jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
@SlothGirly said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2616927#Comment_2616927
calling it a system is a bit generous don't you think?
Uh... no? "System" doesn't imply any kind of competence.
-
It makes perfect sense- they're not the same mechanic, they're not designed to do the same thing, and so they're not designed with the same downsides.
A hex perk is high impact and effects the core objective- generators, or shortening chases. (Hypothetically. I know some of them suck, but that's a problem with those perks more than anything else.) It's set immediately and, barring ones that need to gain tokens, is in effect immediately. The idea behind hexes is that survivors do need to break them or they're at a serious disadvantage.
Boons, however, have to be blessed actively by survivors, do not affect the core objective, and are only effective in a radius, not map-wide. From the killer perspective, it's supposed to work like this: A survivor finds a totem in an optimal spot, and is generally near that area to make use of it. You chase them, you down them, and then you snuff the totem- meaning that if they want to make use of their perk again, they have to not be on generators and they have to be in a spot the killer knows they want to be in.
You don't want boons to be breakable, trust me. Either they're single-use and nobody runs them, or the totem is broken when it's snuffed and that means survivors go scurrying off like rats into a dark corner of the map instead of wasting their time in one area where you can interrupt them.
-
I agree- the pallets really need to be reduced. Maybe redistributed, the upper floor is kind of a death trap for survivors due to how little resources they have up there. No vault spots, very few safe pallets, heck, not even that many unsafe ones, it's open as hell so they have less to hide behind...
Whereas the lower floor is a nightmare for the killer due to how cramped and pallet-dense it is.
Not sure why people hate the breakable walls, though- I find the Game one of the few maps with pretty decent breakable walls, you can smash through them to go interrupt a generator before said generator actually opens up that wall, if you want to. It's not a map where you need to break them, just one where doing so could benefit you.
-
I wonder if caps lock plays into it at all? I put "gg wp" all the time in lower case and it never gets hit, so maybe the all caps reads as aggressive...?
It's really not a very good system at all and I have no idea why it was made this way.
-
I mean, the reward is making a ton of time for your teammates to finish the generators. Not to say they will, especially in Solo Q, but the reward is supposed to be making a ton of progress towards the win condition.
-
I'm going to risk this being bait and engage it sincerely;
First of all, I don't see the correlation- neither of the current Boons actually counter NOED since healing faster doesn't matter when you're Exposed and Shadow Step doesn't interact with the core effects of NOED either.
Second... come on, NOED is only an "easy 3/4K" if the survivors play like lemmings and feed the Killer that value by going for a risky save instead of just leaving, or breaking the totem.
That being said, Boons don't really need nerfing at all, they're not OP. Things around them need to be changed, like uncapped self healing speeds or brokenly strong tiles.
-
Unironically, my favourite map is (was?) Hawkins, I genuinely think it's one of the more unique and fun maps to play on. So long as you're not playing a Killer like Blight or one of the chainsaw lads, anyway, it's pretty rough for them...
Other than that, I quite like Dead Dawg a lot, and I'm really warming up to Lery's.
-
@dugman said:
One thing with Meyers is, like all killers but to an even greater degree, you have to consider balancing him assuming he’s using add-ons since what add-ons he’s using can change his playstyle dramatically. Some greatly increase the speed he can charge up, or he can take a long time to charge but it lasts forever, or he can opt to not be able to get Evil 3 at all and get other bonuses, or he can take a ridiculously long time to charge but be able to kill during a chase. It’s quite a variety, and they’re all playable (albeit some a bit trickier to pull off than others).
So it’s important to consider, I think, how universally increasing his charge up speed would impact those various styles. The main downside to some of them is that they intentionally take a long time to complete. And others are already fairly quick to charge. What happens then when the base speed is increased significantly? Or likewise, if you change how Evil 1 works, how does that impact Evil 1 Scratched Mirror Meyers? Or if you change Evil 2 what happens with Vanity Mirror Meyers?
I’m not saying they can’t tweak his base stats and I have no particular opinion on how good or bad Meyers is in general. All I’m saying is you can’t balance him assuming he’s not running add-ons, you have to assume various possible add-on builds and what may or may not additionally have to be changed there is you change his base stats.
Oh, I agree- as I said, his addons would have to be tweaked in order to compensate for these universal buffs to his base kit, I'm pretty sure every addon would have to have some values adjusted to compensate for it. That was very much included in this idea, friend!
As for the Mirrors, I don't think they'd be too affected? Vanity Mirror would be unchanged and Scratched Mirrors would probably get a buff. If you're really concerned about SM Myers with these changes, the addon could always be tweaked to give whatever downside we removed back as part of the addon conditions- say if you speed up his movement speed in tier one, then Scratched Mirror slows you back down again.
The same goes for all the other addons that promote specific styles- if these changes would break those playstyles, their associated addons can always give him back the old playstyle. I don't think him having some fun addon combos really justifies leaving him to languish at basekit, is the thing- and this is coming from someone who plays and enjoys Myers a lot, I understand the appeal of his addons.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2615518#Comment_2615518
Ooh. I'll give him a try then. Along with Demo and Hag, he's quickly becoming a favorite of mine.
Good luck! His chains are super hard to land, but pretty satisfying.
-
@StarLost said:
Here's a couple. Yes, I know I'm cheating but it's impossible to pick just one.
- Haddonfield, RPD and Badham reworked to be less obnoxious.
- Map offerings removed entirely.
- Pinhead lunge bug fixed and his voice restored.
- Pseudo infinites on the above maps fixed.
- Demogorgon's ambient sound volume reduced significantly when playing him.
- Wraith and Slinger nerfs rolled back.
- Boons incur a 90 second cooldown when you snuff one.
- Boon totem 'snuff' radius increased.
You can scratch one of those off, at least, they did already fix the Pinhead lunge bug afaik
-
Rework totem spawns. Survivors should not spawn with a totem already on their damn screen, or even close, and there should also be a little extra care taken from the killer side now that boons are in the game.
-
@TheDarkTyrant said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2615417#Comment_2615417
Well new modes. That's mainly what I want. New side things to be able to do as well. More for your grind. Like free content. Like unlockable moris or do it like Friday the 13th where you can do environmental. Small things like that are really cool to me and add a lot. Easy to do, very effective.
Fair enough, I suppose. I'd like to see those too, I guess I just don't see how their lack makes DBD the weakest game in the genre when it's pretty clearly one of the stronger ones.
It just seems kinda shallow to be this judgemental of the game for not having more free cosmetics.
-
@Kurri said:
How hard the sheep are trying to make DbD sound like it has a lot of content is surprising.
As someone who's tried to explain this game to a newcomer, you'd be surprised. It stops feeling like it since we're all used to it, but this game has quite a bit going for it.
-
@TheDarkTyrant said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2615398#Comment_2615398
It's just lacking stuff. That's it. All we get is new killers and maps. I'm not saying I don't like this game. In fact I play it a lot. I love it. I'm just saying I think the other games are simply better for doing the things DBD gets wrong right. Like content mainly.
Yes, but what content? Extra modes would at best be an amusing oddity, there's not that much they can do there, so what are they supposed to add? Just any example, I'm curious.
-
@TheDarkTyrant said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2615389#Comment_2615389
Nope. But all DBD adds is new killers and new maps. Those are the 2 biggest things. Bare minimum that other games could crank out way faster and did. I mean REsistance had HUGE content updates every month until they stopped it.
Right, but... aside from extra modes, what could they add? Each new killer adds in new fundamental mechanics (for the most part, and even repeated mechanics function differently) so that's obviously meaningful content, so even that is already pretty decent.
Seriously, though, what are you saying that DBD is lacking, if it's not extra modes?
-
What I'm getting from this is that apparently the only way for a game to have "meaningful content" is if it includes arbitrary extra modes, regardless of whether they're fitting or appropriate for the game...?
-
@SMitchell8 said:
Killer
1 Creeper
2 Indoraptor
3 Imohtep
4 Lipstick face
5 Headless Horseman
Survivor
1 Van Helsing
2 Dr Malcom (JPark)
3 456 (squid game)
I never considered Jurassic Park content for DBD, and while I have my doubts a dinosaur killer would work... I really wanna see the map and survivors that could come of it.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2615192#Comment_2615192
Not a single part of this is true, because MMR is not a reward.
We still have an actual reward system based on the exact same emblem system we've always had. Use it.
The problem isnt MMR, it's the players acting absolutely insane over MMR and treating it as a reward or a goal. You're supposed to ignore it, it will work fine if you do. It was working fine until it was datamined and everyone found out it was based on escapes.
An excellent point, and one everyone needs to remember. We can criticise the MMR system's flaws while understanding that it's not a progression system and you're not "supposed" to be climbing the ranks, necessarily.
-
I support Surge getting buffed. Especially now that it's a generic perk- makes sense that the whole roster should be able to use it properly.
-
@ElusivePukka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2614866#Comment_2614866
That is a problem with MMR, not the only problem. However, ranks/grades have never meant anything, so phooey on the Ranked matchmaking that came before too.
Thing is, the emblem score system already in the game and used for the rank/grade up and rank down system was a fairly good measure of trial interaction, save places where some killers/actions weren't calibrated correctly within the confines of the scoring events. I'm not saying the emblem system is perfect, by any means, and it definitely needs tuning - but it's at least more intensive, is no more exploitable than the current system under Escape-Based Match Making of Blendettes and facecamps being actively encouraged, and would serve as a better measure not just of results but of actual play.
To more completely summarize: a cumulative emblem-based MMR, where your own averages adjust your proportionate score relative to the averages of the others in the trial, seems to be where the sweet spot would be.
Well, I won't argue with the conclusion- I actually agree that a fusion of the MMR system as it stands and the emblem system is a good idea, though I'd probably go about it differently. The part I'm confused on is how the current system punishes you for succeeding in the game?
-
@Mister_xD said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2614883#Comment_2614883
I'm not sure if my input is going to be particularly valuable to you since I only put that it was a good addition because it was a good idea and needs extra tweaking, but I can try and answer this.
dont worry, i appreciate your response just as much as from anyone else ^^
everyone understood the rank system of matchmaking to be garbage while it was a thing, and I'm not sure why people are starting to cling to it- that system was bad and we all knew it was bad
personally, i dont view the old system as a particularily good one. i do however view it as a better system than the current MMR system, so I'd rather go back to the old system than receive a direct downgrade to it. additionally, i think the old Emblem systems flaws were actually a lot more resolvable than the MMR systems flaws.
lets take the unfairness to oneshot abilities as an example:
you are right, it is straight up unfair for characters such as Hillbilly to receive significantly less Chaser Emblem points for succesfully using their power in comparison to any normal M1 Killer - however, the fix for this is actually quite simple: just slightly tweak the Chaser Emblem to count oneshot downs as two seperate chases - one that took as long as it took you to apply the oneshot and one that is counted as instantly over. That way you would not only make it fair in comparison, but actually reward Killers for spending some more time in a chase to use their, usually also not that easy to use, powers instead of going for the safe option of just M1ing.
in addition to that i personally just dont see the point of introducing a competetive matchmaking system to a game like DbD. There is just so little actual competetiveness in this game, that i do not believe a system like the MMR system is going to work - ever. (a competetive game has to be competetively viable. this means the game has to be overall well balanced and the detemrining factor of someones success has to be their personal skill level - which, simply put, just isnt the case in DbD, due to things like RNG playing such a big role)
So people like me dont actually want the old system back, but we do think it provides a much better basis to build an an actually functioning matchmaking system on than the MMR system does.
i know this was a bit off topic to the OP, but i hope i could answer your question.
however, i think i will have to disagree with you on one thing here:
I think skill in DbD is a much more versatile thing than just seeing who escapes and who doesnt - for example: i do not think that Blendette who sat in a corner all game, did a gen and instantly opened a door to leave her team behind was a better player than that Jake who just looped the Killer for 3 gens, made a couple of clutch hook saves and is currently getting facecamped - yes the Claudette played it safe, but she didnt play it well. Her success is directly reliant on the rest of the team doing well - and if this Claudette happens to be part of an SWF group, then she will be able to consistently "do well" and be treated as a top tier player, despite her not actually being good at the game.
this means, in my opinion, a system is needed that takes more into account than just this one thing, which the Emblem system has at least tried to do. Not to say the Claudette in my example wouldnt also have a clear advantage in the Emblem system over people who werent part of a SWF, but that system at the very least was a lot less exploitable in that regard than MMR currently is.
I agree with your assessment of the flaws in this system- I completely agree that skill is more versatile than whether you escape/get a 4K, but I do also think that your skill should only be measured in how well you can leverage it to achieve that win condition. However, to speak to your example of the Blendette, I do have two things to say.
Firstly: That's why I think that the emblem system should be used as a secondary decrease/increase modifier, so that the Jake who did really well for the team and happened to die shouldn't have his MMR decreased all that much (maybe even breaking even as though he'd hatch escaped), and so the Blendette doesn't get as much of an increase as she would've if she were more active. The goal is still to escape, so that should still be the primary thing being weighed, but some extra stuff can be evaluated alongside that with slightly less weight.
The second thing I'd want to say is that hiding in a corner and leaving immediately is only gonna get you so far. Once that Blendette goes up against better killers, she's gonna find that she's pretty easily scoped as the weak link and thus is the one who gets targeted for the easiest pressure on the team- at least, hypothetically. I know the game has some balance issues that complicate that, but to be fair, those aren't directly related to the MMR system. Beyond that, though, strategies which work at a lower tier and that start to plateu when you climb is a pretty common part of most online games, in my experience.
I agree that DBD isn't competitive, though, which is why it's very important to remember that this system is not designed like a rank progression system, as you'd see in games typically associated with the term "MMR". It's just for matchmaking, it's pretty barebones.
-
I'm not sure if my input is going to be particularly valuable to you since I only put that it was a good addition because it was a good idea and needs extra tweaking, but I can try and answer this.
So, the first thing I want to highlight is that everyone understood the rank system of matchmaking to be garbage while it was a thing, and I'm not sure why people are starting to cling to it- that system was bad and we all knew it was bad, even if this system isn't any better calling for a return to something we know doesn't work seems like a bizarre choice to me?
Regardless: The emblem system does have its strengths, it does encourage a certain style of playing, it just doesn't work as the matchmaking system universally because not every killer can realistically actually get full points on it. Any killer with an instadown is inherently punished for using their kit by the emblem system, because the emblem system wants multiple injures and longer chases, just as an example. That alone completely disqualifies it as better than the MMR system, it's clearly not fit for purpose at all based solely on that one example.
Then the MMR system comes in, and it standardises everything: Now it doesn't want you to play in a hyper-specific way to rank up, which is pretty dumb for a matchmaking system since that should just measure your overall skill, not put a challenge in front of you. Instead, it only takes into account whether or not you completed the objective, which is... reasonable, that's your goal, that's the thing you're trying to do. How consistently you can do that is a pretty reasonable basis for an MMR system, especially since it does have a little bit of nuance by softening your loss if you played against higher-MMR players or if you died third/fourth.
However, you're not completely wrong. My conclusion on the poll post is the same as it is here- the MMR system should incorporate the emblem system as a second round of loss-softening, so you don't fall as far in the system for a loss after getting a really good emblem score than you would if you just played really poorly.
-
@ElusivePukka said:
MMR is, pretty explicitly, a punishment for succeeding in the game in DBD, because escapes/kills don't actually measure skill - no matter how many dishonest and disingenuous people want to claim "the result is what matters"
MMR based on emblems is the best of both worlds, and it's what would have worked.
I'm not sure I see where you're coming from on this one- isn't the problem with the MMR system that it only takes into account whether you succeeded, and not how much skill you put into doing so?
On top of that, the emblem system actually did punish you for succeeding, if you did it too quickly or too efficiently. Could you elaborate?
-
IF boons need to be tweaked, and that's a big IF because currently they only exacerbate issues already present in the game like bad totem placements and uncapped self healing speed, then I would only posit a very brief cooldown after a totem is snuffed before a survivor can re-bless it. Thirty seconds at most, and even that might be too much.
As it stands, though, the game itself should be changed around these perks because their effects are totally reasonable and the base boon mechanic is pretty much perfect. The only change I'd suggest to the base mechanic, not even a nerf or a buff, is that Plaything and NOED should snuff a boon to make room if it needs to.
-
I don't have much in mind for Killer, beyond some ideas for what kind of non-licensed aesthetics I'd want to see, but I would like to see some specific survivors.
1: John Constantine (Hellblazer)
2: Vriska Serket (Homestuck)
3: Alan Wake (...Alan Wake)
4: Ryan Bergara & Shane Madej (Buzzfeed Unsolved)
Obviously two of those are far more likely than the other two... but I'd love to see all of them. Some licensed legendary skins from the same properties for killers would be great, too...
-
I agree with this- fast healing should be an altruistic action to promote teamplay, and self healing should be capped so that you can't heal in a ridiculously short time while the killer's on you.
Hell, I'd even support some kind of basekit Coulrophobia to help combat that, as another way of getting there.
-
Slinger isn't really any weaker than he was, other than having to play a little differently and having to commit a little more to a hit, but he definitely feels way clunkier now.
-
Basing the MMR system on kills and escapes is obviously fine- it's obviously the best thing to make the primary decision maker, because it's measuring whether you won or lost. I agree with whichever developer was- spending three hours running the killer and doing heals and getting safe unhooks is great, but wouldn't it be great if you could do all of that and not lose?
There is, however, one problem that I think they can fix with a little bit of elbow grease. Currently, the system seems to work that it has caveats which "soften" the loss of MMR if you lose, if you're the last one to die or if your opponent was a higher skill rating than you, things like that. I think the system should also soften your loss if you performed really well on the emblem system, or if you got a lot of bloodpoints, one of the two. Basically, if you play very well then lose at the last second, your loss should be lesser than if you played horrendously and died first.
-
@dugman said:
Being able to replace a Boon and boons stacking aren't actually problems in an of themselves because boons can be balanced around those general features by adjusting their specific parameters. For example, if Circle of Healing is too powerful in its current form it can be balanced by simply turning down its healing speed. And if Shadow Step is too power it can be balanced by reducing its radius of effect. Also, as was pointed out above, in order to allow survivors to each hypothetically have multiple boon perks simultaneously they have to have all the boon perks on a given survivor stack on their one boon totem. (Otherwise you'd need up to 16 totems on the map for up to 16 simultaneous possible boon perks if all four survivors brought a full set once more Boons are eventually released.)
And note that Boons are intentionally made to not work like Hexes since Hexes, unlike Boons, start off the match in play immediately with no action required on the killer's part and Hex effects are map-wide with respect to where their totem is. Since Boons don't have those advantages they are given this ability to be replaced after being snuffed to compensate.
So while Circle of Healing and Shadow Step may need to be adjusted in their next balance patch (probably in January or so) they'll probably just need to have their effect or radius adjusted with no particular need to change how the Boons are placed in general.
This is completely correct. All of this.
The boon totem mechanic does still need some tweaking, but to suggesting that boons should be temporary is just abandoning the mechanic, to put it bluntly.
In my opinion, what the mechanic needs most is for totem spawns in general to be fixed so you never spawn on top of a totem anymore, and after seeing a few different suggestions around I've come around to the idea that self-healing in general should be capped so you can't heal yourself in stupid fast speeds regardless of whether CoH is in play.
-
It's a close call but I think Spirit takes it
-
HAAAARGH HAAAAAAGGHH
-
@KwwB said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2612553#Comment_2612553
Yeah good point. Main event is very useless IMO. Unless you catch a bunch of survivors out in the open using Main Event near ANY obstacles is pointless with how slow you move while doing it.
Also in most matches I usually only get 1 Main Event, sometimes 2.
Yeah, it's pretty underwhelming. I think a good fix would be to make it so that, if you don't use it straight away, it goes back down to 75% filled instead of 0%. That way you can build it back up quicker when it might actually be potentially useful.
-
Body blocking is good for you, means they're not working on gens and you get some free injures, maybe even a down if they get particularly cocky.
-
I don't really agree, I think him being 4.4m/s is fine. If he needs anything, it's less recoil and a tweak to Main Event, not to move faster.
I saw this a lot when he first came out, and it's always struck me as completely backwards. If his power isn't good enough for 110% speed, then... buff the power?
-
@themoobs1984 said:
I'm annoyed that I bought the Stranger Things DLC and now the Hawkins Lab map is being removed forever. If I bought it I should be able to play it as long as I want. I'll still have Steve and the Demogorgon but not the map. I feel a little ripped off.
You didn't pay for the map- you get sent to associated realms whether you own the DLC or not, or I wouldn't be getting sent to Badham or Midwich every fourth map lmao
-
Well, the reason it didn't release alongside any "counters" is because it's designed to be baked into the core gameplay. Survivor spends time blessing the totem, killer chases/downs them, killer snuffs the totem and hooks them, survivor re-lights it after they're saved. There's plenty of reasonable argument to be had about whether that works in all situations (I personally think it's mostly fine but some totem spawns badly need fixing), but it's pretty clear that the counterplay to boon isn't supposed to be "bring a perk and completely disable them".
Regarding TotH though- I made a post about this back when it first happened, but what I suspect happened there was that, for whatever reason, they decided to rebalance it so that it doesn't fill the same role anymore. It's not the second-best totem defence perk out of two total totem defence perks, it's a totem slowdown perk- it doesn't lose tokens when a totem is blessed, so it continues to slow them down pretty considerably until it's cleansed. It's still not that great, but it does have a niche now so it's not that bad.
-
@ElusivePukka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2612328#Comment_2612328
You say that you see a lot of killers complaining about the survivor-sided nature of development, with "only making killers worse" and "gutting characters for no reason". Asserting that that's not true doesn't make it so, and asserting that DS's nerfs were because he was unhealthy for the game also doesn't make that true.
While yes, hyperbolic statements like devs only side with survivors or only hurt killers are inherently false, there's a very real trend toward favouring survivors. It's also unhealthy for the game to gloss over issues with development or ascribe false issues, especially ones based on subjective experiences - and no, it's not helpful to say stuff like "people saying the spirit nerf was unjustified are being silly".
You also class Boons as a secondary objective; you're wrong to do so. It's an optional benefit, not a secondary objective - the latter would mean it was required in some capacity for success or expedited success.
TL:DR - Your opinions are just that. Not fact. Not evidence. Not particularly relevant except as talking points, so just present them as that without pretending that disagreement is lies and misinformation.
Well, hold on- they're not just "saying" that the devs don't "gut characters for no reason", that's pretty clearly true. You can go and read the reason why DS was tweaked, what most people mean when they say "no reason" is "no reason that I agree with", and at that point it's pretty worthy of pointing out when people are purposefully framing the situation so they can be as mad as possible instead of having a discussion about it.
Similarly, when people say that they're "only making killers worse", that isn't true. Again, you can go and check, it's a provable thing, so why is pointing that out a problem?
May I ask, by the way, and this is a genuine question, not a gotcha- why isn't it helpful to say that people who claim the Spirit nerf was unjustified are silly?
-
@ElusivePukka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2612211#Comment_2612211
Please refer to OP's responses throughout the thread, which are much less level-headed than the first post.
Yeah, I have been, I've been reading the thread since I think it's interesting. I wouldn't say that defending their point is "less level headed", they just didn't immediately fold to opposing arguments lol
There are some pretty valid and useful points being made in this thread, it's not particularly constructive to just write it off as defensive or dismissive when there's a conversation being had.
-
@Fuzzels said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2612194#Comment_2612194
True, but at a certain point that "moderate amount of correlation" has to mean something. At least in terms of current game mechanics. As far trying to suggest a change or fix, I agree that everyones opinions should be heard to a degree. So that kinda feeds into my second question of what should the game be balanced around, the smaller amount of higher skill players, or the larger majority of average to lower skilled players. Should we as a community be looking at the top of the top and going "hey yeah we should fix this and that because at its peak it's not fair" or should it be "hey we need to look at these things that cause a problem for all but the best players, who ultimately can probably work around most obstacles anyway regardless of how unfair and unfun it may be for them"
The answer is "both" and it's why game balance/design is so difficult. You can't focus on one group, no matter which group that is, you need to take all of them into account and craft solutions that hopefully work adequately for everyone.
Deification of the top tier is fine for a community, but the developers have to take it a little more seriously than that. To BHVR's credit, they do seem to know this- they're just questionably good at actually acting on it.
-
@ElusivePukka said:
A series of luke-warm takes from someone who doesn't experience the issues people complain about isn't any indication you should be listened to, especially with your dismissive commentary after the fact.
Yeah, people overreact. Then there's people who react defensively, like you.
I don't know that I'd call this particularly defensive? If anything, it reads as slightly annoyed, but that's not quite the same thing.
Regardless, I also don't see any indication that this person doesn't experience the issues people are complaining about, it actually seems like they do and just have a different take on what the appropriate reaction to those issues are. Take the boon example- seems like they do understand that boons have some negative qualities to comment on, but disagree that boons themselves are the cause.
-
@Fuzzels said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2612033#Comment_2612033
I understand what you're saying, however I was thinking more along the lines of trying to explain to a lower rank player why their thinking may be flawed, and if they refuse to accept any sort of logic and reason, to give them proof of being wrong by simply showing them they are low rank, so whatever they've been doing has not been working for them for one reason or another, this proving there is a flaw in their thought process. For example, and I'm not going to say any names, but there was a post a couple days ago asking if Beast of Prey was actually a really good and underrated perk. And no matter how many people responded with explanation after explanation and reason after reason, the person just would not accept that he/she was wrong about the perk and even claimed to be using it to their advantage at high mmr which is incredibly doubtful and unlikely, I'm sure you'd agree
While that's a noble goal, you straight up don't ever need to invoke rank for those kinds of things. Nobody likes hearing "you're just trash", regardless of how well-intentioned or nicely-phrased it is, so mentioning that is only going to worsen your chances of convincing that person.
Like I said, with this system people are all but forced to take every argument on its merits instead of resorting to listening to higher-ranked players. That, or they just assume, which admittedly happens more often. Rank shouldn't really enter balance discussions like this, the ranks of the people having the discussion is only rarely very relevant and when it is there's no reason to start the "well you're a lower rank player so you wouldn't understand" spiel because it simply doesn't hold any logical weight beyond a moderate amount of correlation.
-
@R2k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2612004#Comment_2612004
It doesn't explain why data should be hidden. It only explains that player A can be wrong. And as i see it, hidden data only promotes wrong feedback.
Let's make it simple: Legion is broken OP? (I know few survivors who want to nerf him). It's just a simple example that shows how feedback can be wrong because it came from player B who saw easy it is to hit 4 survivors and that Legion has 50%+ kill rate. And there are multiple similar situations that come from different people. Also there is no personal information to even track as how good I am myself unless I write it down on paper.
What it explains isn't just that Player A can be wrong, but that they're only very slightly less likely to be wrong to begin with, because the acclaim they have required a different skillset. Regardless.
You have it backwards- that isn't the reason the data should be hidden, it's that there is no reason for the data not to be. MMR is just a matchmaking tool, you don't need to see it to know how good you are at the game because it's not that kind of system. OP suggested that being able to dismiss people's arguments out of hand because they're low rank was a reason to show MMR, and I'm responding to that to explain why it isn't.
Hidden data doesn't promote wrong feedback, it promotes evaluating feedback for yourself instead of going "well they're high MMR so they must be right", or "well they're low MMR so they must be wrong". We do not need more reasons to start dismissing arguments without even considering them- if someone's clearly wrong, then you should be able to deduce that they're clearly wrong without turning to what their rank is to figure it out.
-
@R2k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2611970#Comment_2611970
How are u going to outplay other guy without understanding how u did it? U can't just be player A with zero understanding about how game works, while u say player B can be random guy with 0h 13m game time and already pretend he understands what needs to be nerfed and buffed.
This just makes no sense.
You misunderstand- you can't outplay the other guy without understanding how you did it, but you need much more than that to accurately and adequately talk about game balance.
Being a top tier player only requires that you understand the game as it is. Understanding how to fix the game, or what's causing any of the specific problems with the game, requires a much, much broader scope than that. Top tier killer mains could (and currently do!) hyper-focus on what's causing them issues in their games, while completely disregarding how those things play for the survivor side, or how they play for lower ranked players.
Game balance is not the same topic as game strategy. Someone with a very broad and nuanced understanding of how to balance a game doesn't need to be able to play it particularly well to achieve that understanding, there's a difference between mechanical skill and theoretical knowledge.
-
@R2k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2611912#Comment_2611912
How does it make worse? If player A is master and player B is noob, player B shouldn't be expected to discuss balance. It will avoid a lot of unnecessary complains about how something is broken just because player B refuses to get bettter.
As I said, the ability to play a game and a thorough understanding of the game's balance, design, and needed fixes are fundamentally different knowledge bases. You can absolutely have both, or you can have just one.
The only thing Player A should be trusted on in your example is what a winning strategy with the game as it currently stands looks like. Player B may have a much better understanding of how the game functions, what the game's mechanics are designed for, and what the root causes of the game's problems actually are, despite getting flustered or not having particularly good reaction times when they're actually in a match.
The two concepts aren't linked. You can be a top tier player while having absolutely zero understanding of how game balance works, and vice versa.
-
No, it absolutely shouldn't be- I've been in game communities where you know where you're placed, and it invariably makes the conversation surrounding game health much worse. You touched on why yourself- "you would never listen to a bronze or silver ranked player", as though skill in game automatically translates to understanding of the game, and vice versa. You don't need more reasons to discard people's opinions before you've even read them, my friend.
Also, this game doesn't use MMR the way that other games do. It's just a matchmaking tool, not a progression system like those games, so it makes even less sense to see what your rank is.
For the last question: Like every game in existence, you balance for all the ranks, not just one section.
-
@Zozzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2611765#Comment_2611765
A secondary objective does not need to benefit the side doing it at all. That just oozes main bias.
A meaningful secondary objective is also something that must be done (preferably by multiple people) or suffer the consequences.
Fair point, that does still technically count as a secondary objective. I'll rephrase - in order for it to be a GOOD secondary objective that isn't just an annoying chore being forced on you, there has to be a benefit to doing it.
-
@ausanimal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2611765#Comment_2611765
But now survivors have imposed another objective on killers by snuffing the blessed totems out and its not like after the 5th time no more totems can be blessed, by trying to snuff out blessed totems the killers is being prevented from their main objective.
It works both ways with boon totems and hex undying as they both fall into the same area of survivors doing totems, undying got nerfed so will be interesting to see what happens with boon totems.
An extremely optional objective that takes like five seconds to do, people greatly overexaggerate that part. Some totem spawns need to be addressed, but the majority are totally fine on most maps.
It doesn't work both ways. Undying is survivors having to repeat an action multiple times when that action only lets them break even, and boon totems let them re-ignite an actual benefit multiple times if they decide they want to. They don't have to do it, and they don't have to find another totem somewhere on the map to do it even if they do want to do it.
Old Undying was nerfed because it was a problem, in a way that boons just aren't.
-
Shout out to Laurie, though- she really does look like the comics she's based on.
-
@ausanimal said:
You say boons give survivors a secondary objective by blessing totems, killers have a perk that gave survivors a secondary objective which was old undying, look what happened to that survivors complained about it and that it was not fun and to hard if you have to destroy all 5 even though survivors have perks and items to help find totems so it got nerfed.
Now the devs bring out a perk that benefits survivors and can make the killers game even harder survivors are more then happy to look for totems to bless them and killers have no real hard counter to boon totems , At least with old undying survivors knew it was you get lucky and find the right hex or you end up destroying a max of 5 totems now how many times can a survivor bless a totem im pretty sure its more then 5.
So how can you claim boons are a great change and a healthy one when survivors claimed old undying wasn't?
Because boon perks benefit survivors, making them a secondary objective instead of something the killer imposed on them to prevent them doing their main objective.
I know the intent is to make it look horrendously survivor sided, but in order for one side to have a secondary objective, that side has to benefit from it.
Also, obligatory "boons and hexes are not the same mechanic" reminder.
-
Excellent takes, it's nice to see someone with a level head!