jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
I'm also curious about that- I don't think both effects would be OP or anything, so it's absolutely possible. At the same time, they may want the effect to be more simple, so maybe not...
-
@Munqaxus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2880244#Comment_2880244
There are much better healing options that will give you more generator progress than CoH. I use to play CoH, but have crunching the numbers after the nerf announcement, and have done a complete 180, its just not worth it.
You waste 17.5% gen progress just blessing a totem, which doesn't contribute anything to winning the game. If the Killer stomps out that totem without anyone using it, you lost 17.5% gen progress without gaining anything. A killer can't stomp out Self Care+Botany Knowledge.
BTW, breaking a totem wastes 17.5% of gen progress also, so don't break totems unless you have to.
There are much better healing options for you. There are no other healing options for the whole team, let alone better ones.
I think it's okay that this perk now specialises in having slightly lower numbers than other healing perks, but spreads those numbers across everyone rather than just you and maybe the one teammate you're directly interfacing with. That seems like a good tradeoff to me, even in SoloQ- you can still play for the team in solo, and with CoH you barely have to, your teammates can use it at their leisure.
You make a big deal about numbers, rightfully so, but you're only considering how those numbers apply to you, or maybe one other teammate. The same numbers apply to everyone with CoH, at least hypothetically- that's supposed to be the strength, the point, the goal, not a minor side benefit.
-
@Munqaxus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2880180#Comment_2880180
Botany Knowledge shines even more if you use it altruistically compared to Circle of Healing. Botany Knowledge allows you to heal a survivor in 12 seconds. That's massive. Remember, for survivors, winning the game is based on how efficient you are at doing gens. Every second you spend healing is 1.25% of a gen not done.
If you compare the difference in the 1st heal off of CoH and a heal off of Self Care + Botany Knowledge, the Self Care + Botany Knowledge combo allows you to also do 18% of a gen. That's better than a Commodious Toolbox with the Streetwise Perk, which gives you 16% gen progress.
Botany Knowledge is a perk that only you run, though. Circle of Healing affects every survivor on your team; you don't need to be in a SWF for your teammates to be able to heal one another in the radius. CoH also still stacks with medkits too, which shaves the time off even further.
(Fair cop that I forgot BK functions altruistically, though, I completely forgot how that perk functioned lol)
If your point is that CoH is now not objectively better than any other healing perk but still as viable as any given healing perk, I 100% agree, I'm just getting the sense you think CoH is bad now and I fully disagree. It shifts the value around a little, it asks time instead of medkit charges or a second perk, but it's still more than viable.
-
@Munqaxus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2880153#Comment_2880153
Nerfed CoH is a longer self-care in solo queue. CoH is good because it allows other players to not bring a healing perk or medkit. In solo queue, your best bet is a med-kit, self-care with a medkit or self-care with botany knowledge. It takes 3 heals from CoH before CoH is more efficient that Self-Care. (I'm adding 4 seconds on average to go to the CoH area of effect as a guestimate for travel time).
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/ULRNNHTI2J8O/image.png
Self-Care and Botany Knowledge decreases your heal times to 24 seconds which is way better than CoH. It's going to take a lot of heals for CoH to ever beat Self-Care and Botany Knowledge. After 4 heals your at 28.5 effeciency from CoH, 27.8 effeciency at 5 heals.
For yourself, yes. But if you want to be a team player in SoloQ, it's still a perfectly serviceable perk, because it still boosts altruistic heals in a way that Self-Care and Botany Knowledge don't, and it still lets your teammates go heal themselves in a pinch.
I don't think a perk like this should get to do both equally as well. I think it's perfectly acceptable design, heck, even good design for it to be specialised a little more than that.
-
@randonly said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2880049#Comment_2880049
yes, the perk in SFW has always been more valuable than in SoloQ.
But in SoloQ, the damage will be much higher. Of course, it will still be a self-care slot for the entire survivors (and that's the point of boons, generating something valuable for everyone in exchange for time spent), but before thinking about the team, you have to think about yourself, since you can't communicate with anyone, and that's precisely why you have more robust options than CoH now.
And precisely because the nerf is targeting the wrong aspects, the perk will remain strong in the high MMR, since the people can communicate, use med-kit that stacks to heal each other on totem radius and continue making generators and blessing totems. It's actually a very subtle perk that involves healing, and if it's precious in SWF where you have your allies on your side, imagine in a SoloQ.
But is that a bad thing? It's still a very good perk in SoloQ if you want to be a team player, but if your intent is to heal yourself first and foremost, you have more reliable options. That's a good thing, it encourages perk variety depending on how you want to play and what specific value you want to achieve.
Since it's still going to be a good perk in both SWF and SoloQ, I think that it being less of an obviously correct choice for any healing-related role in a loadout is a good thing. You bring Circle of Healing when you want the thing that Circle of Healing does, not just when you want an all-rounder healing perk.
-
@randonly said:
At the time that Boil Over was buffed, I urgently agreed to the nerf, it was quite easy to not get hooked, even on Solo, the change was positive, because the devs solved the problematic aspect that was gaining a flat 1/4 of the progress when the killer falls from heights, keeping the aura distance increased..
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771883#Comment_2771883
But the nerf that removed 3 seconds in parental guidance still on PTB was a lot for a perk that is already extremely situational, meaningless change and without taking any relevant stats, since the perk did not arrive intact for the official server with 10 seconds.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/312298/about-parental-guidance-nerf
Now CoH that had already been nerfed in healing percentage, receiving another nerf in the same aspect and not in controlling the amount of times it is placed on the map that as suggested by several people (token or Cd system).
And yes, CoH is still useful, but only for -- SWF--. The nerf killed the perk for SoloQ, because there's no way you can get the best of the perk all times that would be an ally to heal you on totem radius, otherwise the time you'll search for the totem + bless + heal yourself (and the killer can still snuff the boom, even if you bless the totem before taking damage), will make the situational perk less valuable than more robust options like Self-care or Inner Strength or Pharmarcy.
What do these two changes indicate? A balance aimed at High SWF, without taking into account any >> value of the perks in SoloQ <<
I'm not sure I agree with that take. It was always a perk that was more valuable in SWF than solo, and I don't see that ratio changing in favour of SWF any more than it already was- the perk is still an infinite free better Self-Care for your whole team, and the random teammates that you group with know that the glowing blue beacon on the map is a place they can run to go heal without a medkit. That time save is still pretty good.
Assuming you're not placing it willy-nilly and make sure to bless away from the action, it's still a pretty solid perk. The only thing that's changed is that you can't use it to heal up absurdly fast, meaning you have to make sure the killer isn't directly on you when you start to heal. That's a good change, and one that won't be different between SWF and SoloQ.
What it has done is stopped CoH from being a selfish SoloQ perk, and I say that without judgement. Before, you could use it on yourself to cover for teammates not healing you and still come out ahead in terms of time saved, whereas now it's still good and still better than Self-Care, but a downgrade from getting an altruistic heal. That's also a good change, though, because if the whole team uses it the time-save still breaks in your favour.
-
@Dwight_Fairfield said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2879936#Comment_2879936
I agree. He's not even in the bottom three killers in my opinion. But he does needs some quality of life changes to put him in a better spot.
For sure. Regarding your suggestions, I do think making Tier 1 a little more viable in general is a good idea- I'd love to see him have a normal lunge, so he's still slow but can choose to do work in Tier 1 if that's the best option in the situation he's in.
Personally, I'd like to see Killer Instinct on any survivor over 50% stalk progress when you pop Tier 3, and the ability to just walk through walls and dropped pallets in Tier 3 too. Those are my most wanted changes.
-
I really do think people exaggerate how weak Myers is, but I do think he could do with a few tweaks to help modernise him a little. He mostly suffers from being kinda slow and clunky, which worked on his release but hasn't kept up with the faster pace of the game today.
-
@Rogue11 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2879645#Comment_2879645
3 licensed chapters over the last year and the year over year growth is almost zero. Not exactly stellar. If the downward trend continues through the anniversary I'd say its more concerning.
Growth isn't everything, the kind of stability in player numbers this game shows is pretty decent. It could definitely be better, but it really gets on my nerves when people use the steam chart screenshots to imply the game is haemorrhaging players when that's categorically not what those numbers are showing.
-
Isn't comic sans known to be easier to read for a lot of people? I swear that I read somewhere it's easier on dyslexic folks if nothing else, though I might be wrong about that.
Either way; it's just one day, so I think worst case scenario it's still fine.
-
@Peanits said:
Nah, the undertall chapter was last month. Sadako's pretty short.
Boooo!
-
Bear in mind that the Steam charts never actually showed a gigantic loss overall to begin with- just the falloff from the all-time high of the Resident Evil chapter.
This is pretty expected.
-
@Tiufal said:
Its because killers are a whiny bunch. Survivors dont even have anything worthwhile that doesnt band aid fix any game flaws. And killers always complain about anything that may look worthwhile. Examples were given plenty in op. they even complain about situational things that dont work out well most of the times like Head-On. And if anything gets nerfed they just go to the next perk in row without any reasoning.
You're actually almost right there, you've hit on something that is true. See, survivors actually have a ton of worthwhile perks, I'd argue that if you picked any five random survivors the majority of their combined teachables are perfectly fine. Some may be more worthwhile in specific builds, some may be a little weaker, but they'll all do something and they'd all give some value, there are very few genuinely useless perks for either side in DBD.
The problem is, the survivor meta is a majority perks that cover for game flaws. Why run a perfectly serviceable perk like any of the genuinely decent and strong perks in OP's examples, if doing so would sacrifice a perk slot for something you might need? Some survivor meta perks are just OP, like current CoH and Dead Hard, but most cover for a very real gap. That's why the survivor meta is so stagnant, you feel punished for not bringing DS whenever you get tunnelled, you feel punished for your teammates not bringing BT for the same reason, and so on and so forth.
That's why current survivor perks feel underwhelming- they aren't, at all! It's been a long time since a survivor with genuinely useless teachables. It's just that they need to be legitimately overpowered to compete with the current meta.
Also, just to be clear, OP is wrong, all those perks are still perfectly serviceable.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2879203#Comment_2879203
As you said, Comms would be a bad idea.
But, whatever they add, if it is Comms, a Ping-System or the Pictures in the UI - it will not solve the problem of Solo-Queue. Because all of this only works if the other party actually wants to do something according to the information they get.
The biggest advantage of SWF is to filter out Potatoes. You know when you are being chased that others are doing Gens. When you get unhooked, you know if they have BT or not. This is all not present in Solo-Queue.
If I am being chased, I might have a Ping-System to tell my team to do Gens or the UI shows that I am being chased, I can even say on Comms that I am being chased - this does nothing if Meg wants to get her "Loot 20 Chests"-Challenge done, Claudette wants to heal in the Corner against Sloppy Butcher and Dwight is hiding in a Locker because he heard Terror Radius for 0,5 seconds.
That is a concern, but there's only so much you can expect game balance to fix for bad play.
Better to just give the players the tools and then balance around the assumption they'll be using those tools. If they aren't, then it's on them.
-
Some semblance of a ping system isn't a bad idea, but comms haven't been added because it'd be a lot of work, it'd demolish the tone of the game, and it wouldn't even fix the problem being discussed.
They did propose an "action portrait" type deal where your portrait would have a little symbol next to it showing what you're doing, and I think that's a great idea. It'd help bridge the gap and give solo players the info they'd need to make smart decisions, without requiring active communication from potentially surly teammates.
-
80% Killer | 20% Survivor
The nerf to Circle of Healing seems promising, but I'd have to see it in action to be sure. It's not the nerf I wanted - CoH itself could use more tweaks but what I really want is a hard cap on how fast you can heal yourself - but there is definitely a number that would make the perk more balanced and I feel this really might be it. Someone else outlined the main problem above, and I agree; all the other boons require the killer to be nearby to function properly, and CoH breaks that, so I don't think the other boons are a problem at all.
Boons have not hurt the game. In fact, I'd be so bold as to suggest boons have had a net positive impact insofar as organically pulling survivors off gens goes. Circle of Healing is the only problematic one.
-
@EntityNea said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2878656#Comment_2878656
it baffles me that you agree to "get back to the point", yet you still use your opinion of a win condition as an argument to the MMR system. I've been trying to tell you that winrate has nothing to do with SKILL in this game, yet you keep going back to winrate.
and no, this is not how MMR systems work in every game. Games generally adapt their ranking system to judge what's "skillful" in that particular game.
In CSGO, you can win a match and still have your rank lowered because you did poorly. You can also lose a match with a great score and either rank up or not rank down as much (i forget which, either way the loss doesn't hurt your rank as much).
In CSGO, however, it's your amount of kills VS deaths that count for the most, but in those kind of games this makes sense as having a high K/D ratio shows you're more skillful than your opponents.
I feel like maybe the developers have looked at these kind of games and decided to use the same way to count a person's MMR, but DBD is a completely different kind of game. It's not a team VS team where both sides are equal in power. It's a 1v4 where the killer is much stronger than each individual survivor, which is meant to create a balance in a 1v4. Hence when it comes to escapes VS deaths, the side with 4 people needs to be counted as a team, because 4 people on that side is going against 1 person on the other side together.
On top of this, a person's individual skill needs to be counted, and a person's individual skill can be determined through direct interactions with the person on the other team. I'm NOT saying kills, deaths or escapes shouldn't count AT ALL... But it SHOULDN'T BE THE ONLY THING that's counted.
----------------------
Generally, how wins and losses (no matter your opinion on how they are counted) should work in an MMR system, is that they act as a multiplier to your overall match rating.
Let me make a proper example of how a proper MMR system should work. This has to work differently for killer and survivors, but for the sake of simplicity, this example is for survivors. For this system, a player's personal rating during a match is counted as a number between 0 - 100. If your number ends up below 50, your overall MMR goes down, if it's above 100 your MMR goes up. Your number starts at 50 when the match starts, and actions you do during the match either raises or lowers it. For example, chases could raise or lower your number depending on how long they last (but let's not get too much into the system itself, that's not the point of this).
Now, let's get to the part where KILLS, ESCAPES or DEATH come into play.
How you would generally develop this, is to apply a multiplier to the player's final score depending on whether the match was won or lost. This multiplier needs to take 6 different scenarios into mind for survivors:
- Match was won (3-4 survivors escaped), and you personally escaped too
- Match was won, but you died
- Match was a draw (2 survivors escaped), and you escaped
- draw, but you died
- match lost (0-1 survivors escaped), and you escaped
- match lost, and you died
(an advanced system would make special multiplier cases too for things like Myers Tombstone addon that can instantly kill a survivor right away, but ignore that for now)
All of these scenarios would have a different multiplier towards your personal score, and takes into account both team wins and personal deaths. Any examples of actual numbers are imaginary, as these numbers highly depend on the design of the base score system. Keep that in mind...
For example, if Steve does very poorly in the match, goes down almost immediately during chases and ends up dying, he might end up with a low base score of 20. His team, however, end up doing all 5 gens and escape! These 3 players will have the "match won, and you escaped" multiplier, boosting their personal match rating by for example 50%. So even if LAURIE did okay but not great, and had a rating of 40, her multiplier boosts it to 60, so her MMR goes up thanks to her escaping.. STEVE, however... He did so bad that his rating was at 20, and he also died. He then uses the "match won, but you died" multiplier, which in this case I'd put at a 0% change since it was a 1v1 with the killer and he lost, yet the team won. His rating is still 20, and his MMR goes down... Now rewind, imagine Steve survived! He still did poorly, got downed immediately during the chases, but his team mates came back and saved him at the end with Borrowed Time and took hits to get him out. Steve's rating is maybe ~26 because he "won the chase" at the end there. His rating of 26 is now multiplied by 50% because he survived, but this ends up as 38 which STILL ranks down his MMR due to how poorly he did. Similarly, if LAURIE had died at the end with a rating of 40, her escape wouldn't have boosted it past 50, and her MMR would have gone down.
TL;DR:
i apologize this message is long, but i ended up explaining how a proper MMR system is supposed to work, where it doesn't only care whether you lived or died, yet these things can make a big difference on whether or not you rank up or down. I am not going to have any further conversations on this unless it's clear that whoever responds to me has read the entirety of the 2nd part of this post (everything below the line of dashes). Sorry if this sounds rude, but it gets tiring when people completely ignore good arguments and points about things and then having to repeat myself, so i took the time to properly make an example of a proper MMR system in this post.
Again, not my opinion. Someone above your message also outlined this, the game's win condition is not ambiguous and not up for debate.
So, I did a little googling and CSGO does seem to be an exception in this regard, though nobody seems to know how that game's MMR system works? So we clearly can't be looking to it for instruction, since there are no instructions to be found. My previous googling on the topic covered six other games (DOTA 2, Rocket League, League of Legends, Smite, Valorant, Rainbow Six Siege) and found that all six of them have an MMR system very similar to DBD, as well as TrueSkill being a system that's based entirely on wins and losses. I don't know exactly what games use TrueSkill, but Microsoft came up with it so I'm assuming at least Halo does? Either way, this does seem to be the norm for MMR systems, so your suggestion for a "proper" MMR system seems to be breaking the mould.
The only exception in my previous googling was Smite, but that was because it also used player level in the matching portion, the number seemed to be calculated the same way.
Regarding your suggestions for a moment... they still suffer both from attempting to change the game's win condition in a manner I'm not convinced it supports, and being far too hung up on expecting players to prove their skill with specific actions when that simply isn't always feasible and gets messy very quickly. This is how the emblem system works, and we saw how badly that turned out; better to just use the proxy for skill when looking at aggregate games, don't you think?
But to focus on your example again, we're outlining Steve's play in one game. One game is statistically irrelevant for any MMR system, we need to know how he plays overall; it could be that his escape this time was a fluke and he normally dies, or that his poor play in this match was an outlier and he's usually more of a team player. These are the questions that matter for a matchmaking system, not how he played in one single match.
-
@EntityNea said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2878579#Comment_2878579
Where does it state that you win when you escape? The game doesn't say "you win!", Hence this is an opinion that you're treating like a fact.
The reality is that this is a matter of opinion and I've met more people seeing it from the team point of view, yet both sides exist.
Because, counting it the way you do... How do you count a killer win/loss? Killer is on the opposite side, meaning that if his opponent loses then he wins, and if his opponent wins he loses. If you are counting survivors individually then you would have to count the killer as having won or loss against each survivors individually.
There are other games similar to DBD that also go for the team way of counting wins and losses.
Regardless of your opinion on this, it is completely unrelated to the bad MMR system.
As i have explained too many times now:
- MMR systems are meant to give you a score based on your SKILL AT PLAYING THE GAME
- The matchmaking then attempts to match you with players close to your score
- Whether or not you live or die has almost nothing to do with a player's skill at PLAYING THE GAME, hence it defeats the purpose an MMR system is supposed to serve.
I dont know what's hard to understand about this.
Of course, we can get back to the point.
So, the thing that you're still missing about the MMR system - or, I should clarify, about MMR systems, from my research they all seem to work like this - is that you take a broader view. Zoom out from a specific match, look at all the player's matches, and ask the following question: Are they winning more than they're losing?
If the answer is yes, it stands to reason that they're more skilled. If they're not, it's usually a balance issue.
It works like this for other games, why wouldn't it work here? DBD isn't more complicated than, say, Valorant or League of Legends. Why would it need a more complex system? What doesn't work about the logic I just outlined?
-
@EntityNea said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2878230#Comment_2878230
Wdym, I've met plenty of people saying that a survivor win is when 3 or more survivors escape.
Im not losing just because i die if i die getting everyone else out.
Just like how I dont lose a round of counter strike just because i die, if my team does well enough I still win.
In any team game, if you perform actions that cause your team to win and they do win, you also win regardless of whether you lived or not.
I feel like your mindset on this is very narrow
The win condition for playing survivor has always been to escape, and if your team gets out that's even better. We can argue back and forth about whether designing the game as a semi-team based one was a good idea, but that's the game that it is. It's not "my mindset", it's just what the game is.
That's not to say that team-based adjustments for the MMR system we have would be a bad idea, mind - I think it's unproven that it's necessary but if MMR needs more adjusting after its current flaws are fixed then that'd be a great first place to look - but the win condition doesn't actually have anything to do with the MMR, it's been the case forever.
-
I'm not sure why you'd conclude it's not worth running? It's still one of the better healing perks, if used properly it'll give you more value than pretty much any other healing perk. Especially with a good medkit.
It not being overwhelmingly overpowered doesn't translate to it being bad, lmao.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2878217#Comment_2878217
No, they should keep talking about them. This game is a competitive game and has been for a long time, and has desperately needed balance changes so that competitive is fair for a long time. People claiming the game is still casual are in denial, and the only reason they still have any claim to the game being casual is because of the awful balance changes that they themselves influenced with all their bad takes. I'm not just saying for people to "git gud" at the game, I'm also saying they need to "git gud" at knowing what they're even talking about.
Ah, I see.
Well, my point is more that it doesn't really matter whether they consider it a casual game or a competitive game; balance matters for both and the most egregious balance problems in this game would be relevant either way.
-
@EntityNea said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2873927#Comment_2873927
I just dont agree with you with what a "win" is.
It's a team game for the survivors, and for me it's a win if i can help all other survivors escape by keeping the killer busy the whole match. Dying at the end really doesn't make a difference in this game, I just miss out on 5k bloodpointsz that's it. I reach rank 1 easily without needing to escape.
I dont always let the killer kill me, by the way.
I do however enjoy interacting with the killer more than i like doing gens, so i put myself in danger to keep others safe and we "win" a lot of matches with all of us escaping, but if someone dies it's usually me because killers get pissed after i distract them for 5 full gens and i often end up getting face camped.
This is another example of the MMR calculation being bad. If you can loop the killer for 5 gens, you basically won yhe match for your team. Yet you rank down in yhe MMR aystem because the killer got mad and face canped you.
Idk why anybody would think this is a good system. Clearly there's more to the game than whether or not you, personally, lived or died
I mean, that's not up for debate? The win condition has been the same for the entirety of the game's existence, whether you personally care to fulfil it or not. I don't personally tie my enjoyment of a match to whether I won or not, but I also don't pretend that means it's up for discussion what a win is.
For the record, I do think a potential gap in the system is someone who can run the killer for five gens but dies in the endgame as the only kill, but that'd still have to be happening in more games than it doesn't for it to be statistically relevant for the MMR system, so all that really needs to change is to lower those players slightly less to compensate and it won't cause any issues. It's also not a gap because that player would be "punished" by being ranked down, MMR isn't a reward or punishment, but rather because lowering them to the point where they bully newer killers wouldn't be particularly fun for those killers.
But again: In order for a situation like that to matter in MMR, it has to happen repeatedly, more often than it doesn't.
Regarding your last point: That's true of any game that has an MMR system, though, and it clearly works okay for those games.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2876769#Comment_2876769
Then it's great that such an item does not exist in Mario Kart. That's why you never hear about balance changes in that game, because it's been fine for the longest and so nobody has complained.
In DBD you have perks that stun the killer for tunneling you even after he's hooked someone else, or make it impossible for you to even die to them once you're off hook at the end of the game. In a game where people are trying to champion that skill should be rewarded and that's what the balance should be based off of, we've seen no such thing because the devs and their cheerleaders in the community are tone deaf.
I'm... not sure I'm following your point?
Is your argument that people should stop talking about balance issues in DBD because... there are balance issues in DBD...?
-
If NOED frustrates you, no nerf is going to stop it from frustrating you. It's already a bad, underwhelming, inconsistent, extremely flimsy perk that has the most counterplay of any perk in the game.
A full rework to make it more consistently useful for all killers in more matches could be a good idea, but it simply doesn't warrant a nerf. It's not even good, let alone overpowered.
-
@dictep said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2877844#Comment_2877844
Without COH all other boon perks are useless. You kill COH, you kill all of them
...How? You already don't want to run CoH with the other boons since they have anti-synergy, and while Exponential and Dark Theory are pretty weak, Shadow Step stands on its own pretty nicely.
Even if that were the case, though, clearly the answer is to change all the boon perks, since CoH desperately needs its upcoming change and potentially more.
-
I'd agree on Dead Hard, but only when it's used to dodge a hit, or slide into place for a flashlight save, or do something else funky and cool and dynamic. When it's just used to extend a chase to get to a pallet, there's no interactivity, no back and forth, no expression of skill- you just press a button and the chase lasts longer, and on the killer side, the survivor presses a button and the chase lasts longer after you rightfully caught up to them and zoned them out.
Circle of Healing, though... what's fun about that? The other boons, sure- Shadow Step, Exponential, and Dark Theory all allow for dynamic plays or skilful achievements. All CoH does is remove the pressure, tension, or strategy from healing. You just get to do it, on your own, very quickly. With its upcoming nerf, you'll have to choose where to place it and take the time to heal a little more strategically, thus upping the tension of the killer perhaps interrupting you. That, for my money, is much more fun.
I struggle to see how either perk could be considered making the game more fun in their current incarnation, other than that they both make the game substantially easier for the player who equipped them.
-
Be wary, for our aura is revealed during this day...
-
@dictep said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2877702#Comment_2877702
Yes, you don’t see monstrous shrine not because it’s a bad perk, but only because there are better perks
You don't see Whispers, Agitation, Franklin's Demise, Surveillance, Discordance, Fearmonger, etc etc etc. Because they're overshadowed or pushed out of relevance by a reliance on other perks. They all do something, you're going to notice their presence in your games, but they're not slowdown perks nor are they the most powerful in the game, so they don't make it into the meta. Monstrous Shrine doesn't do anything of note, it actually is a bad perk.
Similarly, you don't see any perk on your list except MoM because they're overshadowed by other, better perks. Pretty sure you do already know the difference here, but just in case.
-
@Mandy said:
Whilst yes community feedback is important (it's also not the only thing that matters). The wording in the Tweet is actually regarding WHEN the change is taking place for CoH not the change itself.
lmao called it
Glad to see the change either way, though. Very welcome.
-
@dictep said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2877670#Comment_2877670
I didn’t see any of them in months
That's because the meta in this game is extremely entrenched and only a handful of perks make it to the top. There are a ton of perfectly serviceable, genuinely good perks you're not going to see because they're not Dead Hard, Borrowed Time, Decisive Strike, or Unbreakable. You'll occasionally see a handful of others, but the fact is people only really run a handful of 'the best' perks while leaving perfectly good ones by the wayside.
Except for MoM, each one of the perks you mentioned provides legit value and is in a pretty good spot, they're just overshadowed by the objectively overpowered perks (Dead Hard and, until next patch, CoH) and the perks you feel you have to run to cover for gaps in the base gameplay (Borrowed Time, Decisive Strike, to a lesser degree Unbreakable).
-
Literally the only bad perk on that list is MoM.
Assuming BL is Balanced Landing that perk is still perfectly serviceable, Object of Obsession is still incredible for information gathering, Boil Over still has the actual buffs it got ensuring that it's pretty useful though it is somewhat map dependant (the stagger matters more for indoor maps, it's still good though), and CoH will still be preferable to Self-Care due to it not requiring medkits to get fast heals and being infinitely usable as long as the totem is lit.
They weren't killed. They were nerfed, and some of them showcase some of the more inventive solutions BHVR have given for problem perks, OoO especially.
-
Notice that the thing they said was because of popular demand wasn't nerfing CoH to begin with, but rather "moving [a] nerf forward". The implication is that they always planned to do this, but decided to do it earlier because they saw the perk was currently very unpopular.
I think what a lot of people miss is that CoH was complained about a lot and also overpowered. It wasn't just that people didn't like it, it actually was a problem.
-
@DriplordDrew said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2877467#Comment_2877467
Ok and my point is that no matter how much CoH is changed killers will cry no matter how the change DH killers will cry. Perks are used for the reason they help one side or the other. If crying get things changed they will change it. Its ridicules how many SHPR and DMS I see so they should change that cause its op and I don't like it. NOED is op for a killer that has been a potato threw out the trial only to get a kill cause of a terrible perk. Each change you make to one side the other side is going to cry. I am say when they nerf perks (which the will) I am saying don't cry about it cause here you are jumping for joy over a nerf for the other side. At the end of the day I think killers blow DH out of the water cause unless used perfect its useless. CoH is OP cause of the healing it offers to all. I am not against changing perks that are unbalanced I just hate seeing people here excited when its announced for one side only to see them crying because the other side got there way and the perk they use get nerfed warranted or not.
I really think you're jumping the gun here. This was a good change so it makes sense to celebrate it, and if there's a bad change it makes sense to criticise it. People are gonna whine either way, you're right, but you're also still going to see people celebrating good changes like this one either way.
-
@DriplordDrew said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2877130#Comment_2877130
Never said there were overpowered ones but if you just take 5 mins and read the thousdands of titles like "Corrupt is OP" "NOED needs to go" "SHPR and Deadman's switch are everywhere" and take half a minute to think that if the devs are actually listening about CoH and DH (which I know they are looking into changing) then killers should be prepared for changes to your perks that survivors cry about. I am a survivor main I use CoH and will continue to do so and I think the change is healthy but if crying gets things changed then hopefully you don't cry when it happens to you.
I have enough faith in the devs to assume they won't blindly follow community whining. CoH and Dead Hard are overpowered, independent of how many people are complaining about them, so that's why they're getting changed.
None of the perks you gave as examples, or any other perk people might be "crying" about, are actually OP, and so there's no reason to assume they would get changed.
-
@Bwsted said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2877089#Comment_2877089
Nah. I've run into a handful of survivors who ran it and it did absolutely nothing. Maybe on RPD, or once in a blue moon on Midwhich where you get done dirty by hook rng and you need to take a dropdown. But it's been a dead perk since the nerf. I'm perfectly fine if survivors in my trials waste a slot on that.
In all situations but RPD library and kinda Eyrie of Crows, it was the same as it is now. It wasn't too strong before, it was abusable, there's a difference.
Now, you're left with the actual buffs it got - 16m hook aura hiding, which is useful for making killers stop and check where a hook is before pickup, and 100% increased stagger, which is useful on all indoor maps and sometimes elsewhere - and a potential (but unlikely) free escape if you can proc the great height drop. That's a perfectly serviceable perk, in my opinion.
-
@DriplordDrew said:
Hope that when the devs target the killer perks that survivors are crying about that you don't complain cause I know survivors are about to complain about this.
What perks are you referring to? I can't think of any that are as overpowered as CoH or Dead Hard.
There's unbalanced stuff on the killer side for sure, but I don't think any of it is perks?
-
@GoshJosh said:
It was good while it lasted, it’s now basically a dead perk. No reason to run it over any other healing perk and/or a medkit. So long, Circle of Healing. Say hi to Boil Over for us in the graveyard of perks.
Boil Over is still pretty good, that hook aura hiding and increased stagger are nothing to sneeze at.
-
@ThatOneDemoPlayer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2877070#Comment_2877070
It's slower than Self-Care. No one will use the Perk anymore
According to one of the devs in another thread, it's still faster- 21 seconds for a self heal without a medkit. That means it's worth using over Self-Care since it's already faster without requiring a medkit, as well as providing that benefit to all your teammates.
It'll still be strong because it's infinite heals that can be set up away from the action, but it ought to be a little more balanced now.
-
I'm uncertain how much this'll help since it doesn't quite address CoH's main issues, but it ought to slow down healing enough that the perk won't be as overwhelmingly awful. The first nerf already lessened the perk's impact a little, and combined with this one... yeah, I think CoH will be manageable after this.
If nothing else, this is a good stage to start from when it comes to actually changing it on a more fundamental level, if it still proves necessary- which I personally think it will.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2876157#Comment_2876157
No, it's not a strawman. It's true. People want to be bad at the game but also do good, so even though they have no concept of high level killer or high level survivor, they want to talk balance changes. If the pros and talking balance changes and the noobs are talking balance changes, they want the game to be competitive, not casual, whether you like it or not. People don't care about balance in a casual game. That's an oxymoron.
If there was an item in Mario Kart that functioned exactly like the blue shell does now, but anyone in any position could obtain it, it hit everyone at once, and it stunned them for three times as long, people would rightfully care and talk about how it's a wildly unbalanced and unfun item to have in the game.
Mario Kart is obviously a casual game, and what's being described would obviously be a balance issue. There is, therefore, obviously a degree to which balance is actually important for casual games, because they're still competitive in a literal sense and people still want to have a relatively equal playing field- that's part of what makes them fun to play.
-
Red Rank 1 isn't an indication of skill, it's an indication of how much time they've played and how much they've filled in the emblem system. Matching totally new players with red rank 1 is probably part of the system being a little iffy right now, but in general the grade scores aren't used for the matchmaking.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2876732#Comment_2876732
Yeah, but I have not seen positive comments about Hawkins in this intensity while it was still in the game. Sure, people who are happy with something dont raise their voice, but also when someone was complaining about Hawkins, there were very rarely voices who defended the Map.
The flip side is that those who disliked Hawkins have no reason to post about it anymore, whereas people who do like it now have way more of a reason to post about it.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
Funny how many people claim to like this map. Starting when it got removed.
I am glad that it is gone and I hope it will never return.
I defended it while it was still with us, I'm consistent.
People were too mean to that map, it was a lot more fun than people gave it credit for.
-
If I recall correctly Twins are next on the list anyway, but I agree with that assessment. Myers would be next up, but since he's still much more fun to play and less frustratingly clunky than the Twins, I think they take priority.
-
@Anara said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2876719#Comment_2876719
I miss this map so much it was one of the best !
Undervalued in its time, and taken from us too soon.
I miss it too, it was one of my favourites.
-
We can only but hope...
-
@GoshJosh said:
I think it is strong enough to remain a hex, and is in a perfect place as a totem slowdown perk. Undying only protects another hex once; Thrill could possibly stay up at full strength the entire trial. Survivors have to carefully choose between blessing and cleansing (if either) when ToTH is in play. So much spent time, even if only once in the match.
I certainly agree that's the case, but don't you think that what you're describing is somewhat undercut by it being tied to a totem? There's a lot less careful choice when you can just cleanse the totem its associated with and completely remove that slowdown from the match.
But, if the only way to lessen its power is to actually break totems, you would have to make those choices. There's no easy out, you either deal with the slowdown or you break a few totems and make it more manageable. Slowing down blessing and cleansing isn't that universally strong of an effect if nobody brings boons and near useless if nobody brings boons and you don't have any hexes, so this feels reasonable to me.
-
Some of these are poor examples, because they're not things that are going to happen frequently enough to impact your MMR- take example two, for instance. That kind of thing would have to be happening every match before it's statistically relevant to the MMR system, it happening every now and again makes very little difference.
Example three is another one. Even in the example, you say the survivor in question gets "lucky", and they surely can't be getting lucky enough games in a row for it to impact their MMR that much, right?
Part of the problem with the mindset of MMR needing to take more into account is that it tends to assume that one match actually matters more than it does. The premise of an MMR system is simple; if you're winning more matches than you're losing, you must be doing something right. This is correct, with one caveat; any time you're winning consistently but not doing something right (EG, facecamping NOED Bubba), that is not a matchmaking issue. It's a balance issue.
-
It still happens to me occasionally when I have high ping, what was yours like?
-
@Adjatha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2875504#Comment_2875504
Except, you won't know if there IS a hex or not at the start of the match. Survivors are going to split up and go onto gens like normal. If they then become aware of a hex, they have to leave gens to go looking. Even if they have a rough ideal where they need to look, it's still time taken going towards the killer and possibly exposing themselves to chases.
The idea that survivors are going to start every match by just running straight for the killer's spawn point to search for a hex that may or may not be there is absurd.
In EVERY case, not having a chance for your hex to spawn on top of a survivor is superior.
That's not really the point, though- as soon as survivors know that there is a hex in play, right now they MIGHT need to go near the killer's spawn, or they MIGHT need to double back closer to their spawn. If hexes were coded to spawn near the killer always, that doubt is eliminated and it's just a matter of how long it takes them to get to the one or two spawns it's guaranteed to be.
Survivors spawning in view of a lit totem is a problem, but this isn't the solution. This is all setting aside that it physically can't function like this for an all-hex build, too, since there'd be too many lit totems.