duhffee
duhffee
About
- Username
- duhffee
- Joined
- Visits
- 70
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Alias03 said:
I've been saying this exact thing for awhile now. Not only does the vast amount of perks "you have to know" become super daunting, its especially so to new players to the game thus turning them off to continue to play. In a MP game you need some sort of readability in real time for both the survivor and the killer in order to make split second decisions to try and counter what you know they are capable of. In the current game state that is impossible.
Exactly!
-
@danielmaster87 said:
Where's my Myers-style instamori after a certain amount of hooks? Or how about no hooks? Just give it to killers at baseline. Does that seem too overpowered to you? Not to me. It's no more overpowered than hatch is.
Unashamedly I will say, "Yes. I do want the 4k all the time." Doesn't everybody? Don't all survivors want to escape every time? Of course we want those things. It's more a question of did we deserve it? "Could I have gotten that last kill?" In many circumstances, yes. Could a lone survivor have escaped by doing all the gens and opening the exit gates while there are 4 gens left? Not on your life. So why do they get a free escape? Why do they get a comeback factor and killers don't?
You could say NOED or Blood Warden can be used to make a comeback. But those are perks, whereas hatch is built into the game. If no gens get done and there's one survivor left alive, they STILL have a chance to escape.
The common argument is "killers have an equal chance to find the hatch and close it". It doesn't change the fact that there's a chance the survivor escapes when they likely shouldn't have. And that's not the end of it either because once hatch is closed the gates get powered for some reason.
Another argument defending hatch is, "But if there's no chance to escape, why shouldn't the survivor just hide?" If the killer gets tired of the survivor taking the game hostage, he should be able to open the exit gate AT ANY TIME. Please implement this. It's a compromise solution. It doesn't get rid of hatch but it ends one of its negative symptoms.
The EGC should also trigger after the last gen gets done. Another great solution. That makes the EGC an actual threat to the survivors, instead of 2 full minutes of overtime where they can rescue their hooked teammate as easily as any other time in the game. They're pressured to open the exit gates and run out, before time runs out. It's a buff to Blood Warden? So what? That's still a fringe perk anyway that could be played around by 99ing the gates.
I'm not kidding about my initial idea for a killer's hatch. If you're not gonna remove hatch, at least give killers an equivalent. 5 hooks or so into the game: the killer gets to mori someone. It's a shortcut just like hatch, because you can use a key to open it before all the gens are done. "But we can't tell how many hooks someone is on!" Add a hook counter below the survivor section of the UI! It's that easy!
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Yea I'm gonna argue that you're asking for too much with that. If the game only scored on how many you killed and nothing else, I'd maybe understand. But if you're already dominating the match, you're already scoring high. The hatch is meant to benefit the survs, just like being generally faster as a killer is meant to benefit you.
I generally find that killers at higher tears are already keeping the hatch in mind and almost always closing it before a surv can get through (not accounting for keys). It's just a part of the game that a killer needs to keep in mind. Since there's already offerings for insta-kill, I'd say you can't add another option. Killers already have advantages that should make that job easy, so if you're problem is the hatch, I think you just need to change up your tactics.
-
@yeahboi said:
"Mr swimming champion, now that you lost your hand in the accident you truely recognize how bad you are compared to your competition. Don't blame the thing that objectively hinders your ability to perform, Just to commit die, noob"
Except this is more like taking someone's steroids away, rather than a hand lol. And even then the killer is still faster, so...
-
@carnage4u said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/207814/no-bloodlust-true-skill-balance
If this game was perfectly balanced, this logic would be accurate. This game is poorly balanced, therefore the statement is flawed
I agree and disagree. Strongly agree it's not balanced lol, but I think something like this could be steps towards better balancing. It's hard though, because this game suffers from a terrible situation in which not everyone is having the same experience since half are killing and half are surviving, so people will ultimately have completely different opinions if they only main one side. I always say this game's community is almost like the virtual equivalent of Dems vs Reps lol
-
@judge_fist said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/207814/no-bloodlust-true-skill-balance
That doesn't make much sense imo. No bloodlust=True skill? If your activating bloodlust even just a few times a match your already wasting too much time chasing one survivor and gens start flying. Against the high end players this means your most likely going to lose. Most "true skill" players already dont use it much anyways. The only place this might help is the median end survivors and that is most certainly not where the true skill players are anyways. As for new players I dont if it helps or not anyways since new survivors shouldn't be to difficult for a new killer to kill either. All that said I still think taking it out is a silly idea. If it's only activated once a match if that. How is it making that much of a difference anyways at the high end of play. It still has it's necessary moments though. Either way it just doesn't seem like it's making that much a difference. Just throwing my 2 cents in here for what its worth from someone who plays both sides at high ranks.
If the matchmaking was actually good, I'd mostly likely agree with you. But when I (usually rank 4-6 when playing surv) have to lose chases to rank 20's (the ones that seem new) and have it heavily affect my rating, it almost always comes down to bloodlust. If I always matched with equivalent killers, it'd probably be less important. There's also the issues on tunneling and whatnot, so it is more the broader issue if how it helps killers who shouldn't be getting that assistance when a more skilled player is doing things right, only to be punished by something they can't control.
-
@TheChaddyCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/207814/no-bloodlust-true-skill-balance
You can’t have skill based loops when like 95% of loops are 100% safe with no mind game. Ever wonder why spirit is so strong
I'm sorry, but if you think 95% are safe, then you need to change your strategy. Any red rank killer I've played against usually knows how to counter almost any loop, even this weekend without bloodlust. I'm not saying that looping is ideal, but bloodlust shouldn't be either.
-
@TheButcher said:
Anyone who thinks Bloodlust isn't needed in the game in it's current state, doesn't know enough about the game to be commenting. Like honestly. You should have learned at least long/long loops by the time you reached Green Ranks, and you should have some semblance of map layouts by red ranks.
But your comment goes both ways... A killer should have learned the same things and adapted, rather than need a catch-up feature.
-
@daTrueKing86 said:
I believe that exit gates need a small change, this being that the progress of opening the doors should reset when a survivor lets go (similar to totems). I feel that this could lead to a lot of benefit in the game, for one making endgame collapse a more significant game function. As it stands now, the endgame collapse might as well not even exist since survivors can just 99% doors creating no barrier between them and escaping. And even though killers can open doors themselves to force the endgame collapse, its usually a waste of time to do that and giving the survivors even more freedom when you could be chasing down another survivor. Making the door progress reset forces the survivors to make a huge decision for the endgame; either open the doors and force the collapse, or leave the doors closed to go for a last minute save but risk not being able to open the doors in time.
There are also many benefits that this change could have to the game and its meta. For one, it would enhance many perks like blood warden, remember me, wake up, and no one left behind. Blood warden would become better as in the endgame, survivors would be more inclined to open exit gates for not wanting to risk the long opening animation during a vital escape point. Wake up would become more viable as opening the exit gates faster would actually be important especially when going for last minute clutch saves. In addition, the bonus healing and rescue speeds from no one left behind could be more useful as opening the gates would be more incentivized. Remember me would also become better as having the exit gates take longer to open would incentivize the survivors to start the endgame collapse even during a dangerous point in the game.
Overall, making this small change to exit gates, I feel would make a significant impact on the gameplay in DBD. In addition, the only small drawback is that survivors would be forced to open the gates when someone is hooked in order to be able to go for an effective save causing the endgame collapse. However, those clutch saves would still be possible but it would put a lot more pressure on the survivors to make the move if they want the save. I would almost consider that another benefit considering that camping is a problem of its own. Consideration would be appreciated.
As someone who plays surv a bit more, I believe doing this would ultimately just play to the killer's advantage 95% of the time. It's already easy enough to pressure a surv off the gate when working on it. I'd maybe be open to a small regression system, but a full reset would be too much imo
-
@Unseen_Force said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/207814/no-bloodlust-true-skill-balance
Spoken like someone thats never touched the killer side of the game lol
Except it's actually coming from someone who has indeed played as a killer and sees how easy it is to catch up. I personally know that I don't need it and see it as a crutch. I still stand by my belief that of it's bothering you this weekend, it's a you problem. Anyone who can play killer knows how to work around that.
-
@eff said:
I never had problems without bloodlust but then I got midwich with a looping survivor who abused every single room on the map. Oh boy.
Yea, the map balancing is another issue, but that's for another discussion lol
-
@Axe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1766542#Comment_1766542
that was so satisfying to watch, a survivor reading a killer movement like a book and he can keep himself on the same pallet loop until he make a mistake and get actually punished for it, unlike bloodlust where you get punished no matter how well you perform
My point exactly! I feel like many killers aren't realizing how much bloodlust gives them an advantage when someone is outperforming them, even though they still get hit/downed. This weekend is showing what happens when the survs who understand evading the most actually have that fighting chance.
-
@Rivyn said:
You apparently think maps are balanced if bloodlust isn't needed.
I never said they were balanced, because I agree that the maps are not balanced on both sides. There are plenty of other issues I have with the games current balancing, but for people to say that bloodlust creates an issue for killers just isn't fair to say.
-
@SquirrelKnight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1766551#Comment_1766551
Thats the basic mentality. If killers cant catch up in 5 seconds then they are obviously bad and shouldnt be allowed to play the game with the survivor masters. As much as i love the concept of this game.....at this point i dint think this game is going to get better. The devs seem to not really care about what killer players have to say, if people good at the game say its bad they are insulted and told its bad for new players and survivors. If newer players take issue with something all we hear is "GiT gUd"
There are plenty of issues on both sides, but it's really not fair to say the devs ignore killers. As someone who tends to play surv, I find it to be the opposite. So I'd say it's just the devs at this point not understanding proper balancing in this game still lol
-
@Leachy_Jr said:
If a survivor running around a window 3 times in a row and me never catching up due to terrible map design and loop balancing is apparently classified as them being "better" than me and "outplaying" me then jeezus christ.
Looks like ebony spirit players are the best people in the game by that logic.
I mean, if you're getting looped and windowed that often, I would argue that it's a matter of tactics. If you're relying on that extra speed boost to catch folks, it might be time to adapt and improve. It's not like survs can counter like in a game such as Friday the 13th, so sadly looping is the only cheesy thing people can do to help themselves and their team. I'm not saying I like it, but it's a trade off.
-
@MythMage said:
Survivors should be scared of this, actually, very similar to the map reworks. With the map reworks, killers were already fighting an uphill battle, so when there is a closer semblance to balance, Killers seem OP. Now, if they truly remove Bloodlust after this experiment (I'd say keep BL 1, but BL 2 and 3 need to go 100%), then Killers are going to become better players and thus Survivors are going to have a harder time on average. Now, this is ultimately a good thing, but I'd just be careful if I was you.
Agreed! I think we'll see people adapt properly and get better. Totally makes sense that losing the speed boost will make people think differently and improve.
-
@bjorksnas said:
nah
damn you got me. You win bruh
-
@UnknownlyKnown said:
Did you really rely on bloodlust that much in the past? I'm personally unaffected by the experiment, as if I break pallets, bloodlust gets removed anyway, so I usually never got bloodlust and still got chases done.
As a person who plays survivor more often, this is the statement that makes most sense to me. I feel like I'm seeing a lot of frustrated killers, simply because bloodlust was their crutch. If you weren't already outsmarting survivors and catching them without that boost, you're probably now seeing the real skill gap you were avoiding beforehand lol
-
@TheButcher said:
I get they want data, but the game is already stressful enough to play. Then to disable Bloodlust on top of that, when it's needed in maps like Autohaven, Haddonfield, and the Elementary School just to catch survivors around the long and ridiculously close loops. There is no point putting yourself through that additional stress.
I'm sure I'm not the only one making this decision. Most probably won't say anything, especially since when anyone voices anything killer related they just get dismissed.
Anywho. This kind of 'test' should of been done on the PTB, not the main game. The main game should be used for the best experience, not making harder on the most stressful role just for data.
I'm sorry but you just sound salty. As someone who tends to play survivor more, I only see this as a way to make chases more balanced. I said this on someone else post, but bloodlust for a skilled survivor is like being really good at forza, but then GTA's catch up feature in races is turned on for the killers.
This test only shows me who is getting mad because they're finally seeing what skilled survivors can do in chases when the killer doesn't get a speed boost.
-
I'm sorry, but to just seems like you're getting frustrated with people who are trying hard not to die. I think the other comments cover the fact that there may have been mistakes in the chases you showed, but I'd argue that the lack of bloodlust is actually letting those who have the skill to avoid the killer actually prove so. Bloodlust is like the equivalent of someone who is really good at forza having to watch someone catch up to them in a GTA race just because catch up is turned on.
That being said, looping is a larger discussion, and as someone that plays survivor quite a bit, I have to say that looping like this is just a result of dealing with the way killers play. So at the end of the day I'm actually cool with the lack of bloodlust.
-
@ZerLukas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1738966#Comment_1738966
Do you have any examples of a killer that's fine without BBQ but is OP with it? If we take silent + quick the killers that come to mind are Wraith and Hillbilly with certain addons. Wraith still has to decloak so I can run away and generally isn't a killer anyone's afraid of. So silent Billy is the only maybe. Can't confirm though as I never played him with silent addons, in my opinion that's totally not what Billy's about. But I use Spine Chill anyway so stealth is not something I'm afraid of at all.
Toxicity is going nowhere as it is a part of human nature. And difficulty by itself is not a bad thing at all. Also no I don't think that the game currently is in some superbroken unplayable state and needs a ton of changes. Compared to DBD 2016 it's a masterpiece of balance. The only things I consider truly OP are keys, moris and some addons like iri head. And some maps. Also DBD currently is in no jeopardy to die. The average player count is about triple of what it was in 2017 on steam alone, I'm not even counting all other platforms. But introducing that many changes and changes that definitely not everyone's gonna like is something that might hurt the game a lot and kill it in end.
And about those advantages you speak so much of. I have no advantages unavailable to others by the game mechaincs. Do you think I'm some hacker or a glitch abuser? I'm neither. I simply use the most effective options out of what's given to me besides a few that I like or don't. And that's how most people play. I see nothing wrong with that. And if we're talking about BBQ again I'm not avoiding some issue with that perk. I truly do NOT see any issues with it.
And how can locking unique perks not hurt variety? As of right now I have 83 surivvor perks and 75 killer perks to choose from. With your system I'll have less than 20 on each side. And that's not even considering that some will still be garbage because perferct balance is a utopia and there will always be things that are hardly useful.
My problem with your system is that it is a ton of changes, enough to go make Dead By Daylight 2 really, aimed to achieved a virtually unachievable goal of perfect balance that it's most likely not gonna achieve while making a ton of sacrifices in the process at least in the form of aforementioned perk choice variety. Look at Hillbilly, hardly anyone plays him now because a lot of changes went through that many people disliked. With your idea every character and the literal core of the game will go through changes that many people won't like. And the result is obvious to me - a lot less people will play it.
I didn't judge your character based on a picture or at all. All that I assumed was that if you take those particular perks your opinion on them most likely isn't nowhere near as low as mine. That and your comments about BBQ confirm that our opinions on perks are generally different. That's all that I was saying. I haven't written a single word about your character as that's not my business.
I'll reference your concerns based the number paragraph that they should up:
1) Legion, Shape, Nurse, Ghost Face, Blight, Oni are just a handful of other killers I've seen get extreme advantages with crazy loadout combinations that may include BBQ. These loadouts can simply cater too much to their only unique thing, which leads to the issue on the killer side. Killers in the current system have their specific weapon/ability that is bound to them (which makes sense), but the fact that they can use an entire loadout of other characters has a drastic change on their abilities. It essentially means they are no longer the killer that's described. I also think that this proposed system would fix survivors too, but the added slot of a bound ability on killers can make those combinations too one-sided at times. Let's not avoid the fact that killers are meant to have a certain level of OPness to them, but that can be too much currently if we're talking about a balanced gameplay for all.
2) I never claimed that this game is a failure, but simply that it needs adjusting imo in order to improve. My entire friend group that plays it has noticed that the game leaves a sour taste in our mouth as the game has gone on, simply due to the these unbalanced matches we play. I actually have a hard time convincing other/new friends to try the game out simply because of the brief experiments they've had with crazy loadouts players. From my neck of the woods, people shy away from the game, which is a real bummer to see.
3/4/5 - they have similar talking points for me) - I never made those claims either about you being a "hacker" and having an individual advantage compared to others, but that people create specific perk-based advantages with the loadouts they can use due to them all being available. And just to be clear about the number of perks you say you have available - *abundance does not directly relate to variety*. Just because the perks are all there to choose from, doesn't mean they're used equally by those playing. I'm not saying that every perk needs to be removed or completely redone like you claim; I'm saying that they should be bound to their respective characters and adjusted for the sake of better gameplay. When everyone is using the same exact perks because it gives them unrealistic advantages, the game loses it's soul and originality.
To be clear, DbD already starts off with the system I propose. When you start the game, you're already only using character-specific perks and getting an understanding of what's working and what isn't. The idea is already there for the balancing I'm talking about. It's only when everyone has played the game enough that the game opens up the option to mix and match. I'm claiming that this "gate" should be closed (to an extent) in an effort to avoid these sweaty and overly toxic loadouts that people are using on both sides. So I would argue that my proposition isn't really flawed, but that many of us have already seen what characters are extremely weak based on their perks, but don't want to lose the OP options we've been given through levelling up. There will still be variety since each character as a whole is the variety, not the perks. My only add-on to maybe support my system would be to allow for alternate perks for these characters for the balancing efforts. I'm not saying give entirely different perks, but maybe have a "tree-like" option to let a perk have a slightly different effect or outcome, while still staying true to the characters' traits.
-
@bubbabrotha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1744890#Comment_1744890
I think you should just admit this idea isn't good, and be done with it.
First of all, just because someone has an idea you don't agree with doesn't mean they should just leave. Secondly, thanks for the input. My friends who majored in game-design would disagree, but I'll just let them know that the idea we thought up for improving on a game we like doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that the game is an utter failure, but that it's current state of play creates a consistent amount of repetitive matches that include people over-using perks/abilities that have turned it into something sour because of the ridiculous loadouts certain people have created with certain characters. My issue with the responses I've received (and tried to provide a thought-out response to) seem to have a common theme, in that they are usually people who prefer killer more often and try to defend a few of the perks I've pointed out. The issue I've seen there is that most of the responses of "I'm not bothered by it" isn't really a point to make when trying to understand where I'm coming from. And the idea that this could lead to too many changes really isn't that true. All of these perks for individuals already exist. By simply keeping them "mostly" locked to that character, the devs could then see which ones truly need buffing/nerfing and then get it done.
As far as this idea of a system goes, I can happily admit that I live by my suggestion, always using 2-3 perks that are directly related to the characters I'm using.. Does that mean that I avoid certain characters? You betcha! But that's exactly why I argue for this system that would lead devs to improve the balancing. The current system shows that the devs aren't focusing on making each character useful in their own way as intended. By keeping perks bound to the characters they belong to, there's more individual variety for the gameplay if it was enforced. But many of the people that have responded don't seem to believe that the variety is there. This could be due to a couple things; from not having faith in the devs to put the time in and actually care about balancing; to not wanting to lose the perks they have simply because they enjoy having these biased advantages in the gameplay. At the end of the day, It's felt more like I'm getting closed down by people for the sheer lack of not wanting any change.
Also - to respond to your other comment: "They were intended for them. Why else would you be able to unlock them?" -- I'm confused by what you mean. I'm specifically arguing for them to unlock their own perks, but only use those (with the exception of being able to use at most 2 perks that are from other characters). The issue I've seen is that by letting these killers use any perk, paired with their weapon/ability, it can creates more uneven events than is intended. We once played against a HillBilly with BBQ, Hex:Ruin, and Overcharge; essentially allowing him to only tunnel one person to start and then spend the rest of the match sprinting at us, while we lose most progress on a gen and be under a constant struggle to finish even one gen. I played again with friends tonight, where we got matched with a Huntress who used BBQ to their advantage by throwing hatchets at us immediately after hooking. While that definitely isn't as OP compared to other killers using it, it clearly showed an immediate advantage for a killer that doesn't normally have that. Let's be clear, killers are expected to have an advantage as the killer, but not like that. 90% of the time people don't use the perks intended for their character, and that's the problem that I see.
At the end of the day, DbD is one of the handful of games that has a unique and diverse set of playable characters, but doesn't keep their uniqueness by letting people share those perks and combine them for scary combinations. I'm not saying "be like the other big team-based games", but simply pointing out that this current system appears to have created some toxic gameplay experiences where everyone spams the same perks and removes the variety that some people claim to see. Just because the perks are all there to choose from, doesn't mean they're used equally like a balanced experience.
I hope this helps you out with my reasoning.
Thank you for checking out my TED talk
-
@bubbabrotha said:
You realise each killer has a unique power, right?
I do, and the fact that they can pair their unique power/weapon with perks that were not intended for them (and ultimately can make certain loadouts OP) is the exact issue. Maybe if the survivors had the same thing, it'd be a different story, but I even argue that survivors shouldn't have every perk at their disposal as well.
-
@IshinSolarc said:
Okay, this may sound douche, but try playing 5 matches with any killer only using their teachable perks, you will notice on how their perks most of the time don't work with the killer you chose to play.
When I play survivor I choose based on visuals on who I want to main, because I'm free to choose with no restrictions.
The same doesn't happen with killers. A killer is based on their power, and since the power is the main point of playing the killer, imagine if their perks don't combine with their power, why would you even play them over other killers who have good perks for their powers?
Your idea would just bring meta gaming to a worst state, where you would only find the same survivors and killers in high ranks, because they have a good basekit from the get-go.
But even with your idea of balacing each killer with their perks, it would just need a full game design rework, which would not be the same experience when playing DBD. It would just end in a whole different game which would feel like Overwatch, that you know a character and know what he can do, in the end it becomes a boring gameplay with almost no real time strategy.
I wouldn't say that's douche, it's a valid argument, but I worry it's missing my points a bit. Honestly, I actively try to play using at least 2 of the character's perk on both sides (and the struggle with that is the issue). But it seems nobody is understanding the point of proper game balancing. Your argument that nobody wants to play with their character's original perks is my exact discussion point. By not binding those perks to their characters, the devs take no time to rework them for the sake of better gameplay. There's already a toxic meta with the perks being used right now, but when you take away the option to have every meta perk on your favorite character, you encourage (and even force) players to choose carefully, knowing now that who they choose has positives and negatives.
There's no way to have "real-time" strategy when every player uses the same perks that lessen the experience on both sides of the matches. It's more boring than OW when everyone uses the same thing every time with essentially different skins. I would honestly say to go look at how the Friday the 13th game works. While it is going away soon due to a lack of consistent support (and clearly had it's own buggy issue since the didn't care to focus on it much), it's big plus was that each character has their own positive and negative perks, bringing an importance to who you choose as a team. DbD just doesn't have variety right now, even if you think it does just because it's a different character with usually the same perks. This is really about fundamental in multiplayer design at this point as the game has gained it's competitive nature and needs restructuring.
It may not be the game balance everybody wants, but it's the balance we deserve lol.
-
@ZerLukas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1737090#Comment_1737090
1) I really fail to see your problem with BBQ. It's used that much because it gives double bp, otherwise it's a mediocre perk. Yes, it helps mobile killers more than others but it doesn't shift balance that much. Nurse is gonna be stronger than Clown with or without BBQ. Make that perk disappear and hardly anything will change balance-wise. I actually would benefit from that as I use BBQ on Trapper and it's really weak on him but those BPs are worth it for me. But if it's gone I'll replace it with something like Corrupt Intervention which will be much stronger.
2) To get what you want, mere balancing is not enough. Some perks ideas are just bad and you're gonna have to take these perks, throw them into a trash bin and create new ones in their place. Unnerving presense is such an example because reducing skillchecks simply doesn't work on experienced survivors. They hit DS skillcheck all the time and making a gen skillcheck less that DS skillcheck is just inadequate. I see no other option than to just delete the perk and create another one. Another example is Spirit Fury - it is a good perk, but only on M1 killers paired with Enduring (another killer's perk) And it's not useful on Spirit at all. Also Hex: Haunted Grounds will be entirely useless - who's gonna bother cleansing hex totems if the only two perk available are Haunted Grounds and Trill of the Hunt.
And there are more examples like that on both sides. You gonna have to replace like 60% of perks with new ideas entirely. That's gonna take a lot of work. And in the end Nurse is still gonna remain stronger than Clown. Because killer powers and addons affect balance much more than perks.
But if you think I only favor killers let's look at survivors. Let's take Ace. The idea behind his perks is luck. It fits his personality and backstory very well but gameplay-wise luck is unreliable garbage. You can make it less garbage but you can't make it not unreliable - that's the whole idea of luck. Some people like that but for me lack of reliability is a dealbreaker. So right now I can play Ace with other survivors peks just fine but if your idea goes through I'll probably forget he exists.
I've read your other responses. Honestly, I just think that we have very different opinions about what we see as OP/viable/useless. I can see that by the loadout on your screen. Technichian and This is not happening are among the perks I consider to be entirely useless and wouldn't take unless under a death threat but you probably think differently which is totally fine. But in my opinion too many perks are either completely useless of are vastly inferior compared to others, so introducing your system will not increase any kind of variety but on the contrary - decrease it to absolute minimum.
Again, the fact that you defend BBQ shows that you are focused on BP, but if you think about it from a gameplay perspective (meaning the effect it has on how people perform in games and win rate), it's easy to argue that it greatly gives at least half of the killers an advantage, especially the silent/fast type. To argue that it should be left alone due to the fact that it gives BP is a bad reason imo. If it only was good for BP, then I doubt everyone would be using it as much as they do.
It seems to me that you continue to assume that change is not needed in order to fix a game that is known for it's toxicity and difficulty. And the entire idea that perks would need to be changed completely is the whole point lol. Devs would see why Ace needs changes and adjust accordingly (and within the parameters of his lore). Same with every other character, like nerfing nurse for example if needed. Changing these perks and assigning them to the characters properly is literally a version of balancing... that's how game mechanics work. When you say that we have different opinions, all I see is that you are okay with the advantages you get from the current issues, rather than hope for a better gameplay experience for the sake of the game's long-term survival. I only bring this idea to the forums because it seems like the only sensible way to integrate a balancing system that works for many other games that have unique characters. Since this game only has ranked matchmaking, using an understanding of game design and proper game balancing would show that this game's current system needs bigger changes. It's okay to like your character, but it's not okay to avoid admitting its issues just because it means big change and losing the OP perks and extra BP.
The grand scheme of this proposed system would most definitely bring the variety you believe it wouldn't. For example - a competitive shooter like R6 Siege, which has unique abilities that are locked on each unique character, balances their game by nerfing and buffing them accordingly so that no character is ignored (but it's obvious there will always be slightly less-used ones). If they let their perks/abilities be used by all characters, it would break the game immediately and it's unique characters become pointless. If DbD wasn't treated like a competitive game with a challenging learning curve, this might be an entirely different discussion.
Also, please don't judge people by their profile pic... that shouldn't be a judge of character.
-
@ZerLukas said:
As I understood you want more variety in builds?
But locking teachables will likely do the opposite. I can give an example for killers:
1) Many characters have terrilblle teachables. They just won't use them if they have any alternative. I play Trapper, I still won't use Unnerving presense as I find it highly unreliable and just a bad perk. So for the most part people will use common perks, but...
2) There are not that many common perks and only a few are viable. So I'd expect to see NOED and Sloppy very often, like 8 out of 10 cases often. Probably with Whispers and/or one-two character's own perks that are actually viable.
And I'm not gonna lie - I really don't want to lose my BBQ as it's a perk that doubles my BP and has a useful effect besides that. But do you really want most of those BBQ's replaced with NOED? Because that's totally gonna happen if you idea was to go through. Although BBQ will still be used almost as frequently as before, you're just gonna see Bubba a lot more often.
On survivors side it won't be much different, you'll just see a lot more DH Davids, BT/UB Bills (though UB won't be used much as it's gonna be utterly predictable and can no longer be paired with DS for a small pp build), DS Lauries (with DS/OoO toxic Lauries) and immersive Self-Care Claudettes. And a lot less of other characters.
Firstly, you not wanting to lose your BBQ is the exact issue that drove me to write this lol. For certain killers it just gives too much of an edge, like other perks. So the complaint that you don't want to lose it only proves my point that it gives too much power on other killers.
Secondly, I'll ask you to read the other responses I've given as I feel they cover your numbered concerns. Variety in build is not what I ask for. I ask for variety in character choice through good balancing. What needs to be understood here is that by changing the way perks are bound to characters, devs can then buff/nerf them accordingly (including the common ones that aren't tied to characters) and bring a much more balanced experience for all. With this system, you could then see your trapper perks reworked for the sake of making him better (or worse if he becomes too good). If we see BBQ being used more because the cannibal is being chosen more as a tied perk, then all of the sudden the devs can make changes to fix that. But if you're gonna sit there and act like BBQ is balanced as it is now with every killer using it, then it's clear you favor the killer role and enjoy the advantage with it.
-
@Mr_Lemon said:
I sorta get what your saying but that's just a system that wouldn't work for a large variety of reasons but I'll list some firstly it would be extremely limiting to characters simply meaning you'll only see a few killers and survivors only seeing the same couple of survivor's and killer's every match secondly this would deter people from playing who they want and stop them from playing their favorite character with the perks they want and third it's just not a good idea as the adverse effects would mess the game up. as for why the matchmaking is like that, that's just dbd matching.
Similarly to other responses I've given, it feels like you're assuming that people will only be using a couple characters with this system and missing my entire point. From a game dev perspective, this proposed system would aim to fix that. By seeing which perks/characters are being used most (and winning the most), a dev can then balance them and bring fresh changes to the game that encourage people to switch characters (or at least feel the punishing nerfs for the OP ones). Sure, you can switch around some of my points for how to arrange the perk restrictions and assume that the first season would be rough as they get the new character analytics, but it would ultimately provide positive game balancing down the road for the sake of longevity. DbD is one of a small few games that don't have abilities primarily tied to their original character, and I'd argue that's why we see the most unbalanced matches (and the most complaints from survivors and killers). To be honest, the argument that you wouldn't be able to play your favorite character on a visual level just seems vague enough that it shouldn't be considered and honestly wouldn't matter if this system was used to balance them and make them all uniquely powerful for different situations. Just because you like a character doesn't mean they should lose their characteristics (meaning perks) and go against their own lore background just so you can run like Meg, ya know?
-
@sudintlink said:
I see what your talking about but it will only make things more the same if you that because you will only play against Bills and Lauries then probably and you will never see another Ace again. Another idea thats been a little tossed around is that if you prestiege a character their versions on their perks will be slightly stronger like a tier 4 but also not too op on some perks. I think this would be a better idea but opinions.
I get what you mean, I just think (and hope) that implementing a system that encourages using different characters for different scenarios/challenges/maps would help the devs see what's truly OP and be able to balance characters better, thus removing the idea that only 2 will be used all of the time. It has been hard to hope for something like that, especially since most of my experience reading through these forums clearly shows that the very vocal "killer mains" of the community usually get their ideas heard more often. This is clearly a totally different rant, but relates to my issue with most responses to my idea, being that the first responses I get are almost always about the specific OP survivors, and nothing about how killers have just as bad of a tendency to use the same perks over and over. And that's not meant to be directed at you, but more to give an idea of why I struggle to be okay with the current state of the game most days.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Oh.
Okay.
I have a challenge for you:
You have infinite money, and you need 200 participants, each participant needs to be equally as likely to choose any of the two following choices, and you need 100 participants of each choice:
Gain $100,000 dollars
Lose $100,000 dollars.
Does this seem like a reasonable challenge.
Let's say we apply this system, with the expectation that people will obviously choose the most OP at the time (meaning the +$100k). The devs can then more accurately see exactly which characters (and their perks) are dominating the matches. This would then lead to the proper balancing and allow them to bring other characters' perks to the table, meaning we'll see each character and their perks gain better and more balanced "loadouts" for a more diverse experience when selecting. No more matches with the only 2 perks and characters being used each time.