jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
I'd love some horror comics rep, or just comics in general. Someone like Scarecrow would work from mainline DC, for example.
Quick, someone think of a good associated killer that'd bring us old school classic Vertigo label John Constantine as as a survivor...
-
While I see what you're saying, the play you're describing above (camping or even really patrolling until you get new information passively) is... bad play?
It's certainly fair to say that killers should have both incentive to leave the hook and punishments for staying at the hook, but they have that. BBQ and kinda-sorta Pain Res may have been the only real options for immediate information, but there are a ton of perks that give some kind of value when you leave the hook. Make Your Choice, Devour Hope, Monstrous Shrine, even stuff like Pop and Eruption (the latter tending to come off cooldown after you hook the survivor you downed to activate it) give you value if you leave the hook. Heck, BBQ didn't have the information changed!
The way I see it, if killers get beaten with the metaphorical stick once Reassurance hits live- I mean, first of all, good? Reassurance doesn't do anything bad or overpowered? But second of all, if they're the kind of player that thinks about their gameplay and builds even a tiny amount, they're going to re-evaluate what they're doing and start looking at the tools that give them value for leaving the hook, or even pick BBQ so they have more info at that point. It's not a bad thing for a perk to punish hard camping, and killers still have plenty of carrots.
-
I have to disagree. He's actually my pick for the weakest killer in the game- which is a good thing because he's pretty reliable, no killer in the game is unplayably weak.
I say this as someone who loves playing him, btw. People sleep on his aura reading addons too, those are really really nice.
-
That doesn't seem intentional, maybe it's a bug?
-
I don't think "grunge" is the right descriptor for a Matrix cosplay looking guy like Wesker.
Goth, maybe?
-
Definitely echoing that prestige isn't a reliable indicator of skill differentials.
It's not even that unrealistic for survivor players to pour almost all of their BP into the one character that they like playing the most. Jane is my only P9 survivor as I played her far more than everyone else, even though I've swapped to Claudette recently. My killer prestiges, on the other hand, are far more spread evenly because there's more reason to vary which killer I'm playing.
-
...Demogorgon?
If there's a comparison to another killer to be found, it's Nurse, since the Bound tokens kinda function in a similar manner to her Blink tokens. Wesker doesn't really have much in common with Demogorgon at all beyond a lunge attack, and more than those two killers have one of those.
-
Agreed - I'd also suggest making their perks visible in the match details screen, in case you want to double check who has what mid-match.
-
I don't know about your games, but I have been seeing a lot of BP offerings.
-
@colley94 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3122525#Comment_3122525
Quadruple the DC penalty would be a good start, they are so desperate for numbers they're shooting themselves in the foot by allowing undesirables to continue playing.
I'm not so sure that's a good idea, personally. DCing isn't always bad behaviour, and having the penalty be too harsh also risks punishing people who either DCed for emergency purposes or who had a network interruption- the latter is one that's happened to me on more than one occasion, and I've never willingly DCed from a match.
That's not to say it can't be improved, though. Right now, you get more of a penalty the more games you DC from in succession, but that penalty "resets" after a set amount of time has passed since your last DC. If the penalty only resets after a set amount of games that you haven't DCed from, it'd be more effective for serial DCers without punishing other people.
That's not really a fix for the annoyance of people DCing from your matches, but if the goal is to address "undesirables" who DC frequently, I could see this being a solution.
-
I'm certainly with you that people leaving has been very annoying recently, but I'm not sure what exactly BHVR is supposed to do about it?
We already have DC penalties and I'm not sure what they can do about giving up on hook, so without a clear solution in view I don't think this is a particularly fair criticism.
-
I definitely think it's strong, but it's definitely not OP.
The killer seeing your aura is mostly pointless if they can't get to you, and even if you're quite close, the aura doesn't last long enough (even with Lethal Pursuer) for it to be active during the chase. So, it really just gives the killer some direction towards where they need to go to start a chase.
Plus, on some maps it's barely useful at all. Pretty RNG.
-
@Adjatha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3121458#Comment_3121458
Your previous post said "seeing MMR numbers" not this "Prestige Numbers" you're now talking about.
Dodging lobbies off of Prestige is an inaccurate assessment. MMR is "more" accurate. And if we COULD see MMR instead of merely Prestige, then dodging based on prestige wouldn't be a factor, solving the OP's complaint.
But since we CAN'T see MMR, people will keep dodging based on Prestige, even though it gets less accurate as time goes on (though the 21 to 1 example the OP uses in a 3 week period IS a pretty absurd differential, as I outlined in my rather expansive initial numbers post)
Oh you're right, sorry, I got some wires crossed.
The major point stands- even if it's the MMR we're looking at, dodging lobbies makes the problem worse, not better. If the system is forced into backfilling a lobby, a noted weakness of the system as acknowledged by the devs iirc, that means the resulting match is going to be at higher risk of being inaccurate, and if people just keep dodging lobbies nobody gets a game.
If you want to slap a bandaid onto the system you'd actually need an encouragement for people not to lobby dodge, not more information for them to choose to do that with.
-
@Adjatha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3121389#Comment_3121389
The 'fix' is "dodging lobbies until the numbers line up closer."
Players taking informed initiative to fix the system that the Devs can't be bothered to get right.
Dodging lobbies makes the problem worse, doesn't it? Dodging a lobby means the system has to start heavily prioritising speed, which means that the resulting match has a higher chance of being a mismatch.
All because some mostly unrelated numbers might indicate that your lobby is a mismatch, and only for the extremely brief window of time where that's even a slight possibility. The longer we live with this system the less accurate the prestige numbers are as an indicator of skill.
-
@Adjatha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3121338#Comment_3121338
If you could see everyone's MMR before the match, guys with a 300 would definitely dodge guys with 2000. And they'd be 100% right to do so. Some people might use the numbers to brag or denigrate, but THAT kind of person most certainly is already doing so right now, without the numbers. And if your team has numbers that are all over the map, clearly SOMETHING has gone wrong and the match needs a kick in the pants to equal things out better. SOME people might dodge if the other side had a 5 pt advantage, but who cares about that kind of player?
If you could see everyone's MMR after the match, having a 0 gen or 0 hook game would feel less awful when you see that the other side is playing on a 1000 pt higher level. "Oh, well I had no chance so that's why that happened," you would say. SOME people would see a 5 pt advantage and say "well no wonder I lost, they were 5pts higher! I never stood a chance!" And while they'd be wrong, it wouldn't have affected anything and the world would keep spinning.
If you could see only your own MMR, you could see where you're at between the highest and lowest levels. It wouldn't necessarily make the game any better or worse, but it would give you a degree of transparency as to where you're at and how you've been progressing. Wins tweak you up a bit and losses tweak you down and you get a feel for where your skill is at so you can more accurately gage how good you are at the game and what to expect at that level of proficiency.
In every case, having the information is better than not having it. And if people could report wild inconsistencies with factual data to back it up, that would put MORE pressure on the Dev team to get their MMR system working right, not less.
So you agree that it wouldn't solve the problem at all, it'd merely give people more fuel for the fire of being angry about it?
I don't think seeing MMR is a good solution to the MMR system being flawed, and since there's literally no other reason to do it, they really shouldn't bother. They should just focus on fixing the system.
-
@Adjatha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3121297#Comment_3121297
This argument carried more weight in the old system, where players of virtually any skill level got thrown together just to fill the game.
Now, we have an MMR that starts off tight and widens to accommodate less accurate matchmaking in favor of shorter queue times.
The Matchmaking test that the majority of players felt was 'fair' was the one that started narrow and remained narrow. But that also had the longest queue times, so they threw it out for the one we use now.
I'd say the suspicion that matchmaking doesn't work is very much a real thing.
I'd go so far as to say that matchmaking getting wider so quickly is likely the root cause of a MAJORITY of complaints on this forum.
I'd agree that the matchmaking is flawed- not that it "doesn't work", but that it definitely has clear flaws that they're still working on addressing.
Here's my question: Is that then acceptable and okay if you could see your MMR? Would they stop working on improving the system?
-
@Adjatha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3121237#Comment_3121237
To your first point: If somebody has put 21 ranks worth of BP into Hag, then presumably they see Hag as their primary killer, yes? So if they want to try out Hillbilly, who is rank 1, they would have a pretty good understanding of the basics of the game, but not real the kind of single-minded practice with Hillbilly that they have with Hag. I think anybody who has played killer more than a couple times will agree that killers work very differently from one another. Your Hag skills do not translate to Hillbilly skills. Map knowledge, predictions, and (potentially) looping might have some degree of cross-over, but every killer is expected to use their power to accomplish the game's goal and if you haven't sunk 100 hours into learning them, you're going to struggle against survivors who've sunk 100 hours into learning THEIR skill set.
It's certainly possible that they got all the perks/addons they wanted for Hillbilly and play him obsessively but spend all their points on other killers instead, but that's very much a though experiment. People do not actually do that.
To your second point: DbD does not have a Casual / Competitive dichotomy. There is only one mode. And that mode IS Competitive. There is no casual. All ranks and rewards come from the same pool. Thus: showing your mmr ranking ought to be the standard. Of course I can't speak to ALL Ranked games, as things vary from one to the next, but it's safe to say that the INTENT of a casual mode is to take off some of the pressure, allow for quicker games, and allow low-skill players a chance to play on a level that does not exclude them from the game as a whole.
DbD doesn't have that. So people use elements that imprecisely correlate to skill (ranking, costumes, meta builds, etc) to get SOME idea of how poorly matched the game was. We don't have the actual numbers, so we make assumptions that may be wildly off-base (that team of all four Claudettes who all have the exact same pay-store outfit on MAY have been four solo Q players who just coincidentally all bought the same outfit. Or maybe they were a SWF. We don't know, so we assume the worst!)
Transparency should be the goal, but because it is not, players us what they have. And in the case of the OP's complaint: that means leaving the lobby against an opponent who's likely played more in the last 3 weeks than they've played the game in their life.
This is a bit of an aside, but I thought people were saying survivors were quitting by the truckload because killer was so easy after the patch? If that's the case, why would you care about killer's dodging your lobby? Surely you got an instant survivor queue and you'll get another killer in a couple of seconds?
I find it interesting that when you talk about the casual/competitive split, you present casual as though it is the reaction to the competitive mode- there to play second fiddle to the default mode, competitive.
In my experience, it's the exact opposite way around. Casual is what games start with, casual is the default mode, and you only even get access to the competitive mode (when there is one) after you've sunk a bunch of time into the casual mode. If a game only has one mode, that mode is by default the casual mode, and if another mode were added that would be the competitive mode.
Which is pretty clearly the case in DBD! Our default mode doesn't have any of the restrictions that one would expect of a ranked mode, it doesn't have the ranks that would accompany a ranked mode (the emblem system, as it is not tied to your MMR, is a distinct beast- though I'll grant that it would be what gets re-tooled to be the ranks if we ever got a competitive mode, god forbid), and most importantly, it is the only mode that we have. Ergo, there's absolutely no reason to show a player's MMR, because that's the norm.
If there's no inherent suspicion that the matchmaker doesn't work, there's no reason to need to gauge your opponent's skill, so that's ultimately kind of a moot point. Though, if a bunch of people are lobby-dodging because of prestige levels, I could see an argument for removing it from the lobby- I'm just not sure if that is happening, people who lobby-dodge do so for a huge variety of reasons.
-
@Adjatha said:
The highest prestige level any one could've been at when this went through three weeks ago was 9.
It takes roughly 1.5 million BP to gain a level.
Ergo, anyone whose prestige level is higher than 9 has put in at least 1.5M x (Level - 9) bloodpoints.
The highest BP you can get in a match now is 40,000 (before offerings that increase it), but many, many people on this forum have complained about 0 gens complete and being camped/tunneled at 5 gens, so let's charitably reduce that 40k to an average of 25k per match.
If you're, oh let's say... rank 21, that means that you spent 18 million bp on your main character, which roughly equates to 720 games. Over a 3-week period, that would mean 34 games per day. Which seems... high. Even if you're getting max points every match, that's still 450 matches, or 21 games per day.
SO! Let's look back at offerings. If you're rank 21, that means you must REALLY like this game. So that means you play in a SWF group. We're not too far away from an anniversary event, so let's say that your group is burning 2 anniversary cakes/flan each match. So that's going to bring your typical pts per game to 75000, which means 240 games, or 11 games per day. Which is still QUITE a lot, but not completely unbelievable.
But, of course, this is forgetting about the BP you get from daily rituals (30k per day or basically 1 'free' match), as well as Tome challenges (15k - 60k depending on the challenge, which we'll round off to 30k on average). Let's say you're knocking out an entire tome page, so that'd be around 600k, plus the 600k form daily rituals, so that's 1.2M bp, which takes your 18M down to a mere 16.8M.
That'd take you down to 224 games in 3 weeks, or around 10 games per day.
So what's the point of all those numbers? Even under the most favorable circumstances, somebody who plays this game 10 times every day for three weeks is going to be a whole lot better at it than somebody who hasn't played that much recently, or touched a given killer, or played a particular side.
Hours played DOES NOT EQUAL skill. It DOES have a pretty strong correlation, however. And say what you like, rank 21 vs rank 1 is an objective mis-match.
And since we know that the MMR thresholds start narrow and expand broader over a surprisingly small period of time, if a killer who doesn't put in 10 games a day, every day, sees somebody at rank 21, it's VERY MUCH in their best interest to dodge that game.
Of course, if they just SHOWED the MMR ranking, you could see at a glance how GOOD a given player/team is, rather than having to go off of the (presumably) less accurate indicator.
But, unlike every other MMR-based competitive game, DbD doesn't want to show which players are Triple Platinum Ultra and which ones are Bronze IV.
Two notes-
You say that "rank 21 and rank 1 is an objective mismatch", but wouldn't you agree that's missing the possibility that someone may have a comparable prestige level on other characters and they're just happening to play a different one for some reason this match? That's why this prestige number being shown is 100% untrustworthy as an indication of skill- it literally, simply is not an indication of skill, it's an indication of how much BP has been spent on this one character. You can't go off this "less accurate indicator" because it's not just less accurate, it isn't accurate at all.
Second, when you say "unlike every other MMR-based competitive game", what do you mean by that? Most games that have a competitive mode don't show your MMR for their casual/quick-play queue, so DBD is pretty solidly in line with the norm there.
-
Nah, not really. It's misleading data, and people come up with all kinds of reasons to dodge lobbies anyway. Nobody with any sense should be using it as an indicator of anything at all beyond how many bloodpoints have been sunk into that specific character.
My only real complaint is that I don't like how jarring it looks if one person hasn't prestiged yet. I'd prefer a "0" there, instead of it being blank.
-
@kizuati said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3120787#Comment_3120787
I suggested using the killswitch because that's an easy tool for BHVR to use,that's it. "This opposes the function of the killswitch" makes no sense. It's a tool for BHVR to use however they see fit.
They don't really see the data there, I've already made the point that if a player knows CoH isn't in play,they can do hit and run. It's also far more data,when all the players who constantly run the perk can't run it it creates a far different game environment.
Also really? Player agency? "Oh no I can't run "this one perk" or "this one map is not in rotation" I have no player agency anymore". That's so silly.
I will grant you that BHVR have the power to expand the functionality of the killswitch, but that doesn't mean I'm incorrect or nonsensical to point out that it currently has a clear and defined function.
Of course they see the data there. Plenty of games don't have these perks you're talking about, and how players react to those perks not being in play isn't going to change much if they know those perks are disabled instead of simply not present. At best you'd see a handful of new builds, and what's the meaningful takeaway from that? As soon as you re-enable whatever perk you're talking about, we're back to normal. It's only meaningful data if removing these perks permanently is on the table, which it obviously isn't.
And yes. Player agency. Whether you think it's silly or not, people would be very angry if stuff was killswitched completely arbitrarily. That's not a reality we or BHVR get to ignore.
-
No, not even slightly.
There's a giant difference between killer designs finding new and unique spins on the same base mechanics of the game, and killer powers being recycled. All the examples you gave may share similar elements with other killers, but they play completely differently. Let's look at your examples - Artist may have "anti-loop" capability, but that alone doesn't make her power recycled and it's also clearly not what the core design of her power is. There aren't any long-range sniper killers through walls in this game, the closest is something like a cross-map hatchet on Huntress and those two killers clearly play completely differently.
Sadako is definitely the closest to meaningful repetition, she shares a similar vibe with Freddy and to a much lesser degree Wraith, but she has the Condemned mechanic that both sets her apart from those two and ensures you'd play her differently to the way you'd play either. It may be weak, but we're talking about design, not strength.
Dredge shares a teleport function but that's literally it, the only other shared mechanic he has at all is that Spirit (and I think Nurse...?) have a gimmick addon nobody uses for the rubber-band snap back to a previous location. Nobody has anything like Nightfall, and nobody else gets to move between lockers. It is meaningfully and genuinely different to other killers, not a recycled power.
Wesker isn't out yet but he doesn't look anything like Nemesis from what we've seen. If anything, it looks more like a combo Demo Shred and Legion Frenzy? But even then, that's a loose association. Still, we can't comment on that until he's out.
Killers sharing generalised mechanics isn't lazy design or "recycled powers". There's only so many different things that can be done in this game, even your example of our last "unique" killer shares mechanics with others.
-
Bringing it down to six tokens as the maximum would be reasonable, that just maintains its maximum efficiency from before the patch while still buffing it via getting to max stacks quicker, but I see no reason it'd need to be nerfed further than that.
It didn't need nerfing before this patch, so there's no reason to bring it down any further than that.
(Also, it's not that great for camping since you have to build up your stacks to use it that way and it only affects M1 killers who already aren't that great at camping, so I don't think that's necessarily the problem with it.)
-
@kizuati said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3120747#Comment_3120747
Yeah I'm looking at this as a way for them to utilize the killswitch for more experiments. I think seeing the game in it's current balance state just without CoH would be very,very interesting,along with other perks to be removed temporarily.
I think it's silly to say "this has not been done before" as this is a suggestion for them to try out more stuff.
It's not "this has not been done before", it's "this is completely different and opposed to the function of the mechanic you're invoking".
Still, my points stand. Disabling things people like to use will achieve nothing beyond making people angry- the devs already have the data you're talking about here, because they can see the results of the matches that don't have any given perk or type of perk. It's not like that data would necessarily be shown to the playerbase, so even satisfying idle curiosity for a handful of players wouldn't come of it, it'd only annoy the people who wanted to use the perks that were disabled.
The reason it's relevant that bloodlust is a base game mechanic is because disabling it doesn't remove player agency. It doesn't tell players that they're arbitrarily not allowed to use a thing they may want to, just because there's some "experiment" happening.
-
@YOURFRIEND said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3120737#Comment_3120737
Head on doesn't stun for four seconds, it's three. I see you don't run the perk.
They're never going to add bizzare edge cases where it drains some killers' powers but not others. Stuff like that muddles the accessibility of the game. And what's that do vs. spirit? She's just as good at catching someone as they are and doesn't have tokens.
That being said four seconds is fine. I don't care about DS, I just think it's lame that people want their comfort perks back so desperately.
Doesn't it? Huh, I could've sworn it did. Not sure where I got that from, if that's not the case.
Anyway- I'm not saying DS should drain a killer's power, I'm saying being stunned should drain those killer's powers. I'll admit that it's maybe less justifiable on Blight, I'm not as sure if that'd be too common on him, but the Nurse basically doesn't get stunned unless a perk does it, you don't pallet stun the Nurse.
As for other killers, since this would be a universal rule and not a DS-specific thing, I wouldn't think it's necessary on them. If they're too strong at catching up to people after DS, maybe something else should be changed about them, but more realistically I think people should just consider if they want to run DS or if they want to run different perks to help them out in those scenarios.
-
None of these things are broken or bugged in an abusable way, so there's absolutely no reason to killswitch them?
Or are you making more of a comparison to the bloodlust experiment? Because that's a different thing too, bloodlust is a base mechanic so it makes way more sense to try disabling it for a while. Just randomly disabling things people like using would only achieve making people angry, it makes no sense to try that.
The only thing that would make sense to try disabling for a weekend would be the aim dressing mechanic, because it's a base game mechanic that might be more trouble than it's worth.
-
The stun time could see improving (though obviously not to seven seconds, that would be ridiculous), but disabling it in the endgame is a very reasonable change. Remember that exit gates can be, and in almost all games that reach the endgame they will be, brought to 99% completion and tapped to get people out immediately.
My idea for DS is twofold, and acknowledges that the devs do not want it to be an obvious, necessary pick anymore, they want you to weigh other options too.
1: Up the stun to 4 seconds, the same as Head On.
2: Make the Nurse and the Blight lose all their tokens when they're stunned, to help equalise DS against those two killers specifically.
-
@Basement_Bubba420 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3119952#Comment_3119952
Who is saying it isn't happening in other games? Why does that matter in this context?
It happens every patch and it takes weeks or months to fix. That's the issue.
Right, and I'm saying that I really don't think it does happen that often. It's mostly map offerings being killswitched as a precaution, at least as far as I've noticed. Heck, nothing's killswitched right now unless you count the matchmaking incentives, and those are a new mechanic, makes sense there'd be some bugs to iron out.
It's just, like, normal amounts of multiplayer bugs wrt the killswitch specifically. DBD has more than its fair share of bugs in general, but most of them are pretty minor- the killswitch-worthy ones haven't really been all that extremely common.
-
@Basement_Bubba420 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3119919#Comment_3119919
I played LoL for years. Disabling things was very rare and often lasted less than a week. Here it can last more than a month.
No idea about Fortnite.
The point still stands- it happens in other games and having abusable bugs disabled is better than not having them disabled.
I also don't think there have been that many things disabled. Hasn't it mostly been maps and/or their offerings? Obviously Nurse was disabled for a while, and Clown + CoH were disabled briefly, but outside of that I really don't think it's been that much.
-
@Basement_Bubba420 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3119905#Comment_3119905
What games do you play that disable something every patch?
I see things disabled with pretty noticeable frequency in Fortnite, to pick one example, and I seem to recall that League of Legends disabled things pretty commonly back when I played that.
It's not every game, obviously - single player games have no need to disable things at all, for one - but things get disabled in other games too. Things being disabled is a good thing, it means the egregious bugs aren't going to be abused.
-
Other games disable things that are bugged all the time, I've played other multiplayer games that do the exact same thing.
-
Agreed!
The game's in the best spot it's ever been at this stage. There are still problems, of course, but the game's been improving over the years and a lot of issues have been addressed by now, a fair few quite recently. The recent direction is a very welcome and promising sign!
-
I saw some bits and pieces during that anniversary stream, and it definitely looks pretty neat.
Might check it out once it's released, or at least keep an eye on some gameplay videos.
-
A shame, but unavoidable. Enjoy your holiday!
-
A ping system and voice comms would actually be the worse of the available range of options. The problems with SoloQ are twofold; there's the lack of information, and there's the lack of coordination. Nothing can force random teammates to coordinate with you, or actively choose to use certain tools if they're available- provided that those tools actually are available. Just look at any other game where you can queue up with random teammates, it's always a problem.
A ping system requires your teammates to bother actually using it, on top of requiring them to bother paying attention of you use it. A voice comms system requires your teammates to bother using it, bother paying attention if you use it, speak the same language as you, have a headset, have an environment without a ton of noise pollution, not be hard of hearing...
That's not to say it's hopeless, mind. There are other options, and they are better than either of those two-- in my opinion the absolute best direction to go is passive information sharing, not something that requires active effort- so information sources like the portrait icon change that they made, something like basekiit Kindred, more perks and other tools for aura sharing, and the ability to see your teammate's perk builds would go a long way towards correcting the information gap between SWF and SoloQ.
SWF is always going to be the stronger option purely because you can guarantee good teammates, but the devs can control how much stronger it is- and there's a lot that could be done to shrink the gap.
-
@RenRen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3111513#Comment_3111513
In terms of fun? yeah I'd say so. In terms of strength? no, not at all.
Nemesis is way better than some people give him credit for.
He's real good at shutting down loops and dealing with chases outside of looping, and while his zombies do kind of suck, they are at least passive information.
-
I haven't played any of the RE games that Wesker features in, but even I know about his plan for "complete global saturation" of a virus type thing, so I'd imagine that's why he has an infection mechanic.
As for why first aid sprays cleanse it, would you rather they use something from Resident Evil for that function or make something new? If the answer is the latter, that's perfectly fair, but I hope that framing of the question helps you understand why both answers are perfectly valid.
-
@Yords said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3112174#Comment_3112174
He is above decent, but not great. However his power is very unoriginal, underwhelming, and lacks map pressure (completely RNG zombies). His tier 3 is so underwhelming, you'd think a RE character would have a more powerful secondary ability, or at least one that fits him. But no all you get is an extra meter on your m2 ability, which is helpful but come on thats it?
Unoriginal? There's only two killers that are even similar to how he functions, and that's only for the tentacle and the infection - his zombies were incredibly original and groundbreaking for the game.
I'd argue the power is far from underwhelming. Arguably the best licensed power we have, one of the game's few true anti-loop powers and a very robust chase power to boot. The zombies may be inconsistent, but they're still useful as information.
Though, I do agree that Tier 3 is way less of a jump in power than Tier 2 is. Still, technically it's an extra metre and increased movement speed while holding it, which is worth mentioning.
-
@Yords said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3111513#Comment_3111513
As in good design all around, not just main power-wise.
Yeah, Nemesis is still a pretty good killer. Good blend of accuracy and integration into DBD specifically, fun to play as with skill expression helping in countering him, and aesthetically on point.
-
Nemesis is a good killer, so I'm not sure what your bar is?
-
@AngryHobo2 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3107487#Comment_3107487
Honestly the only thing that might work is proximity chat. If a Claudette is trying to heal me while a Legion barrels towards us, no amount of action icons or emotes will ever be able to surpass: "The killer's coming, MOVE!"
Assuming Claudette speaks the same language as you, doesn't have it disabled, and cares to listen, sure.
But considering those are all huge assumptions, it wouldn't help all that much.
-
@Marik1987 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3111055#Comment_3111055
Thats what I am doing currently. Overcharge, Call of Brine AND Eruption with STBFL. Is that a good build compared to PR, DMS, Tinkerer and Corrupt/Ruin before 6.1.0? Never, this is so bad compared to my old build.
On top of that: You cant use other builds, its impossible. Its a matter of time No Way Out get nerfed too and away from these 4 perks, I dont see any build reliable to his Kit.
Well, keep experimenting, then. Find something that complements both your playstyle and his kit. There are a lot of generator-related perks, a lot of information perks that can make his teleport more consistently useful, a lot of lethality perks that make up for his mediocre chase power...
As for whether it'll be as strong as that old build... that old build had PR/DMS in it, a notoriously obnoxious and unfun combination due to how strong it was at that point. I would kind of expect any fair build to give strictly less value than that, but that's not a bad thing at all. You've still got plenty of viable and interesting options- quite a few perks synergise with Freddy's kit when you stop and think about it.
-
Far be it for me to defend current Freddy, he desperately needs some love to make him more interesting and give him a more distinct identity, but I do think it's kind of a stretch to say that he got nerfed hard with these most recent changes.
There are still generator-based slowdown/lethality perks that he can use, and some of them even got buffed. You may not be able to run Ruin, Pop, and Thana(? Could Freddy use Thana before...?), but you now have Overcharge, Call of Brine, Eruption, and a host of other tools like Dragon's Grip that didn't get directly buffed but that he'll benefit from that little bit more since kicking generators got buffed from two separate directions.
That's not to say he's doing great, like I said he still needs work, but these changes haven't harmed him more than any other killer. You could even argue the gen-kick perks that remain are more effective on him, since he can teleport to any generator he wants to apply them to.
-
I'd imagine the idea is at least partially to encourage you to play the other side, much like the role queue incentives will.
I think having three killer rituals and three survivor rituals every day would achieve the same effect, though.
-
I don't work for BHVR (and I'm also not a huge fan of this combo being brought back) but I would wager that the reasoning behind PR/DMS being healthier than PR/MS is half that they nerfed the more obnoxious portions of the former, and half that the counterplay for the former is a little more robust now because of it.
Since PR no longer gives you information, if you let go of the generator you're working on as someone's hooked just in case it's a scourge hook, the killer won't know to run towards that generator and guarantee DMS value anymore, without other info tools. So, the combo is at least no longer a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for survivors on its own.
It's still kind of obnoxious and I'd still rather have seen another change, but I can see the logic. Letting go of generators as people are hooked is probably seen internally as a preferable gameplay situation to hitting Merciless Storm skillchecks for way longer than intended.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3110041#Comment_3110041
Proper balance shouldn't have a set meta, because everything feels viable. Take a look at well balanced fighting games, the "meta" is generally based on skill floors more than anything, its people gravitating to who is easiest to be the most successful with. Technical characters are never meta but they are often as strong as (or stronger than) their easier alternatives. I should have probably clarified I meant a meta like this game has, in that its so horribly out of balance the meta was an attempt at a stabilization response.
Everything may feel viable, but it almost certainly won't all feel equally viable, and that's where the meta forms. If your take is that not running meta stuff shouldn't be a huge disadvantage, then I certainly agree with you, but there's a world of difference between that and saying that a meta is a symptom of poor game design.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/338747/if-it-aint-broke-break-it
They balance through Chaos. One game's bad rng is offset by another game's good rng. They will always have objectively bad things they refuse to fix, while having objectively good thing that will be destroyed, "just to mix it up." They don't see metas as a symptom of poor game design, they just see them as another opportunity to shake the ant colony.
A game having a meta isn't a symptom of poor game design, it's just a natural facet of having things to balance at all. Players are always going to use the strongest or most convenient tools available more than anything else, that's not something that any game dev team could hope to stop, and nor should they want to.
A game's meta is a problem when there's something about it that's unhealthy or unfun, not when it exists.
-
Oh, I missed that while I was reading the patch notes- that's quite nice, actually.
-
I agree, it's a good sign that they're willing to push out balance changes in small patches and I definitely hope they aren't dissuaded by the overreaction and melodrama surrounding this particular patch.
Genuinely, it's a good thing. I'm glad they're doing it.
-
Thanataphobia was fixed versus Legion and Plague, though. Giving it such potent and easily achievable counterplay may honestly make it a bad perk even on those two, so while it'd be nice to see it reworked to be more useful on other killers it was undeniably fixed for Legion and Plague.
Mettle of Man I think needs more work, but I also think people are being really quick to judge based on description alone.
Pain Res + DMS I don't personally like either but I think "tiny bit weaker" is a bit of an understatement. That combo already kinda-sorta had counterplay before, and the new version of it bolsters that counterplay by a fair amount, so it won't be as bad as before by a noticeable amount. Still, not a great change, warrants criticism.
-
I would imagine that the reasoning is that they wanted to curb how obnoxious Thana can be on Legion and Plague, which this change would achieve- it's not "almost as good", it's significantly nerfed.
It may not be any more useful on other killers (in fact, it's honestly gonna be worse for other killers), but adding clear and potent counterplay to Thana Legion/Plague is still a good move. I choose to view this as a bandaid fix until Thana can be completely overhauled, personally, though I have no idea if BHVR agrees.