strength to a game. At the very least give more feedback these are helping, such as with an alternate animation for 'fast breaks.'
Fewer camera lock scenarios. Let the killer look about a bit (and protect their flashlight hitbox) while vaulting, picking up, or breaking stuff.
A better surrender system so that once the game is over you can end it rather than having a full minute of survivor 'BM time.' (Both sides could honestly use this).
Removing the ability to 'pre-blind' killers on pickup (yes, this is a killer buff but I sincerely don't think insta rescues are good for the game and they are emotionally devistating even if they have counterplay and contribute a LOT to killer burnout, and survivors do not need this tool, it isn't like insta-rescues are important to survivor winrates its just a way to bully the killer when they SHOULD feel good about winning a chase).
Fixing grabs.
Giving old designs of killers more of the secondary functionality of more 'modern' killers, giving secondary powers to killers like wraith, trapper, ect to 'round out' their kit so they aren't just one note gimmicks.
Reworking keys so that they can't be used to force the killer to trigger end game collapse, or to let the entire team escape.
Creating more tools for killers to punish survivors for careless play, or otherwise forcing survivors to care that the killer is around despite having 'safety tools' around. For example, a 'stalking' perk to make survivors not super comfortable just standing still in front of the killer just because they aren't able to be hit. The killer shouldn't feel like survivors have 'safezones' they can endlessly camp just because some areas are in fact safe from hits.
More immediate feedback for excellent play. For example, making the first level of Devour Hope base kit to encourage killers to try to chase to snowball, rather than to camp to snowball. Giving a big BP event bonus for stopping an unsafe hook AND for starting a new chase while someone is hooked to make killers feel good for correctly playing the hook. Maybe make a new perk or rework rework monstrous shrine to work on all hooks and give killers bloodlust 1 on starting a chase with someone on the hook, or making hook progress go faster if your in a chase so the killer feels really rewarded for finding new chases quickly. The biggest problem with killer in my mind: When your doing well the game doesn't try to make you feel good about that at all. The only visceral 'you did good' reward is managing to down and kill survivors, the moment to moment play that makes a good killer good is totally obfuscated.
The biggest issue facing killers isn't how strong they are or their winrates, its how many scenarios take control away from the killer or how many situations survivors have no reason to actually be worried about a killer, and how often killers can just be shut down. The role isn't powerless, it FEELS powerless, which is in reality way worse but also requires more subtle fixes.
Would killer be stronger if base movement was 117 or something like that? Sure, the killer winrate would SPIKE HARD. Would that make killer FEEL better? No. Not really. You still would have pretty much everything about killer that is enraging, nauseating, frustrating, or humiliating in the game. The core issue is more scenarios that just don't feel good and don't serve the gameplay that well. Stuff like 'Hey if a survivor is behind a safe pallet they can just stare at you until you break it because you have no power in that scenario despite the survivor being right there' or 'The game is over and the gates are open, I literally cannot down anyone but the survivors refuse to leave and are actively hiding around the exit gates meaning I can't even just run them out but have to go for 4 more stupid searches into chases to end the match.'
-
Ormond is a single map realm, which always is a bit problematic if its survivor sided because survivors have FAR more control over what realm you play on.
Its part of why Chapel is noticeably killer sided to make up for Ward being very survivor sided.
Ormond is a truly massive map with extreme gen spread, and a very large central building. These are very survivor sided feature, and when the map was balanced like a regular map but everything bigger it just gave survivors far too many toys to use in a chase.
It seems like they are rebalancing the large maps to have the same level of resources as smaller maps, but spread out further, rather than the same density of resources (or in the case of Ormond, weirdly more) across the larger map meaning survivors have more tools over the course of the game. So if you end up in Ormond as a survivor, its far harder for the killer to gen pressure you and it takes more time for them to transition from a hook to another down, but on the flip side there are more deadzones and each resource spent in chase more valuable because you risk creating more deadzones.
This encourages you to utilize the larger map to track the killer better and use stealth (as avoiding entering a chase is more powerful the more distant gens are), and helps counteract the inherent disadvantage killers have on large maps. If you want to go to a very large map there are more deadzones.
-
Its really great that they are getting comfortable giving killer powers a lot of dimensionality that allows them to be useful in lots of scenarios and change the game a LOT. Ghostface, for example, is probably just the best designed killer full stop because his relatively simple power does so many different things and unlike Myers doesn't punish the entire team for one person doing very poorly avoiding the stalk, but at the same time his stalk is very powerful in a chase. Freddy seems like a similar design where its a lot of minor effects together but they made an oopsie.
Specifically, these kinds of killers should have lots of minor effects in different areas, but Freddie accidentally trippled down on stall: The teleport lets him defend gens super well, waking up is time wasted for safety rather than repair (and may involve you regressing a gen on purpose to do it to avoid the terrible oblivious effect!), and finally he has access to powerful stall addons that make gen repair slower than flippin Pig. Any killer who has more stall potential than Pig has too much stall, and Freddie definitely qualifies.
I think the fix is as simple as removing the stall addons and slightly slowing down the max recovery speed of teleport (so its still faster if people are asleep, but not lighting fast) so that you have a terrible choice against Freddie, rather than having a 'screwed if you do, screwed if you don't' situation: It now becomes viable to CHOOSE to be asleep while trying to slam a gen... but now your in real danger because your oblivious.
@Hyd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1783685#Comment_1783685
New player here, mostly a Freddy main, and I've seen some old videos of Freddy gameplay and I like the method of having to pull a survivor into the dream with you compared to passive map-wide sleeping. Why was he changed exactly?
Because powers are meant to be an upside. And while really good players could make Freddy work, it is arguable his old power was purely a downside because it purely adds more time to a chase. On top of this, the only good aspect of the power (The detection) was ultimately not fun.
It also helps to remember this was a time when loops were more powerful than they have ever been in DBD. So having a power that not only doesn't help you win chases, but makes you ACTIVELY WORSE at them was a no go.
-
@RamblinRango said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1783147#Comment_1783147
You just said it cupcake, it's an idea lol
Its not an idea. It is hardly even a concept. It is the pitch for a concept. You got like 5 more stages to go before this actually becomes a real idea.
I am going to say that the core thought process here isn't a good one though. Player elimination being something you will go very far out of your way to avoid is sorta core to DBD, and for the people most affected by losing games without much control (solos) the cost of death is extremely low as they can immediately enter another game. For SWF you can't, but your also in theory more in control over the match than anyone else: A duo has more control over the match than two solo survivors and a killer combined. So if you biff it early as a SWF group having to wait is a very fair 'cost' to that control: You had all the tools to live and everything was stacked in a way where if you played well you really couldn't die, and you died anyway. So any death is a fair one for you.
The fact that SWF REALLY don't want teammates to die compared to Solos who can be a bit more casual about it and say 'These guys are potatoes, I am going for the hatch' is also a key balancing mechanic because it allows the killer to apply more mental pressure to the more coordinated players, which is kinda important. Keeping death sorta unpleasant so SWF make mistakes trying to save a teammate from it and thus accidently ensuring it is actually part of the game's design and why the devs have said pretty much flat out they will not nerf camping or tunneling any more.
If no game state ever makes you feel bad, then the game's entire emotional arc gets screwed up and suddenly chases are kinda boring and doing exposed centrally located gens doesn't make you nervous and thus doing well in bad situations doesn't feel GOOD. It just becomes rote 'Hold W and press M1 at gens simulator' once survivors aren't stressed enough. That stress is kinda a hugely important spice to making the game work.
Its like trying to make getting struck out in Baseball feel less bad because 'that was your turn to play the game and the mean old pitcher didn't let you...' If you take away the consequences for poor performance and let every batter walk to first or whatever no matter what, suddenly the game just kinda sucks and there is no real tension in batting, even if you need to land hits to win.
-
@Tubby_Squirrel said:
Killer is WAY more fun!
But it is crazy that suvivor ques are longer. Not sure what you can do... I mean already each match takes 4 survivors our of que vs 1 killer. So even if there were FOUR TIMES as many people queuing survivor it should be about equal. I wonder what the ratio is...
You can kinda do napkin math.
If getting a killer match takes 10 seconds for example, or .16 minutes, and finding a match as a survivor takes 5, you know that it takes a survivor 50 times longer to find a lobby than a killer (because the survivor playerbase and killer playerbase exit games at ROUGHLY' the same time), meaning that if there was only 1 survivor and 1 killer per-lobby, there were roughly 30 times as many survivors as killers. However, because its 4 survivors to a lobby the 'expected' time for a killer 'should' be 4 times longer. This means we can assume there are about 120 survivors for every killer during 5 minute wait Qs, at least at that given rank bracket.
Yikes!
Of course this is fuzzy, because survivors leave games staggered if solo, and SWF enter games as a 'block' compared to solos who basically need 'solo friendly' lobies. So its probably somewhere between those two numbers, in that case.
Still really demonstrates how uneven the community is population wise, which is a problem on multiple levels: It creates economic incentive to favor survivors both with changes (they are clearly buying more copies of the game) and DLC (there are more of them to buy more skins!). BHVR low key has an ugly incentive to do the bare minimum to keep enough killers in the game so survivor Qs don't become bonkers (And that is easier because of the 4v1 nature of the game, despite in theory survivors potentially outnumbering killers by over 100:1 the Q-times are only about 30 times longer than killer's 'near instant' in that 5 minute clogged Q scenario, each lost killer is less impactful than they would be if it was a 1v1 game) and otherwise keep the survivors as happy and spendy as possible.
Which is baaaasiiiically what happened in 2017 when Killer mains were told to play another game and that REALLY blew up in BHVR's face. Which is why I will instinctively side with killers on almost any issue despite playing both sides (And favoring survivor more when it is not unbearably easy. GO CORVIDS RAH RAH RAH!). There is a huge power imbalance between the two communities which MUST be recognized.
-
Do not loop near a hooked survivor.
DO. NOT. LOOP. NEAR. THE. HOOK.
Also, before going for a hook rescue, count to 10, unless the killer somehow teleports away or is otherwise clearly occupied. A bad rescue is worse than no rescue. A good rule is if you start your rescue when inside the terror radius your actively helping the killer kill someone faster, unless you have borrowed time.
Don't just sit on your ass though watching the killer camp. They often see you, or assume your there if no gens are going off after winning a chase, or saw your scratches or whatever. You have no right to complain about camping if you made it the correct choice, its your job to PUNISH camping, not play into it. The best way to get the killer to panic and secure the rescue is to make sure 3 gens pop and make the killer afraid that the survivors are absolutely willing to win the game at the cost of 1 of them.
-
While I have said many times that anti-camping punishments can't get much stronger without completely breaking the game (The killer needs freedom to punish sloppy saves or else the survivors just get 12 hook states and the game becomes a nightmare, full Deathgarden unplayable mode) this isn't... too bad.
I think its a bit weak actually as you can generally hear survivors and presumably if your really close you can still see. Only being on the second state is rough too because that makes it a once per-game effect on a hook state that you might not get camped on anyway. It also does some weridness where it sorta... encourages camping because being blocked from aura reading during BBQ means the killer can't use the hook to instantly enter a new chase, which discourages them from leaving.
Also, speaking of Deathgarden, we learned from Deathgarden that too many visibility penalties for the solo player is an awful nightmare and absolutely shouldn't be a mechanic that we explore, especially if the solo player is in first person. Its really nauseating, disorientating, and makes the game physically unpleasant on an OOC level.
Still, its 'lets make a perk to help increase the window of rescues' rather than 'lets punish the killer for camping despite camping sometimes being the right choice' so its on the right track.
-
@CJCA915 said:
All of these killers trying to think of ways to avoid DS... don't immediately go after the person who just got unhooked, if you can't avoid them for 60 seconds then what are you doing?
Or just slug em! Your under no obligation to avoid people being unhooked sloppily, and DS doesn't change that!
Even if they have unbreakable a slug is still good pressure, though I admit the interaction between DS and unbreakable is not ideal and perhaps making it so you can only use one or the other (perhaps classify them plus other 'get out of jail' perks as 'heroic' perks where if you use one they all disable) would be ideal. If your in a position to eat a DS your USUALLY in a position to slug and then go after the rescuer, which lets you pressure 3 survivors at once usually (The person you chase, the person you slugged, the person who needs to pick up the slug). Your basically forcing someone else to pick up that survivor FOR you, and if you can 'corral' the rescuer well you can keep the chase around the person you suspect has DS to make it unrealistic for them to get revived.
DS doesn't actually stop you from properly capitalizing on a sloppy rescue. What it does is reduce the reward from 'game ending' to 'still pretty darn good.'
Also I can't believe I am defending DS but hey they managed to turn that perk around HARD from being an awful bit of garbage that totally inverts the power structure of the game to a pretty fair perk that killers have a lot of power to turn into a nothingburger. Its almost the survivor equivalent of a hex totem in that you can very easily nullify that perk slot now at the cost of a very minor time penalty, its real neat.
Obviously DS is really annoying when it hits, and it compounds OTHER problems in the game like exit gate teabagging, but it itself is actually a relatively healthy mechanic now. I will champion killer playability issues all day every day, I saw the DARK TIMES and I know what killer mains are up against morale wise. But this ain't it.
-
@EuphoricBliss35 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1780982#Comment_1780982
Huh?
bloodlust was put into the game for infinites. That existed 3-4 years ago. There are zero infinites in this game. YouTube what an actual infinite looked like. Bloodlust is not needed in 2020-2021
Did I say anywhere that Bloodlust WASN'T implemented to combat psudo infinites and infinites?
Well, in reality Bloodlust was implemented in response to the killer gameplay getting so bad that in 2017 killers were quitting en-mass, but part of it was those infinites.
However, there is a concept in game design called Emergent Behavior, and Bloodlust is a fantastic example of how a mechanic takes on new meaning once its in the game. Bloodlust is SUPER needed in 2020-2021 because despite its main reason for existing in the first place being gone (save for, you know, a lot of pseudo infinites still existing, but BHVR is getting better at that) it solves a major problem of DBD, mainly that the killer SHOULD be assumed to EVENTUALLY win a chase. Perfect looping play should not work indefinitely vs even a weak killer because what that means for the game is bad.
Its sorta like how in a fighting game you shouldn't be able to perfectly block or parry forever even vs a bad player. It makes the game really terrible to play when a single defensive option is overtuned. Specifically with looping, being looped a long time is frustrating, doesn't actually display that much survivor skill, and doesn't really have a 'solution' end game save for... giving up and letting the survivor win. Its the same problem as old hatches where the game can't continue until the experience gets so awful one side gives up.
Ergo, Bloodlust is an important quality of life feature. Again, it SHOULDN'T be affecting most of your games most of the time, but its a good 'emergency measure' to force the game to end by saying to the survivor "Ok we got it you can loop a long time to waste the killer's energy but that clearly isn't enough at this point to ensure you live. What else can you do?" and forcing the game to end if the survivor doesn't know how to do things like cleanly end chases.
Imagine what it would mean for the game if a really good survivor could loop for longer than 2+ minutes without spending any resources. That is just... bad. And its a big reason a lot of killers left during the test. Input leniency isn't needed in fighting games either, but its a critical QoL feature to ensure the game doesn't get stupid and physically unpleasant to play. Bloodlust is a similar feature, it exists for playability's sake, not for balance's sake.
The main purpose has BECOME to prevent an unpleasant unnecessary game state that doesn't serve to make the game better because the game is essentially already over at that point. Which is why removing it was a dumb idea that could only blow up in BHVR's face. Again, it isn't like Bloodlust was winning a ton of people games they should have lost: if your bloodlusting down every chase to force it you should lose unless survivors are so bad that your basically guarenteed a win. So the 'harm' of the mechanic is minor to non-existent, while its benefit is huge in terms of keeping the killer side in a playable state.
Ergo, very much an essential mechanic, I literally use Bloodlust as an example of a well designed anti-stalemate mechanic when talking about game design because its... kinda perfect at it? It feels good to know you can use it when you use it well, but it feels bad using it when you shouldn't, it helps smooth over other areas of the game and prevent unintended consequences of level design (ironically its intended purpose is now a side feature but still an important and necessary one), and it 'hooks into' the survivor emotional experience well by making longer and longer chases more stressful, encouraging survivors to do whatever they can to get out of chases or making them more likely to make mistakes.
-
Killer population got gutted by the Bloodlust test. Turns out bloodlust was critical in preventing the game from being an annoying chore because a survivor thinks it will be fun to loop for another 3 minutes while its 2v1 and there are still 4 gens left.
I am getting a lot of rank 1 killer games where all my opponents are rank 10s on PC now, and as a survivor the same, lots of rank 10s in high end lobbies. One game I even got a rando 15 in my lobby.
If we want to fix Q times, we don't need killer buffs per-say, we need killer QOL. Stuff that makes the game less heinously unfun to play without really affecting outcomes that much, much like how Bloodlust putting a 'loop timer' on that most survivors will never it anyway solves a major problem with the end game being yackety sax nonsense.
Stuff like a better concession system to prevent exit teabagging, grab bug fixes, chase proc fixes, ect would do a lot and make gameplay more smooth and less infuriating, and thus reduce the killer hemorage we are experiencing.
-
@dmhughes86 said:
I don't understand why people think that the current iteration is "healthy gameplay".
Being a lil worried about tunneling down a survivor is good. It should still be in your power to force the issue, but its nice that killers have some disincentive as long as the alternative to the tunnel isn't too terrible.
The main issue with DS-unbreakable is they can be combo'd. I think it would be ideal if these perks were made incompatible in some way, but otherwise DS is in a much better spot than it used to be.
Overall being forced to track survivor perks is good too. Ideally it should be in a way that rewards counterplay: Tracking Sprint vs DH for example. This means that all perks power up the survivor by existing. Killers honestly need more perks like this, but the survivor perk-scape isn't really that bad right now. The issues with survivors power level lies in other areas.
-
So the real trap the OP fell into here is insisting that these killers didn't have counterplay, but defining counterplay as 'mindgames.'
However, in theorycraft for games, counterplay actually denotes the idea that a given option or ability can be defeated with a diverse knowledge of matchups and mechanics and utilizing the correct tactics to defeat the given mechanic that has good counterplay.
By this definition, only Hag really doesn't have good counterplay, as hag nests are a bit... silly on defense and it becomes less 'You need to know more than how to run a braindead loop to beat hag' and more 'Hag legitimately shuts down a lot of aspects of the game that are actually healthy due to her absurd level of map presence in a game sorta defined by the killers having poor map presence but extreme presence in their local area.' She isn't unbeatable, but I think her defensive power is overtuned, its telling that despite being a 115 MS killer with a massive lunge Demo is considered significantly worse than hag despite also having similar cross map potential.
It isn't that nothing works vs the hag, its more that the things that DO work don't work very well and don't actually serve to meaningfully overcome gamestate the hag engineered at some cost, which is what counterplay should do. Ideal counterplay is something undesirable to generally do, and usually has some cost so the countered ability still gives value, but still clearly rewards you for countering it. In hag's case you aren't really rewarded and in many cases you are actively punished despite correctly countering it due to the counters sorta being self defeating: like turns out crawling around in areas to avoid the hag teleporting to you just means she runs to you AND still has the traps. You might be able to preemtively clear traps and distract her but it isn't... great... in the same way that you feel really rewarded for say... noticing Demo is in a chase and using that time to safely clear a critical portal of his knowing your safe to do it despite being made unaware.
Everyone else has tons of counterplay. Its just that the counterplay involves getting good at aspects of DBD other than mindlessly looping, which the OP doesn't want to do. But the entire point of a diverse cast is to make different members of it feel different to play. Guile shouldn't be able to beat literally everyone in streetfighter by spamming Flash-kick and Sonic Boom, if that is all you can do you DESERVE to get rocked the second anyone with an armored move or a move that can wiff punish half screen comes in to grab your booty.
Likewise, if every killer could be looped, every matchup would ultimately be the same and the game would kinda be boring. Killers that have anti-loop abilities tend to have other weaknesses. Lower movespeed for GS, Spirit, and Hag, for example, makes it hard for them to counter gen pressure done by stealthy survivors who avoid chases, and it makes it harder to search an area too, meaning that the 'damage' you do by hiding and quickly going back on the gen if they are patrolling is more intense. This rewards you more for tracking the killer, being good at hiding, or knowing how to actually END chases FAST rather than EXTENDING chases.
Like... get good at more aspects of the game. You don't have the right to win every match doing the same exact thing every single time and getting upset when a killer's power asks 'Hey got anything else? If you don't you die :3' when the power's kit is (generally) full of weaknesses.
And remember, ideally the game is balanced so that if no side makes ANY mistakes, 2 survivors die. But in reality its more interesting if mistakes are super common, and anti-loop killers generally have a lot of room for both sides to make mistakes.
-
As has been said many times before in many threads: The game can't support more anti-tunnel tech. At a certain point it causes everything to fall apart because the survivors have no reason to actually avoid the killer and can just 'force' gens through on them.
Devs have confirmed this, and we have a fantastic case study in how this mechanic would actually probably kill DBD in the form of Deathgarden, which enforced anti-tunnel and became impossible to balance as a result because without the psychological back and fourth of wanting to rescue at any cost/defend at any cost the game just became this mush where one side had all the advantage. Deathgarden actually made 'hooking' survivors so unattractive that people just slugged, and when they made tunneling worse than it already is that is exactly what happened in DBD.
At a certain point, survivors actually need to display some skill and show they understand how to do a good rescue and how to punish camping to stop tunneling. You gotta earn the right to take that survivor's life back from the killer, or there is no game.
This game has player elimination. Its kinda a core feature of the game that the killer really wants to find an efficient way to eliminate a player. Survivors... gotta deal with that, because without player elimination we get Deathgarden. NO ONE wants this game to become Deathgarden because it will absolutely die. Bad play means you are eliminated and either have to join a new match as a solo or watch your friends as a SWF. That is just the cost of playing this game, and survivors can't complain that the core feature that makes interacting with the killer spooky or trying to rescue under their nose a bad idea is working as intended.
-
Yeah. Survivors kinda dug their own graves with this one.
The bloodlust test was a shot in the foot for example: Turns out that killers don't enjoy the game devolving into a minute and a half chase around a loop once you are dead to rights gotten and your not trying to actually escape the chase, and a 45 time limit to how long you can loop a killer without dropping a chase is sorta necessary for the experience to not be a nightmare.
Survivors defend this by saying killers just get a 'free' speedboost to win the chase with no skill but... looping and counter looping at safe loops isn't a skill based interaction at all. The survivor without Bloodlust is just getting to win the chase (or draw it out to an unreasonable timeframe) with no skill. It cuts both ways, one of the two sides 'deserves' to win after investing a certain amount of time, and skill plays very little into it. So having a universal chase time limit is just a sensible thing to do: If the killer can afford to invest a MINUTE THIRTY SECOND MINIMUM to get two hits on a healthy survivor, it probably means that the killer is in such a superior position that its totally fine to say 'Survivor, make a play or lose.' But framing it as 'the killer isn't skilled enough to win that loop' means that... well... endgame devolves into nonsense that killers don't want to deal with, so they LEAVE.
It has nothing to do with the killer needing Bloodthirst to win games. The killer in theory already won the game, its a question of if your goin to be a sweaty jerk and stall the game for 2 minutes when its really over and you don't have a shot. If bloodlust is majorly affecting the midgame, it means either the killer is throwing and you should be good enough to climb out of ranks where Bloodlust is a major mid game mechanic, or your not a good survivor because your constantly in situations where you can't pip despite the killer being bad at time management.
So, whoopsie poopsie, a bunch of killers just noped out of DBD for a while because the mere IDEA of the test was a bad idea, as anyone who has ever had to be certified to do research would know: Because the burden of the experiment was placed on the backs of the people who wouldn't benefit from the experiment and caused 'harm' to them, the research was exploitative. In the grand scheme it wasn't a very damaging exploitation, but it does fit the definition of exploiting human subjects, and a lot of people subconsciously got that and realized they didn't want to be treated like lab rats in experiments that discount their needs and enjoyment of the game so they bounced.
Balancing the game around every petty gripe of survivors that the killer has a morsel of QOL mechanics to prevent survivors from bullying them endlessly is how we got the situation in 2017.
And to be clear the QOL situation of killers is deliberately kept in a bad spot to allow survivors to harass them because that is part of what sells this game: Case in point the killer's 'concession' mechanic is deliberately weak to give survivors the power to teabag at the gate. It would have been trivial to make the end game collapse 'surrender' just give survivors the emblem progress of healing each other and surviving and instantly ending the game, but there is a big dramatic countdown that forces the killer to continue participating in their own loss. It just sucks, and survivors are very aware its frustrating and enjoy taunting the killer over it rather than being class acts and just ending the game.
Its little things like that, little things where its sorta clear the devs are trying to almost 'edge' the killer, pushing the role to the brink of being a punching bag without making anyone go over the edge, that causes massive Q times. There is a massive economic incentive for BHVR to make the 'many' role of survivor feel powerful, and to encourage toxic gameplay loops to keep the survivors coming back buying tons of cosmetics and bringing more friends into the game. And it felt like we were pulling out of that situation (Survivor finally got remotely challenging again so I started playing it again, its nice to sometimes lose as a solo at red ranks, and killer didn't feel like BHVR actively hated my guts) but it feels like we are going right back into prime 'Ochido' mode where the survivor community just wants people to bully again and doesn't want an actual, you know, GAME.
-
Ok so some people don't seem to get the issue with keys. So lets break it down.
Both Moris and Keys totally change the end objective for both sides in a major way that totally flips the time scale the game is balanced around.
However, in most ways keys are WORSE than a Mori. That is right, I said it. Keys are worse designs than current Moris.
See, a key in a SWF lobby with a good team just guarentees the killer won't pip unless they focus down the key holder, and even then someone else can just nab it. The entire game goes from being about map pressure for the killer to this nonsense of keeping away the keys. The killer has almost no power to negotiate that outcome besides preventing the survivors from doing ANY gens. Getting 3 gens done isn't hard, and two survivors just bouncing from the game is pretty crushing.
Moris may be more 'dramatic' but its often the case in games for the more subtle option to be better. This is what game designers call 'invisible power.' A mori just removes 1 hook state from survivors. This is still HUGE and a crazy tempo swing as losing two chases becomes a death state instead of 3, but the killer still needs to find survivors and win chases, and you can do things like rotate the runners on your team in SWF. Its bonkers busted, but there is counterplay that there isn't really for keys.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't me saying 'Moris should stay as they are, its the keys that are the problem.' It is just that keys SUCK TO PLAY AGAINST. They are awful, the game warps to this nightmarishly awful thing on a level beyond playing vs Moris. At least moris have a 'positive tension' thing going on where suddenly the stakes of the chase are way higher, while with keys the stakes of chases are kinda the same its just the value of your time that warps and requires you to basically run the game in a way that doesn't really work in high level play. The main point of agitation about Moris that isn't there for keys is player elimination, but player elimination is a key mechanic of DBD and without it we would be full Deathgarden, and no one wants that.
Vs a Mori, a good player or group can still win. Solos can still hatch. Survivors still have POWER vs a Mori. Killers lack that. Which is why killers DESPISE keys. A lot of the 'things killers complain about' are feeling helpless in scenarios where they have perfectly analyzed the situation but can't 'force through' a survivor's transparent plans: It isn't about losing interactions, its about having no ways to win interactions. Keys are the worst offender here.
-
I don't think either needs to be removed but they need to be SERIOUSLY toned down.
Key probably should be a 'One survivor only' mechanic. You can't pop the whole team out.
Ortz's idea for Moris is that they should require everyone to be off their first hook state. This isn't a terrible idea, as it helps remove the 'tunnel down' aspect but still allows killers to get a HUGE swing in pressure if they play very well. Might make survivors think twice about being super casual about trading spots on the hook too.
-
Camping is already as weak as it can be without the game breaking.
Devs have tested multiple times trying stuff like increasing repair speed during a camp or slowing the hook timer. What that does is create a situation where the killer literally can't win any interaction with the hook so they just win via slugging. If you tried to hook in those tests a survivor would just stare you down at the hook or be really overtly ready to rescue because if you stuck about you were auto-losing the game, and leaving immediately meant you were giving up basically any pressure the hook got you.
Survivors have gotten as many anti-camping concessions they can get. If you want your teams to be tunneled less at this point, work harder to not be the first down, and get better at doing late rescues.
Basically, hooking is already only marginally better than slugging already. Any weaker and the game just becomes... toxic and awful. So... no. No base BT. Make a sacrifice for a perk that gives you something you don't technically need unless the rescuer is sloppy.
-
As has been stated many times, killer cannot be made any weaker at the unhook than they already are without the game entirely breaking.
The killer NEEDS the right to punish bad survivor rescues. Its just absolutely vital to the design. Not so they CAN tunnel necessarily, but because if they can't even THREATEN it the game gets... stupid.
Tunneling is a survivor sided problem. If you are getting tunneled, it means your fellow survivors did a sloppy rescue and screwed you over and the killer is doing what they 'should' be doing in that scenario.
Back in my day the idea of getting unhooked at all as a guarantee was ridiculous. Now everyone expects to get to play through every hook state and gets mad if they aren't allowed to fully heal up before being chased again, like it isn't the killer's job to pressure you and force you to do something to earn the right to survive.
Of course it makes a bit of sense because survivor Q is messed up. This means its harder to shrug off a bad match and go into a new one as a solo. But that is primarily because a lot of changes were made to make killer way less attractive than survivor. Trying to add more anti-tunnel tech to the game would force killers to double down, be more unpleasant, and make it worse as Q times shoot up. Again, the game cannot sustain stronger anti-tunnel tools.
As a SWF, being tunneled is a chance to punish the killer hard. You shouldn't be getting sloppy rescues, so it likely means your stealth play is off because you can't 'reset' to safety. If you are tunneled and the killer hard camps, if you did a long chase you won your team the game and pipped, huzzah you won!
As a solo, you gotta be a lot more... 'feral.' Hungry. You need to work to make sure your not the first in a chase because you can't be 100% about your teammates. You still need to cooperate with your fellow survivors, and shouldn't go full 'immersed.' Its just that your first response to detecting a killer shouldn't be 'do as much of the gen before running.' You CAN'T count on a good hook rescue, but if your not first on the hook as a solo you can basically guarantee your pip.
Learn jukes and fade-aways. If your ONLY skill to survive is looping, your very vulnerable to map changes, patches, and anti-looping killers and you DESERVE to lose if these killers come into play against you. Learning how to drop a chase is hard, especially now that survivors are much slower than they were back in the 'break LOS twice and the chase is basically over' days, but its still fully possible and getting good at that massively improves your success rate.
Rank 1 is not 'the best.' Rank 1 is inevitable through basic competence. You don't deserve to win every game you play doing the same thing you do every game to get to rank 1.
-
@Jay_Whyask said:
I'm going to try to be as polite as possible when I say all of this. Unbind your crouch button, if you're not being chased you should be repairing gens, if the killer is glaring at you hard enough so see the whites of your eyes running is better than hiding, you don't need to unhook somebody 3 seconds into their first hook each phase of the sacrificial process is 60 seconds long, if the killer is camping doing gens is better than immediately trading hooks, stop wasting your DS, stop complaining when the killer does even moderately well, if you're being camped trying to unhook yourself is literally the worst thing to do in that situation, if you get farmed yell at your teammate not the killer, if you're solo queuing use bond or kindred you need to know where your teammates are.
Mere words cannot describe how frustrating it is seeing rank 1 survivors play the game like they just installed it.
I agree with all of this but the first. Hiding instead of being in a chase is the superior option for a solo player simply because you can't be sure if your team are a sack of potatoes.
However, way too many people are subtle when there is no reason to be. Like I remember watching on bond a teammate just crouching around walking in circles in a panic trying to be as hidden as possible when someone went down ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MAP.
A good rule of thumb is you shouldn't hide unless you have good reason to suspect a stealth killer is near (like you saw them come by), or you KNOW an overt killer is near and peeking around the area. If your not sure, its better to assume your good to do gens than not.
Also, survivors especially DO need 'hook conduct' beaten into their heads. Insta-rescues are baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad, like its the wrong choice literally no matter what because you didn't even give the killer time to leave so your subjecting the injured player to another immediate chase and letting the killer get free pressure on two survivors with a super quick down in their future.
@xenotimebong said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1775370#Comment_1775370
It’s painful sometimes running aura reading perks. Watching the Meg camp a super safe pallet, get hit, then throw it and run away into a deadzone. 😭 Much as I love Kindred and Bond, sometimes I’d rather live in ignorance.
Nah. Use that info to let you know that you don't need to rush on that rescue, and if it comes down to you and that meg, spend your time looking for hatch.
-
I don't mind BT where it is myself. While its frustrating for a killer, it allows survivors to punish a sloppy camp in a way that it fills a gap in what survivors 'should' be able to do without being overwhelming because unless its EGC and you literally can't wait to go around the BT survivor you can just... not attack until the two split up.
Like maybe the time to mend on BT could be a bit longer? That is the only change I would make, it should be more taxing to take that protection hit, and perhaps BT should turn off if you start to repair or heal someone, but otherwise BT is actually in a pretty healthy state.
-
Windup is not a viable fix, as others have said survivors having too much info on the shot kills the power. Counterplay around Deathslinger HAS to be based on very small reaction windows with cover or minor jukes. Those already are possible, but don't feel great for either DS, or survivor, which is the problem. The windup fix just moves more of the unfun onto DS which is NOT acceptable for a skill intensive killer.
The other issue is that DS already kinda is in a weird spot, as a 110 movespeed killer his power needs to give him extreme chase potential, but as it stands his power is very 'loopable' because its even more affected by cover than huntress. So things that weaken the power vs loops but increase the power's ability to win open chases (such as having a huntress style windup where the longer you ADS the faster the gun is) aren't great either. Obviously its loop dependent, but there are so many loops where adding even a fraction of a second to the gun's time between aiming and hitting the distance the survivor is at will fail to get the survivor.
I will say his balance, while probably off, isn't so off that he is in a crisis state that needs fixing now. Honestly while I can get survivors don't like him I think overall he needs a minor buff, its just that he is a very 'lopsided' killer. They could change nothing and I would say 'deal with it' but it would be nice for him to be less clunky and for him to feel better vs survivors.
Turns out a literal gun would be hard to balance, who knew?
My thoughts are: No reload, a recharge instead, so DS can't just spam shots, and DS does not slow down or have any wait while aiming down sights. Slow down the initial shot very slightly, increase after a tiny wait time that THEN makes Deathslinger a bit slower aiming.
So Deathslinger's hipfire is a bit weaker, but if he telegraphs he is planning to shoot there is a small window for him to immediately take the shot and have an easier time of it, which means there is a window where the survivor expects that they need to dodge. It also adds some mindgame potential for DS because if the survivor breaks off looping to do a dodge suddenly you can lower the gun to push in for a hit, or just wait an extra second after they change direction again to actually fire. DS loses less time reloading, but has to wait a bit before trying another shot again, making the power better 'inside' loops but worse spamming over distance.
Will this be a good change? I dunno. Again, its just such a funky power to tweak because it kinda does the opposite of what you want a 110 power to do. Even though Huntress is very similar her ability is far better inside loops than DS's for many reasons, so copy pasting her downside to DS, when DS's power is already weaker, is just not a good solution.
-
A better concession system for both sides would not be unwelcome as a minor QOL change. Changing the DC button to a concede vote for survivors if everyone is incapacitated, or into just a concession button for killers in the end game collapse, paying out the points for the hooks and healing still left to be done, would make the game a bit less toxic.
-
I think the bigger issue is the severe imbalance of control over offerings between killers and survivors, than map offerings themselves being toxic. Killers really need 2 offering slots so that they actually have some flexibility in controlling what happens in the game. As is, survivors have a 4:1 advantage over the killer and can do all sorts of nasty stuff by stacking upgrades.
If survivor map offerings were 'weaker' than killers (So single map offering is a 100% chance, while it takes 2 map offerings to 50/50 the killer's one) then that might make killers feel way less helpless when it comes to bad maps. While there are some very killer sided maps too, we don't see them nearly as often.
-
@TAG Already posted the reciepts proving this is troll bait and that the OP is not starting a good faith conversation. Ergo, don't engage.
-
I think a lot about how matches end could be worth changing, but definitely not this in this manner.
"Gate Ruin" might make a good side benefit to bloodwarden though?
-
Bringing an item to basically guarantee the killer focuses you down out of spite, or moris you, to get an 'advantage?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ru8DMW-grY&ab_channel=Sup