jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
@DaddyMyers_Mori said:
Improved camera speed in ADS
Yeah, that's probably most needed one.
Change his Terror Radius to a lullaby
It would be fine if it was something like Trickster's lullaby, which took 5 months for anyone to notice, but if it would be loud enough, then it would be nerf, because you can't get rid of it with perks.
I don't think Deathslinger has been butchered beyond repair.
He is not worst killer in the game, but he feels bad to play as and he is definetly worst ranged killer in the game. Problem is that even with your changes only thing going for him is STBFL, otherwise he just has multiple downsides compare to other ranged killers that make it not worth it. He had four gimmicks and three were removed / nerfed. He needs something new.
Another problem is that Deathslinger can be played only with faking his shots, you just can't fire asap, because anyone can react to it easily and projectile has super small hitbox while you get punished for missed shots a lot. Just from that he is not interesting anymore for most old deathslinger mains.
I don't tend to engage with the "why play [x] when you could play [y]" arguments in any game, because the answer is and will always be "because I prefer [x]".
He was the weakest ranged killer before, I'm not really trying to fix that. This way, his gameplay style is maintained and he's a touch less frustrating for players who just want to play the cool cowboy reeling people in to smack them. If it were about strength, he'd need a giant overhaul.
Though to one of your other points- I was definitely thinking something like Trickster's lullaby. Quieter than Huntress's for sure, it should be present but subtle.
-
@DeliciousFood said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3052663#Comment_3052663
I have to disagree with 1. You could double the time to do a gen and people would still camp and tunnel. A lot. Incentive doesn't really stop people from going the easy route. Especially when the side with one person versing the group feels like a victim half the time.
This is 100% a stick over carrot scenario, and punishment for camping is the only way to really stop it in a substantial manner. I like the idea of the hook timer slowing and even downright stopping under specific conditions. Though the issue is some people will just camp from a distance (Huntress, Nurse ...) instead of going for more hooks, which would be the point.
If the killer fails to get into a chase within 30 seconds of hooking the timer stops. Survivors can sit on gens the whole time and the killer HAS to leave to chase. They also can't just sit somewhere and then defend a territory/hold a range blink because of this.
In the situation of 3 gens: When only 1 generator remains, the timer is merely slowed, not halted, as to prevent both sides from holding eachother hostage.
The two things are done in tandem, not one or the other.
We have absolutely no way of knowing why most players who camp do so, but I'm willing to bet the hardcore a-hole types who explicitly want to ruin the survivor's fun are the minority, and the majority are ones who just think it's the most tactical thing to do, or who flounder and struggle to keep the pressure up. Number 1 is designed for them, and number 2 is designed to let survivors combat those who do it for the sake of doing it.
Like I said, stopping camping is a fool's errand. It's not going to happen. Lessening the impact of camping is far more achievable and should be the direction the developers are looking in, and that'll look like incentives/disincentives, and very specific types of nerfs. That being said, slowing the hook timer isn't a bad idea as the light discouragement in suggestion 1, I'm not against it.
-
There are two things that must be done:
1: Give more incentive for killers in general to leave the hook. This can come from perk design, light discouragements (IE, bloodpoint loss, aura reveal, survivors repairing faster) for lingering near the hook with no other survivors around, and from buffing chase mechanics; two of those are being doubled down on in the next patch, so we'll see how well that works out.
2: Nerf specific powers. I see people say all powers should be disabled within a certain radius, but that misses the point- most killers can be played around even if they're facecamping, and so disabling all powers just punishes people who camp at the endgame or who have reason to be in that area. Rather, they should be looking at the killers who facecamp most effectively and tweaking them instead. The biggest offender is Bubba, and I believe his chainsaw should stop dead when it hits Endurance so he can only force a trade instead of downing both the unhooked and the unhooker.
To a degree, camping is always going to exist. What the devs can and should do is give survivors tools to deal with it, not try and prevent killers from ever doing it to begin with; by and large countering facecamping against, say, a Trapper with no relevant perks and no traps in the vicinity isn't that hard. It's a problem when specific mechanics interact with it, and when survivors don't know that they're facing it straight away, so that's where we need to look to fix it.
If survivors have good tools and information to tackle camping, the absolute amount of camping killers will go down and the remaining ones won't be nearly as frustrating.
-
@Slowpeach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3052558#Comment_3052558
I mention both points in the initial post. With the exception of Clairvoyance, there's better options over those two things. If they want you to run certain perks just say that. Also it only counters Noed if you get all 5. Get 4 or less and Noed still activates and now you don't know where it is. You are better leaving them and not wasting time and coming back later to find the totems you know about once you know NoED is in play. Of course a moot point now.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3052556#Comment_3052556
Today's usual forum apathy I see. Well I actually care about other people I play with and don't want to ruin the game for them.
It doesn't matter if they're the best options, it matters that they give you some kind of value. Rather than a challenge that forces you to specifically run one of those perks, a challenge that encourages (but does not require) running one or more is a much more elegant design. If you don't care about experimentation and just want to run the strongest stuff, you aren't locked out of the challenge, it's just more of a time-waster. More player choice, better design, at least imo.
Yes, right now it's a bad strat. With the upcoming change, it'll be a much more reliable one.
-
@Slowpeach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3052511#Comment_3052511
Yes. I really should have specified. Only the ones that specify 'Must be done in one trial'. I would much rather do a challenge that required me to stun the killer 10 times then one that says I must do it twice in one game.
Totems are the only ones im iffy on regardless because they are just useless. I did put chests there but eh, whatever I get they can be fun and I don't particularly hate those ones but sometimes I hear people yell at others for doing chests and I'm thinking 'could be a reason'.
Still a lot of people yell at other players for throwing the game when in reality they are just doing a challenge.
They're not useless at all. Inner Healing, Clairvoyance, Overzealous, and a few others all proc from cleansing dull totems; rather than being a pure time waster, totem-cleansing challenges are an encouragement to try looking at what tools you have available to make cleansing totems worth it.
Or, y'know, to counter NOED. After the upcoming change it'll actually be a decent tactic for doing that, though it isn't right now.
"Must be done in one trial" is definitely a caveat that gets used a little too liberally, but almost everything listed in the original post is fine for that at least some of the time. The only problematic one is the unhooking one, that one is really unfortunate-- even getting unhooks in general is a nasty one for doing "in one trial" since there's a strictly finite number of unhooks to get, possibly none if the killer is super unlucky.
-
I certainly agree that there are some problematic challenges, but the only one of these that fits the bill is the last one. Maybe you mean specifically the variants of all of these where you have to do it all in one trial, which can be troublesome depending on which one it is, but even then not all of these are bad.
There's tons of reasons to cleanse totems and chests can be very useful- these challenges especially are actually healthy for the game, encouraging players to maybe try different perk builds to complete them. Maybe you'd never run Small Game or Plunderer's Instinct normally, but with these challenges to complete, maybe you'll give them another look...
Dropping pallets - even a set amount in one trial - just is normal gameplay. Players just throwing pallets to tick up progress as quickly as possible is a player issue, not a challenge issue.
There are some awful challenge designs in the tomes, the Blood Debt one especially, but these are the good ones you're listing up here.
-
I had some pretty fun times learning the ropes of survivor by doing Adept challenges, personally. It pushes you to learn the actual core mechanics of survivor without leaning too hard on specific perks, as well as providing the fun extra challenge of "how do I best utilise these three perks", which I enjoyed.
Beyond that, if you're playing solo, equip Kindred and bring something that'll help you heal yourself (so a medkit or a perk that facilitates self-healing, like CoH or Inner Healing). This isn't for every injury, you only need to heal yourself a handful of times when teammates aren't around to do it for you.
The big list above is a good one for more specific tips!
-
Getting a good game as Trapper, hands down.
Watching survivors run just as you predicted, right into the trap, one after another... easily the most satisfying thing that can happen in DBD.
-
@hastarkis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3050214#Comment_3050214
Leveling up - yes. _Playing_ those characters - no. And those are two completely different actions which you can't merge together. The fact that I play Mikaela doesn't unlock her perks for other characters, I can play lvl1 Mikaela and be ok with that. But I can unlock her perks without playing her, only by leveling her up - and I can earn those BP for Mikaela playing Felix.
So, again, new system doesn't encourage you PLAY new characters. Only leveling them up. Yes, "levelling multiple survivors _is_ being encouraged", but your topic was about different things:
>>After all, they do have to spend ten extra bloodwebs in exchange for their grind only being reduced a little bit; arguably a third, since they only need to find two perk tiers, but since it's still RNG it's hard to say.
I don't argue about grind being reduced, but again: what the point of bragging about 300% speed boost for a spherical horse if real number for real non-spherical horses are much much lower? That's deffinetely not a 75%, and people expected those numbers being applied for them. No one specified that thing before, BHVR was saing "75-percent-in-general" again and again. Of course people are upset now. People upset because 25% and 33% are much lower than 75%. Good that gring is being reduced but I can understand this frustration.
>>If you religiously only play the one survivor, that's an increase in the grind over multiple prestiged survivors, arguably. But... is that a bad thing?
Maybe? Let's say "grind over multiple prestiged survivors" is increased. Again, no one play ALL survs equally (play, I don't talk about leveling up here). If grind was reduced only for those players who are spherical, and all other non-spherical players get grind being increased, isn't that a bad thing? Even if it's minority of player base. 49% is minority too. BHVR deffinetely could make smth to reduce gring for all, and not for only part of community. Of course people are upset now. [2] It's completely understandable.
>>Is it a bad thing for the game's overall system to be designed to encourage that you try out other characters, even if only to get a feel for their perks while deciding if you want to unlock them?
And that's your main thought, if I understand correctly.
System does NOT encourage you to try them out. At all. It encourages level them up. I can agree on other topics, I like new system (excluding 50k taxes), but you asked if it's good that new system encourages play different survs. But new system does not encourage you PLAY them. That's my point.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that you can't merge levelling up and trying out survivors together, because what you actually can't do is separate them.
In order to try out a survivor, you level them up. Ideally, to level 15, so you have all four perk slots. If you refuse to then play that survivor, your bloodpoints are wasted up until you prestige, but if you start playing them then, you get to use the perks you want to unlock and your bloodpoints become an investment, not a waste.
Sure, running into a trial as a level 1 Mikaela gives you nothing, but you're the one suggesting that hypothetical- I'm talking about trying Mikaela out, which necessarily involves levelling her up first. Those two things are linked, pretty inextricably; you could play her without doing that, but it's not really reasonably to suggest that most people would, at least in my view.
So, to sum up: The encouragement to try other survivors is because "trying out" survivors and "getting perks from" survivors both require spending bloodpoints, but the former makes that expenditure an investment and the latter effectively wastes your BP. That's the encouragement, get value from your BP by playing new survivors and, as a bonus, get to use their perks earlier -- just on them, and not on your former main.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3050225#Comment_3050225
It is a bad thing because there's no necessity to doing it and upside to doing it for the people who play single characters. It's pure downside that doesn't need to exist.
I think you're being disingenuous saying there's no upside. The upside is that it lessens the grind and gives you access to the perks that you want to unlock quicker.
Given that the extra ten bloodwebs you spend to prestige is at least partially offset by the resulting grind on your main being a third shorter, I really don't think it's actually so much of a downside that it warrants serious change. Players who choose not to engage with the entirety of the system have things at worst a little bit worse, and everyone else has it better.
-
@pseudechis said:
No it really isn't.
I mean playing a diverse range of characters is the idea that's why they have a diverse range of characters.
My understanding is they are reducing the RNG nature of the grind somewhat which I think is a better move. Builds are ready to go on new characters rather than fishing for builds at random till you unlock what you want.
Is the increased BP cost of this for a singular character too much for the benefit of reducing the RNG nature, well we'll have to wait and see.
People seem hung up on raw numbers though discounting the reduction in RNG reduction.
(correct me if I'm wrong on this, I went on holiday rather than play the PTB this time around so haven't tried any of it or really bothered too much to follow with it).
You're basically correct. The only real concerns I have are that prestiging costs 50k BP (which is way, way too much even if a cost should be there to begin with), and getting higher-rarity addons/etc will be slightly harder.
For the actual grind, IE, the perks, it's unambiguously a reduction if you spread the cost around- which is why I wonder if being a little worse for players who don't spread that cost around is actually a bad thing.
-
@hastarkis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3049976#Comment_3049976
Three things are here:
1) You can level up characters but don't use them. You level up those characters (playing your main) just to get tier 3 teachables and that's it. You get all benefits from new system but don't play new characters at all.
2) You don't get any special value out of playing-only different characters (i.e. without leveling them). You just don't. Survs are the same, with no powers or abilities. Sometimes they moan quieter or hide easily, but new system isn't involved in loudness of moans.
3) If you play AND level up different characters you don't get any special (game)value too, you only grind less than someone who prefers one character to play.
Summorizing: this system doesn't encourage playing more characters. At all. This system benefits only those players who levels up (waste BP on) different characters. Feel it? No playing required.
Even if you are going to start to play different characters, that's just to feel less robbed while P3-ing and to fill leveling up those characters with more sense, not because new system encourged you somehow. There's no reason to do that, you can just level up those characters without playing.
TL;DR: Encourage play more characters could be good, maybe. But unfortunately there's no encourage to do so.
P.S. Survs are same, yeah, but not really. They sound different, look different, have different cosmetics. Why should I play new surv if I don't like them, don't have nice skins and so on? Yes, I have all perks for them, but I do have all perks for Felix either, and I dress him in gourgeous outfit and I'm happy watching him on my screen (unlike new surv). It's ok for killers since I have a real reason to try them, but survs? No.
I personally don't know people who use/level up ALL 30 survs equally and it sounds unrealistic, we all have favorites, buy them skins and play only them. Those "might hurt people who only care about playing one survivor" and "interacting unfavourably with a mechanic you don't want to engage with fully" parts are applied to a lot of people. I can say "this new feature will make a spherical horse in vacuum moving 300% faster". It's cool, but majority of horses aren't spherical and will move only 25% faster.
Maybe the problem is here: there are a lot of real horses and spherical solutions doesn't inspire us as much.
I'd like to tackle one specific point you make here, because it's the one I feel is most being overlooked- playing and levelling multiple survivors does give you in-game value. It gives you access to the perks that you want without having to go through their entire bloodweb progression first.
So yes, if wanting access to multiple perks is the goal - which of course it is, we're talking about the grind here, that's literally all that the grind is - then playing and levelling multiple survivors is being encouraged. The more you do that, the more perks you'll have available on the next survivor that you try, due to the way the system works.
-
@Omputin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3050165#Comment_3050165
But it's not overall. Overall reduction of 75% would be something like making earining BP 4x faster or cutting bloodweb costs to 1/4. Saying it's 75% reduction is disingenuous if it only applies to one very speific case which hardly anyone is going for.
But that's just levelling, though?
Sure, that would affect the grind as you do need to level to get perks, but how would that tackle new chapters increasing the grind exponentially? How would it tackle the retroactive grind after unlocking teachables? All it achieves is resetting the problem for a bit, with a change like that - on its own and without this new system too - the grind gets right back to its current state after a little while.
Like, getting perks unlocked across multiple characters is "the grind". It's the thing that's needed fixing, so I think it's kinda weird to consider wanting to get perks unlocked across multiple characters "one specific case" in this context.
-
@Omputin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3049976#Comment_3049976
But it kinda is punishment. Leveling and earning perks in this game is already unbearably slow. Making that even slower is not encouraging no matter how you look at it. Why does p2p game need f2p mmo levels of grind in the first place?
Making it slower isn't encouragement at all. Being given a way to make it faster is the encouragement, obviously it's going to be slower than that if you choose not to take that option.
I am, I should mention, in favour of making levelling itself faster, either with more BP or lesser node costs. I just think it's kind of silly to hyper-focus on people who insist on only ever playing one character to say the new reduction system is bad when it's clearly designed for players to not do that, even if just to test out teachable perks.
-
@tensu950 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3050165#Comment_3050165
So
A) they are a core mechanic to the game. just because you can do things without them does not mean its not a core mechanic to the game. You could do things in a MMO or RPG like lvl up and run things with no equipment on or talent points spent however its hard to argue using those things would make your gameplay far better.
B) my point was you were told you were saving 75% but you ended up spending more and would only save possibly some money if you met very specific conditions. much like a new player is not having their grind reduced at all until they get hundreds of hours put into the game.
I am very confused on why people are so oddly against this stuff or defending it. like, let's be honest here if tomorrow BHVR went
"hey guys we thought about it and we are gonna change the system starting with the next patch if you purchase a killer or survivor all their t3 perks get unlocked across the board. you don't need to level them up or anything like that and leveling/prestige from this point forward will purely be for the add-on, offering, and cosmetic farming. this change is also retroactive so any killers or survivors you own will also be sharing their perks with your roster."
Do you think the community would be up in arms setting fires to buildings yelling how crap of a change this is or why its a terrible choice and quit the game?
Or do you think people would be fine with it and it even helps/encourage new players to try out the game because they can play with all the toys they paid for without grinding for 500 hours.
Maybe this is a difference in definition but I do not consider literally every aspect of a game to be part of that game's "core mechanics". Perks, in general, are core mechanics, but specific perks are not, and no player has to farm for days to get all the perks available before they can play the game, that's a very silly premise for an argument. If you go into a trial with four generic perks, you are going to experience all of the game's core mechanics, because anything that requires grinding for isn't a core mechanic, it's a progression of the core mechanics.
As for your second point, yes, I understand that was your point. I'm reminding you that the overall grind was reduced, for almost all players. It was reduced moderately for the average player, a lot for veteran players, and yes, a noticeable amount for new players as well. New players aren't going to be gunning for every perk right off the bat, and getting the guarantee of unlocking the perks they want to toy with instead of pouring bloodpoints into a character to then get the chance to unlock that perk an unknown number of bloodwebs down the line is an improvement. They're new, so they won't care as much about getting a huge number of perks all at tier 3, they'll be playing with what they have available, and what they have available has been steadily increasing over the past year and a bit.
As for your last example, honestly, while I wouldn't start ranting and raving, I would consider that a questionable choice. A little bit of grind is good, it gives people something concrete to work towards, so I don't know that it'd be a good idea to just remove the grind entirely. Still, as I've said above, I'm still in favour of giving players more BP/making their BP more valuable by reducing node costs, I just don't think that's required for this to be considered a grind reduction.
-
@tensu950 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3050121#Comment_3050121
Ok but just because you don't need or want them does not mean other people won't want them. and if the perks are so meh and not needed why are they locked behind a grind? Why don't you just get them when you buy the character.
I see lots of weird arguments about this stuff that just seems to counter themselves. "I don't use them so why does anyone else need or want them." or "they are crap so don't even bother getting them" what if I wanna play a weird build or have a play style that's not the "Meta" what if I just like trying out and messing with everything to see what I do like. maybe my play style fits a perk better than yours.
again I ask why? Why are they locked behind 300+ hours of gameplay grind?
Also, it is a very specific case again the only people this helps is people that have most the stuff unlocked already. if you are someone who has all the killers at p1 well you now have the p1 perk on all killers but you still need to either farm t2 and t3 or grind every killer to t3 to fully benefit from this perk. ya sure its going to alleviate some of the grinds but its a very small amount and that's the issue.
If you were told by an electric company "Hey switch to us and we will save you 75% on your bill" then you swap to them and get your bill see it even higher than before but there is a laundry list of clauses and conditions that must be met in order to see some form of cost reduction not even the full 75% would you shrug your shoulders and go "Oh well I mean I guess this helps some people out and it could help me out to one day."
To tackle your points separately:
1: At no point did I say there was no reason to want them. You called them core mechanics, and I was reminding you that they are not core mechanics at all, they are expressly optional. You don't need them to start playing, which was another thing you suggested was necessary. The grind for wanting them got shorter anyway; you have far more control over getting tier 1, and if you're prestiging your main, getting tiers 2 and 3 got much easier.
2: As long as my electricity bill was in fact 75% lower, I wouldn't care where those savings were incurred. That's the actual analogy here; it's like your electricity company saying your bill will be 75% lower and then you pointing to a specific use of your electricity that went up slightly instead of focusing on the actual final number. As I said above, it is the overall grind, for everyone, that was reduced.
-
@tensu950 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3050092#Comment_3050092
I dunno about inaccurate I think the biggest issue with it is it being misleading.
It's a 75% reduction in a very specific case, For everyone else, it's non-existent or far less.
When people heard they were removing the BP perks cause they were not needed anymore since they were reducing the grind a lot of people figured they were simply reducing the grind via bumping BP earned baseline by a large amount or even cutting the cost of nodes down in the tree by a large amount.
Either of these things would have gone over far better than what we got, why? Cause these changes benefit literally everyone.
New, old, casual, hardcore. Getting way more BP would not be seen as a bad thing by anyone. What would be seen as a bad thing is being told "hey we understand the grind blows, we get it so what we are gonna do is remove avenues you have to help with this while implementing something that does not really help you at all."
new players get the hardest shaft with this change it does nothing but hinder anyone who is new making the already unbearable grind even worse.
This game requires a player to put in nearly 300 hours just to unlock the ability to earn the base mechanics to play the game.
And this is putting the game heavily in its own favor by doing math involving you earning near max BP and having insanely short match times. an actual new player is going to take far longer.
Think about that name one other game that has its core mechanics locked behind a time wall that is that large? How well do you think things like MMOs and stuff would go over if you had to invest hundreds of hours into it just to unlock the ability to start using the talent tree.
But it's not a very specific case, it's overall. As in, involving all cases.
Also, I think you're wildly overstating how important having specific perks are. For killer it's a little more justifiable, but for survivor the generic perk pool and one of the base character's teachables are more than enough to be playing the game, those are the core mechanics. You don't need any specific teachables on the survivor side at all, period, and even on the killer end you'd be mostly okay now that Jolt is a general perk.
I'm not saying I'm against more methods of earning BP or having costs slashed, but what we have is still a pretty significant grind reduction.
-
Seconding that Luck should just be completely reworked or removed, it's extremely pointless. It was already questionable when it affected only bear trap escape chance and self-unhook chance, but now it got one of those things removed, it's completely vestigial.
Mist offerings I'm more okay with keeping if the plan is to rework the mist mechanic at any point. It's something that could be salvaged, unlike Luck, so I don't think they necessarily need to be removed. Then again, the whole Offerings system should probably be looked at...
-
@malloymk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3050064#Comment_3050064
It matters because it's inaccurate. At best they're simply wrong and accidentally misleading people. At worst they know they're full of it and are outright lying about it.
Regardless, they should probably explain their math at this point. It's bad business at this point not to.
Is it, though?
Considering they're referring to the overall grind, I think the burden of proof is on the people who say that it's inaccurate to show why. All I've really seen are people focusing on specific examples to show how the grind hasn't been lessened, like new players (while wildly misrepresenting what the new player experience is like for some reason) or people who only play one character. Heck, some people even start talking about addons instead of the perk grind.
For the record, I'm no good at numbers and haven't looked into it myself, but considering that (almost) everyone got helped a little bit and the ongoing grind was helped massively, I don't have any real reason to question that specific number.
-
@malloymk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3050044#Comment_3050044
If you're a new player the grind has not been. Reduced by 75 percent on the whole.
If you're a player like me that has things almost grinded through anyway, it's nowhere near a reduction of 75 percent on the whole.
If you're somewhere in-between it's also not a reduction of 75 percent.
That's my issue. Be transparent and specific on this grind reduction number, because right now it's not even close to 75 percent.
If the overall grind was reduced by 75%, and they said the grind was reduced by 75%, that's as accurate and honest as you can expect. I don't see why they'd need to couch everything they say by clarifying needlessly when you can just look at what else they said to determine what specifically they mean.
Bit of a weird thing to get hung up on, in my opinion. The grind was reduced by a moderate amount for everyone (with the exception of people who insist on only playing one survivor, potentially) and reduced by a huge amount when it comes to how much it increases per new chapter, so why does it matter exactly how they phrased the short version when we have all the details anyway?
-
@malloymk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3050018#Comment_3050018
Ok. Maybe I misunderstood, but did they specifically say it reduces the grind on new characters or just that it reduces the grind in general? Because there is a huge difference between those two statements.
Part of the reason the grind is so out of control on live servers is because it increases significantly with every new character that's released. When talking about the grind, getting perks from new characters back on every old character is one of the biggest facets of it, so any grind reduction is necessarily going to be focused partially on that.
So, honestly, there isn't a huge difference between those two statements. They are still separate things, but the grind was reduced no matter what way you slice it; the 75% number specifically is probably attributed to how the grind no longer scales uncontrollably with new characters, but the rest of the grind was reduced too. Just not by quite as much.
-
@malloymk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3049928#Comment_3049928
Even at p3 no perks, it's still not a grind reduction of 75 percent.
It is for the next killer/survivor that they release.
-
@TAG said:
Encouraging playing more characters is fine. Punishing players for not doing so is not.
That's kind of my point, though- should it be considered a "punishment" when all that's really happening is interacting unfavourably with a mechanic you don't want to engage with fully?
If the intent is to encourage variety for easier levelling, is it actually a bad thing, or somehow a mark of failure, if not following that encouragement makes things a little bit harder for you?
-
I'd be all for this, hell yeah.
Trans characters in general would be fantastic.
-
Agreed. New players aren't even that badly affected, or honestly affected at all. They already don't have all characters and already don't have reason to want all perks, they'll want specific perks- and the control they'll have towards getting those perks has increased, that's a grind reduction.
-
Man, you guys have a really low tolerance for ""cursed"" content lol
-
I tend to flip-flop but the big ones are Clown and Legion.
Clown, I like his simplicity despite him being weak, and his laughing is infectious.
Legion... who doesn't like running fast with a knife, now with added sick tunes?
-
I don't think he needs a rework (and he definitely doesn't need to be reverted), I think they just need to commit to the idea of illusory objects.
The pallets, while really weak and easily avoided, are a pretty cool concept. I think that if Freddy had more freedom to place different kinds of objects, it'd make versing him more interesting and have the fun effect of making the Dream World something survivors want to avoid without just making it slow them down.
Give him snares + pallets as basekit with a slightly increased (but shared) ammo pool, and completely overhaul his addons to give him more fake objects. That'll at least make him a ton more fun, even if he still isn't strong.
-
@AnchorTea said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3046656#Comment_3046656
That Deathslinger nerf feels okay today. Maybe they could make his aiming a wee bit faster
I've always thought it was mostly okay, he just needs some help to feel a little less sluggish elsewhere. I've also seen people suggest that his camera-turn speed while ADSed should be faster, and I'd support that change too.
-
Wasn't the last time they nerfed a killer's basekit Deathslinger? What sparked this?
I mean, I agree, though. The only even arguable exception is Nurse, the others all have perfectly adequate basekits; either balanced enough to be left alone or in need of buffs.
-
Personally I'm gonna be experimenting a lot. Most of the perks I tend to use didn't get touched, and some even got buffed, like Deja Vu, so I'm pretty hype.
Kindred never stopped being a requirement so I'll slap that in every build, and I liked using new Dark Sense on the PTB so I might mess around with that more...
-
I have to disagree. The information was very strong when combined with the regression, and removing it also led to nerfing the DMS/Pain Res combo, which absolutely deserved it.
I wouldn't be averse to it being tweaked into a pure information perk instead of a pure regression perk, provided that the scream is still removed so it can't be combo'd with DMS, but I wouldn't say that version of the perk would be strictly better than the version from the PTB. They'd both be pretty good and balanced.
-
Survivors not lingering around in the trial for multiple minutes is a good thing, not a bad one. If survivors were inclined to consistently actually go for the save, it'd be one thing, but they often just dither about just out of reach.
As for the effect on the meta, I think it'll be a wait and see situation. It might keep BT in the meta, but only one perk remaining and the rest being changed is still a victory.
-
Corrupt Intervention doesn't uniformly benefit all killers, so I think the base charge increase is the better option.
You can still bring Corrupt for the killers that benefit from it, but there are killers who at least potentially would want to have survivors in predictable, static positions at the start of the trial, and I don't think they should have that option taken away from them without opting into it via the perk.
-
@Peanits said:
A quick note as someone who's been involved with the judging in some way since these contests started, it's purely coincidence. The gender of the character play absolutely no role in which outfit gets selected. That said, I have noticed over the years that there tends to be more submissions for female survivors than male survivors. I can't say for certain why that is. While it's not a random draw by any means, having more entries for female survivors does make it more likely that the winning design will be for a female survivor.
There's always next year, though (I hope). What you don't see with these contests is the literal dozens of other amazing concepts- both male and female- that could have won, but unfortunately didn't make it since there can only be one winner.
I wondered if that was at least part of it. There might be some kind of snowball effect going on, where (at least certain) female survivors already have really cool cosmetics, which inspires people to come up with more for that character or in that vein, which leads to there being more submissions for women than men...
Others have suggested it too, but have you considered offering both a male and female winner for survivor cosmetics? They tend to be a little less involved than the killer cosmetics anyway, maybe if you shuffle it so there's one universal charm and three outfits instead of two/two?
-
I still don't understand why people think this.
The things that make solo queue more difficult than SWF have absolutely nothing to do with the basekit changes on either side, with the sole and highly arguable exception of increased generator times-- but since that only affects solo queue insofar as bad players already don't touch generators as much as they should, it doesn't count, in my view. Add onto that the fact that solo queue are helped by the basekit changes due to no longer hoping that teammates have BT or being helpless against getting farmed, and we're even further away from solo queue becoming an unbearable nightmare or whatever.
Even expanding into perk changes, solo queue isn't overall harmed. They haven't nerfed any of solo queue's required perks like Kindred, they have buffed perks that'll actively help solo queue like Off the Record, Botany Knowledge, Dark Sense + a few others, and I don't even think any of the new perk changes help SWF unfairly either since I can't remember any off the top of my head that'd require coordination to use effectively.
The only thing that potentially hurts solo queue in the perk changes is Knock Out, and honestly, I don't personally think people are gonna run that even after its buff. Even if it explodes in pickrate, though, that's a single perk, it doesn't counteract the parts that help solo queue and it certainly doesn't make this update a "middle finger to solo survivors".
Genuinely, am I missing something? Is there some reason that solo survivors are getting screwed over that isn't what I've already gone over?
-
I like it. There are some things I'm concerned about- Off the Record seems a little overtuned, and some of the buffed regression perks might need scaling back too, but otherwise it really seems solid.
A couple bad changes on the other end like DS stun reduction and the weird 50k requirement for prestiging, too, but overall this is definitely a healthy direction for the game to go and I'm very glad swings this big were made at all.
Basekit anti-tunnel and a few more anti-tunnel tools, killer buffs to make them a little bit more efficient in chase, grind reduction, a meta shakeup... these are all very very good things.
-
For completely new players, the grind was already not as big of a problem. They only have a handful of characters and don't necessarily know if they even want those teachable perks, let alone any others.
It's still an improvement for new players, though admittedly not nearly by as much. The lack of a retroactive grind - EG, not also having to grind for potentially a long time to get those teachables you unlocked to appear in the bloodweb to begin with - is still an improvement, but not nearly as much as it is for players with more experience.
Basically, cutting down on RNG helps everyone, even new players, and the ongoing grind is the thing that got major reduction.
-
A little while ago, BHVR shared one idea they had, of showing what actions your teammates are performing with little icons next to their portrait. That's the only concrete thing that they've shared, not that it's a guarantee they're going to go through with it, and solo queue buffs have officially been put on the back burner for a bit so they can focus on some other things.
In the meantime, the upcoming patch will make things a little easier for you since tunnelling took a heavy hit, so you'll mostly just have camping to worry about. Combined with a few decent perk buffs, it's not ideal, but better than nothing, at least imo.
-
I'd be down for that.
In general, I think BHVR have opened up the possibility of future rewards, that aren't necessary to launch with the system change but could be added in down the line. That'd give them a little more time to design it too, so it looks good on all characters.
-
Not out of spite, but often they've put themselves in a situation where even with five seconds of a head start they're still the best target available, and since they put themselves back in the action they're fair game.
Same with BT bodyblocking, even with the sprint boost they're often the best target and they've signalled that they're fair game to chase, so they often end up chased over their unhooker. Nothing spiteful about it, just playing the game normally lol
-
@Gratxla said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3041853#Comment_3041853
Oh yes, cause selfcare was a good before the nerf
Of course it wasn't. However, it's still one of the most run survivor perks of all time, so clearly some encouragement to bring other perks was needed.
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3041897#Comment_3041897
The thing with Pharmacy is that it's just not good enough to be as unreliable as it is. You can't walk by a chest and go "aha, I'll take this for later" like you used to. You now have to take note of where chests are throughout the match, and when you're injured and unoccupied, run across the map to those chests and hope they're still in the state you left them in. If they are, great, you just wasted plenty of time with map traversal. If they're not, great, you wasted even more. And you'd better hope the killer doesn't see you running around, because you're a juicy injured target.
At that point, you may as well just ask the person who unhooked you to heal you. Or go to the boon your teammates have probably set up. Or bring that boon yourself, because it's better and more reliable than PTB Pharmacy. It was way more convenient to be able to have the emergency medkit when you needed it than to restrict when you can obtain it until after you need it. The ability to do this multiple times is not a good enough exchange when chests are such a limited commodity anyway.
Re:item charges, the only one that's at all viable is Built To Last, and that one is specifically not amazing with medkits due to the 99% recharge and the commonality of Hemorrhage. Like, if you bring a ranger medkit with gel dressings and BTL, you're getting plenty of value out of that bad boy, but you were probably set for heals before you added the perk into the equation. An emergency medkit with BTL, not so much. With the right addons, you could stretch one uninterrupted heal into two, but old Botany was better for that anyway.
Overall I think we have less viable options for self-heals than before, not more of them. Which is fine if their intent was only to make sure nobody runs the old meta perks, but I don't think that was a good or helpful design philosophy.
While I agree that its reliance on a chest being nearby and available is its main limiting factor, I do think we're overlooking the purpose of a self-healing perk, especially for solo queue. It's more for clutch scenarios where you can't get a teammate to heal you but getting healed is absolutely the right call, so the idea of Pharmacy is that you'll spot a chest and run to that for your reward, or keep note of where one is and dash there when that time investment is worth it because getting healed and staying out of danger is your top priority.
Regarding your last point, I wouldn't say we were ever going to have more viable options for self healing. We were always strictly going to have exactly one fewer than we went in with, because there are perfectly serviceable self heals available to survivors so long as they understand it's not for patching up every injury and because Self-Care was obviously always going to get nerfed.
Also, for item perks, there's Streetwise which increases your item efficiency. I think it's a mistake to overlook perks that simply boost your medkits, because medkits are already far and away the best self-healing tool available to you. Making them more efficient or faster is nothing to sneeze at and is already miles better than current Self-Care.
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3041880#Comment_3041880
Pharmacy is currently worse than before. The multiple chances come at the price that you can't get your medkit until you have your first chase and then either escape or get unhooked, meaning that unless it's high MMR and Corrupt Intervention isn't in play, it's pretty likely Meg has already opened half the chests on the map and you have no idea where the other one/two are.
Botany no longer has the item efficiency attached to it, so while it does speed things along and it's great for a healing build, bringing it with a medkit isn't the wombo combo it was before.
Mostly this is going to encourage more CoH. Or just medkits.
Agree to disagree on Pharmacy, I don't usually find that my random teammates open that many chests per game, so I think you'd still get at least one use out of it- which is enough for a guaranteed heal, so that's still quite good. It's still not the strongest healing tool around, but it's always been pretty decent and it'll remain that way going forward, in my opinion.
I do think you're right it'll encourage more CoH, but that's just because CoH is the strongest option. If that were to be sledgehammered after the patch hits live, people would still have plenty of options for self healing-- because remember, it's not just perks that directly affect healing speeds that help you heal yourself, it's also any perk that affects item efficiency or charges.
-
If it's only at tier 1, I could see that being a good way to reduce the grind and help out new players a little more. It'd effectively mean you never see a tier 1 perk in your bloodweb ever again, but I think I'd be okay with that lol.
-
@RakimSockem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3041853#Comment_3041853
I was never a self care user since like 2017 but suggesting someone bring 2 whole perks in just to heal themselves is a bit of a joke
I meant either/or. Emergency Medkits are very very strong, and hypothetically getting more than one per match from one perk, provided you can find a chest, is pretty good. Similarly, Botany makes medkits better, and medkits are already a very very good source of self healing.
-
Great!
Now you can focus on the other options available to you, instead of bringing Self-Care. Including the two buffed ones, in fact, new Pharmacy and new Botany Knowledge are looking pretty strong.
-
So, I've watched this video now, and I'm not entirely sure what this guy is trying to test? I know what he's trying to prove, but all he's doing is playing a single chase out with various buffs.
I interpreted the point of these changes not as being to make the killer end single chases significantly quicker, but rather to cut down on their downtime over the entire trial. Less time wiping your blade, less time kicking pallets, less distance gained on each hit, these things are meant to add up, not be gigantically impactful for every single reduction.
-
I think it might see an uptick in usage, but I don't think it'll be meta. The benefit it'll give is nice, but not really so nice that it becomes the easiest, most conveniently-impactful perk to bring, at least in my view.
-
@bunnybydaylight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3041067#Comment_3041067
endurance now gets cancelled by conspicious actions, meaning if you're injured and mettle is active, you will lose what you spent 3 protection hits trying to gain. meaning you cant use your endurance anymore to guarantee someone elses safety (like sabotaging a hook, unhooking or healing them while you are endured to take the hit if the killer comes, etc) when thats the entire point of the perk.
Is that universal? I haven't tested but I thought that only applied to Off the Record and Borrowed Time.
Even if it is, MoM already breaks one of the rules about Endurance, I wouldn't be surprised if it also broke this one. However, worst case scenario, MoM got accidentally nerfed, I'd agree that's an unnecessary change.