jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Daniel_Silva04 said:
But that's totally fair, if he only had one dash it would be horrible. It's all his merit to use the dash efficiently and that takes skill. And you can also try to dodge, which isn't that hard since the dash's hitbox is tiny and has already been nerfed. The infection has also been nerfed, which in my opinion didn't even deserved it, because if Wesker needs 1 minute and 20s to take you down, he's the one who loses. The large terror radius is more of a detriment than a benefit. And he applying Deep Wound when colliding with another survivor is very rare.
The question isn't if he's too strong or if he has counterplay, it's strictly whether his kit is bloated.
For instance, I would argue Wesker really does not need the Killer Instinct and his power would probably be healthier without it. That doesn't mean he's "too strong" in a linear fashion, but just that his kit has extra stuff in it that doesn't need to be there. I'm just curious if anyone has arguments for why those extra things should be there, which a few so far have.
-
@Daniel_Silva04 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/437810/does-wesker-really-need-all-of-that
Wesker is fine and requires a good amount of skill to get his full potential. And where did you get the idea that he can curve around objects with his dash? His dash is literally completely straight.
He gets two, so he can go to point A then point B to get around things.
Maybe "curve" is the wrong word. He can go around, though, rather than it just being straight like a Demogorgon Shred or something.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3878582#Comment_3878582
calm spirit needs a downside because of hex:face the darkness. the main purpose of hex perk is to interrupt people on totems and calm spirit prevents screaming make the perk ineffective.
Technican does not have downside. the downside of failing skill-check is that generator progression is paused for 5 seconds. Technician removes the downside. To not give an extra 5 seconds when you fail a skill-check, it has penalty in reducing gen progress by same amount.
killer perks are much worse than survivor perks in downsides. virtually every single killer perk they have released in last year has had killer perk downsides. there is not a single perk that they have not released for killer where the effect is plain. simple and grants tangible reward.
No Quater →Requires survivor to fail skill-check, requires self-healing, has meaningless broken negative.
SC: Jagged Compass → Doesn't synergize with pain res, Has poor synergy with hangman trick, monstrous shrine, requires perk synergy to do anything. Perk that require synergy is downside in itself.
All-shaking thunder → requires high points, has cooldown, has a very short duration, so here we have Luck, Map reliance and timers.
Undone → Requires survivors to fail skill-checks, requires kicking a gen which is downside because time sink. Survivor behavior downside, costs killer time, gain 0 reward.
Unbound → Has timer, requires you to injure someone to activate it. gives a meangless time limit haste that ends before you get any value from slow vaulting windows.
Unforeseen → Requires you to kick gens, does nothing for first 15 seconds of the effect because of TR.
Dominance → Requires survivors to touch chests and totems to do anything. Has 1 time limit use. needs perk synergy. the reward isn't worth perk slot.
Hex:wretch fate → Has hex downside.
Human greed → Low aura reading, Rely on chest rng, has downside of needing hoarder.
Superior anatomy → Has downside of getting stunned with a worse vaulting reward than bamboozle.
Lanquid touch → Requires crows, that is rng. has low reward of exhaustion.
weave attunement → Requires franklin demise, requires survivors to bring items, has downside in showing survivor items.
that is last 4 killer set of perk and yet not a single one is worth using. the closest one that has any semblance of value is Scourge:jagged compass and it is only usable because it fixes design flaw of scourge hook perks. Mainly, it only makes SC: Flood of rage & Scourge hook: gift of pain into regular perks. Crazy, a perk slot to make other perks into normal perks. Wow. This perk is only perk that I end up using every now and again in daily/weekly games.
I don't think a single perk you listed there actually has a downside. I think you might be conflating downsides with both restrictions and just, general perk design?
A downside is an actively negative effect that the perk has in addition to its positive effects. For the killer side, the two I can think of that are balanced this way are Rapid Brutality taking away Bloodlust and Dark Arrogance increasing your stun/blind timers- neither of which you listed.
A restriction would be something that stops the perk from working outside of its intended use case, like information being tied to specific sources (chests and crows, for example) or an anti-heal effect being specific to a type of healing (self healing for No Quarter, altruistic healing for something like Deathbound). These aren't downsides because you're not any worse off because of them, you're just at worst reset to neutral with your perk not working in that specific moment.
The part I'm confused about is where you seem to just be talking about how a perk is designed…? Take No Quarter as an example, you list the failed skill check and the Broken as downsides. Those are just what the perk does, though, it inflicts Broken if a heal ends and gives a flurry of skill checks to try and force that to happen. I really don't know how those two things could be construed as downsides. I think you might be conflating perks just not being very good with them having downsides?
Regardless, like I said, I'm not actually against downsides when it makes sense. Rapid Brutality is a good example of a trade where it makes sense - you get a very strong Haste effect in chase, but give up the basekit Haste effect. If you're good and utilise Rapid Brutality properly you'll never notice, but it does require you not to play sloppily. Same for Botany Knowledge on the survivor side, that trade makes sense- you get a damn strong healing boost that isn't restricted to altruistic only, but if you want to use medkits with it you have to bring extra charges. The way these two perks are designed makes it clear why the downside is there, and shapes the way you'd play with those perks.
Calm Spirit and Technician, however, just make the perk feel worse without really having a good reason to be there. I don't think there are any killer perks in that vein, but I might be just forgetting some.
-
…What are the downsides to Cut Loose and Friendly Competition? It sounds more like you just don't like how those perks are designed, which is fair but a different criticism to the rest of the examples.
To the wider point, I think some perks being upside/downside is appropriate, but there are a few that don't need to be. Something like Rapid Brutality or Botany Knowledge being upside/downside is completely reasonable, in my opinion, but something like Calm Spirit probably doesn't need the downside and Technician has always been held back too much by its downside.
-
I think you're on the right track, but I think part of the issue with the perk is that you really don't have much control over when and how it's used, since you might need to repair another generator or might not be near a locker when you want to trigger it. There's also the issue of drawing the killer towards a generator with progress, which may not be what you want. All of these drawbacks for a perk that has a weaker effect even than Diversion drowns out any potential, in my opinion.
I'd like to pitch the following, myself:
- After repairing a generator for 10% of its total progress, Red Herring activates
- While active, interacting with Generators, Totems, and Chests, as well as standing next to dropped Pallets and Windows, will give the survivor a prompt using Ability Button 1 (or whatever that's called, it'd be E for keyboard)
- If you hit Ability Button 1 while the perk is active, you mark that object, and the mark stays for 120 seconds. Only one object can be marked at a time and the marked object is shown to all survivors in whatever colour we deem appropriate for "avoid this" in general
- While there's a mark up, crouching and standing still will give you the prompt again, which will trigger the mark and create a loud noise notification + sphere of scratch marks, similar to Diversion
Now, that was a lot of text, but it'd be pretty straightforward and intuitive in practice. You'd charge it, the way you would Blast Mine or Wiretap or Flashbang (but not for as long as them), then you have a "set and detonate" ability to try and divert the killer.
This would put the perk more in line with other trap-style perks that have released in the years since Red Herring was initially designed by giving the survivor more control over how, where, and when the mark is triggered, without really actually making it overbearing in any way. It can't be spammed, it isn't all that potent, it's just slightly more accessible overall.
I know it looks complicated, but it's a perk that has pretty much the same steps as something like Flashbang. Repair generator → interact with static object → get tool to use later.
What do we think?
-
@Skillfulstone said:
The mechanic itself isn't worthless, the idea is decent, however (despite many people saying so and even posting videos showcasing it) it was implemented poorly.
Many Killers can still 3-gen decently (Dull Merchant was the top dog for that but now...well if someone played her again we could tell) and it's still difficult to deal with (greatly dependant on the map & Killer) but against most of the M1/weaker side of the Killer spectrum it is not difficult to weaponize the "Anti-3-gen" system in order to keep a free gen for the end.
If the mechanic only kicked-in at 4 gens remaining on the map then it wouldn't be so bad because at least the system couldn't be weaponized from the start and it truly would only be there to prevent endless lategame stalemates.
@Iron_Cutlass Undone also applies 2 regression events if tokens are used when kicking (tested this with a friend in custom and blocked the gen in 4 kicks). Not only was this perk D.O.A in the first place but the system double-tapped it to guarantee it basically never sees unironical use.
I would argue it's basically impossible to weaponise this system because you can never force the killer to be aggressively hellbent on damaging generators over anything else.
The example I'm typically shown is something like the centre gen on RPD, which one or two survivors aggressively keep repairing while the killer returns to damage the gen while they either run away or stealth away. What these examples always miss, in my opinion, is that all the killer needs to do is chase whoever's repairing without damaging the generator and this problem disappears.
It'll be a different problem for them if they can't get a down quickly, sure, but the point is that you can't actually force the killer to make a mistake and keep damaging generators when better options are available. It's not weaponising a poorly implemented mechanic, it's leveraging a mechanic for something just barely outside its intended use- the aggressive gen-stalling may not be in a 3 gen, but it's still aggressive gen-stalling, which is what the system was designed to combat.
Eruption and Undone could do with some small changes to help them not be negatively affected, but outside of those specific perks, there's really not any issue with this system. It's barely even likely to show up the warning spikes in regular games, let alone actually block a generator.
Which, to the wider topic, is why I don't think this system is problematic at all. Unless you're specifically trying to stall the match out without getting any progress, you're basically never even going to see this system, let alone be genuinely negatively affected by it.
-
Not that I agree with this balancing decision - I don't, I think it's unnecessary - but I think it's worth pointing out that BHVR's stated reasoning doesn't actually reference rat playstyles at all here?
Like, it's in the section you quoted. They wanted Wake Up to have more of a unique identity. If Sole Survivor already does the self-centred version of this effect, and they're currently looking at Wake Up which also does this… then they're gonna change Wake Up.
If you wanted one of those perks to be self centred and the other to be altruistic, it also makes sense that a perk named Sole Survivor would be the self centred one.
Again, I don't like this change myself, but the logic does scan, it's not incoherent.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876638#Comment_3876638
Kinda, yeah. The biggest point of confusion comes from the game having three different systems that work at least partially different all giving conflicting feedback: Pips, Survival/entity approval, and MMR (which has pretty much none, aside from assumptions based on the previous info paired with fringe cases like hatch or DCs.) You can have all 3 line up, but when they don't the unifying concept of a singular win definition becomes split.
Got it. That definitely explains where other people's confusion comes from.
For the sake of clarification I might as well explain why this position was so alien to me- my first instinct when thinking about a game's win condition is to look at how it's constructed overall, not just what it gives you feedback for.
Each side has one specific, bespoke goal that every mechanic is designed around them trying to achieve and their opponents trying to stop. The game is asymmetric so those goals aren't the same, but are contradictory per player (as in, if you are sacrificed, you cannot escape, and vice versa- as well as if a survivor escapes you can't sacrifice them). A player's participation in a match ends when either goal is reached.
I don't see any interpretation of these facts that could possibly lead anywhere except those goals - kills and escapes, obviously - being the game's win condition, hence me being so confused about this argument. It's a discussion that makes as little sense to me as if someone tried it for any other game that obviously had a single intended goal per role.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876628#Comment_3876628
Its an elimination game on the survivor side, while having multiple "degrees" of winning and losing on the killer side. Survivors can have their win con be determined by how many survivors escape regardless of themselves, just themselves, just their SWF, hatches do/don't count, etc. On killer side if you go off of MMR strictly, then anything less than a 4k is at least partially a loss since each survivor that escapes won in the individual matchup. Pips and SBMM's implementation do not directly correlate, so even that becomes nebulous as well (dying while pipping, getting a 4k while not pipping, etc.) People can make up their own down to even just completing a tome or daily challenge, if thats all they set out to do and they accomplished their goal.
It doesn't translate to many other games because most games are very clear, like your overwatch example. Many games are explicitly clear whether you win or lose, and both teams have symmetry for a zero sum game: All wins are balanced by losses to create a perfect whole regarding outcomes. If DBD had something where survivors won universally based on how many escape (group based outcome result) then it would be a start toward a more structured win condition definition. Same with if Pips/Emblems were removed, degrees of winning for killer were removed (which many people do in their personal wincon definitions, ala the win/draw/lose based on kill totals) potential draw variables removed or reworked (like hatch,) and shared agency in outcome were introduced those would be steps toward making it more solid. Elimination games are hard to define in this manner, as are asyms, so a game that has both while half dipping into two systems that don't directly correlate is basically asking for confusion among the userbase.
From the looks of it, it seems that a lot of people only look at outcomes when it comes to defining a win condition, would you say that's accurate?
As in, they only look at what gives you feedback after the fact, and don't take into account any of the game's structures and systems before that point?
That'd go some way to explaining the position, if so.
-
@DeBecker said:
Cause there is no clear win condition. Proove your point.
What I'm mostly asking here is, what would you expect to see that would make the win condition clear? What do other games have that DBD doesn't?
I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to understand a perspective that I currently don't.
-
@smurf said:
In my eyes, survivors have a clear set of defined good or bad outcomes: for each survivor, an escape is a good outcome and death is a bad outcome. But I don't view those as wins/losses. As survivor, I also feel better if I do something to help the other survivors escape.
As killer, I usually see a good outcome as sacrificing a certain number of survivors.
I guess if we define good/bad outcomes as wins/losses, then we get a set of win conditions for each player. Even then, the win condition for killer will depend on what the killer player thinks is a good outcome. It seems clear to me that a 3k or 4k would typically be viewed as the killer doing well, and that a 1k isn't as great. Personally, I don't mind getting a 1k, I just want a good match.
Having said that, I think the killer doesn't have a win condition for the whole match. The killer has four 1v1 matches, and a set of good or bad outcomes for each.
But I also see all of those things through a lens of playstyle. If I feel like the match was cheap, like if a player decides to go next on hook in the early game, I'm going to feel like a rapid 4k isn't deserved and is more of a loss on my side.
If I had to define a set of survivor win conditions I think is defined by the current community, it would be escapes/sacrifices for each individual survivor. And for the killer, it would be that 0-1k is a loss, 2k a tie, and 3k or 4k as win. But those are a bit subjective.
To ask for a little clarification - why don't you consider those good outcomes wins and those bad outcomes losses?
If the game's geared towards one specific goal on either side, and either of those goals being met means the match ends… what is missing from that situation that would define those goals as the win condition?
It's the whys I'm most curious about here, rather than the whats, so to speak.
-
@crogers271 said:
Well I've talked about this with you in another thread, but I'll try to lay it out in more detail.
1: The fact that people disagree about it kind of proves the point. Even if I say I have a win condition, and someone else has a different one, that shows there isn't a clear win condition.
I played a lot more of Deathgarden before I got into DbD, and the lack of clarity was even more confusing there. How many scavengers (survivors) needed to be killed for a killer win? Did it matter if they just hid until the timer ran out?
Basically if the win condition is super clear to you, and the win condition is super clear to someone else, but the two of you have different win conditions, well than the game doesn't have a win condition.
2: DbD is unique in degree of victory. Most types games you either win or lose (second place is just the first loser for example). Winning by a lot might make a statement, and is sometimes used as a tie breaker, but the win is the absolute most important thing.
The only thing I know of that I can compare DbD to is a board game called Diplomacy. In the standard version there are 7 players who are eliminated over the course of the game and the ultimate goal is to be the last player. However, most games don't actually result in a single remaining player, it usually results in a stalemate, a common one being where one player gets strong, but two players ally to match him in strength and the game cannot progress (quite literally the game deadlocks). In that case all three remaining players 'win', but they don't win as if one player had won the game entirely.
So in this game the conditions are clear - don't get eliminated, and eliminate everyone else. But what about all of the middle case scenarios that can arise? If you play over many games how do evaluate your performance? And how much risk/value do you put on trying to achieve a last player standing goal at the risk of being eliminated?
3: MMR confuses the issue more on the killer side. The killer has five possible outcomes (0k, 1k, 2k, 3k, 3k+hatch, 4k). 4k, 1k, 1k and 3k, 3k, 0k have the same overall MMR result even if a player might feel very differently about those mixes of games. The community definition would be a win and 2 losses vs 2 wins and a loss, but the MMR cares that the one win was a large win and the losses were small losses.
Win a lot and win a little are more statistically significant than the difference is in other games.
4: Win condition, singular, is different than win conditions, plural. We're back to degrees here. If there is more than one thing I consider a win condition, and I accomplish some, but not all of them, then we have an unclear thing.
5: On survivor side the way people play the game can not be boiled down to a single win condition. Survivors, who have a guaranteed escape will risk it to go back for a hook, but they also won't blindly run into a suicidal situation.
If the win condition was escape, nothing else, then the other survivor is pointless. If the win condition was total escapes at all costs, then survivors should try to rescue no matter the almost certain death (as happens in comp sometimes).
What we have though is not a win condition, but different things of value, your own escape and the escape of other survivors. Different players value them in different ways. This is a departure from most games, where players differ on strategy (how do I accomplish X objective), but here players differ on strategy and goal (how do I accomplish my objectives, and how much value do I attach to X and Y).
To comment on the idea of multiple people having differing ideas, how would you control for some people just flat out being wrong?
Take an example for another game that has an extremely clear win condition, something like Overwatch. If two people had differing ideas for what the win condition is on say, a payload map… one of them would just be wrong, and them being wrong wouldn't be evidence of Overwatch not having a win condition.
In that instance, we could clearly see that one person is wrong, but what's different between DBD and that game? What does Overwatch have to make its win condition clear, and that DBD lacks?
-
@Xxjwaynexx said:
Is the win con the score board at the end meaning bp amassed or everyone killed for killers/ everyone out for survivors/ or just you out for solo survivor?
I'm hesitant to give my answer for what the win condition is because it's very likely that'll just become what the discussion is about. I'm more interested in knowing what people expect to see for a clear win condition but aren't seeing in DBD.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876077#Comment_3876077
If 2 survivors are slugged, and a 3rd survivor is threatening me with a flashlight/flashbang/pallet save, it is completely valid and justifiable to chase them.
Your solution is 100% unacceptable. Killers should not be punished for slugging, when it was forced upon them by survivors.
If a survivor has been slugged for 60 seconds, teleport them to a 2v8 cage. That fixes prolonged slugging issues that happen to BOTH sides of the game.
Absolutely. My suggestion doesn't stop you from chasing them, that's kinda why I designed it the way that I did.
It's just that if you do chase them, and the chase isn't very quick, you lose out only on the ability to outright win the game. That's it, you're still in a favourable position, you still aren't being punished in the least, and you still get a very noticeable amount of value.
It's literally just a way for survivors to not instantly lose because multiple people got downed, that's it. It's something the killer would keep in mind when choosing to slug, because what they get out of slugging changes a little. Instead of just flat out winning, they instead get a forced reset; still good, still in their favour, but not game-ending on its own.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876058#Comment_3876058
You literally didn’t take this scenario into account. In my scenario it was absolutely valid and justifiable to slug all 4 survivors.
Your suggestion allows survivors to bully the killer, because if 2 survivors are slugged, you’re saying a 3rd survivor should be able to bully killers with the threat of a flashlight/flashbang/pallet save, because if the killer tries to chase them, the 1st survivor can self pickup.
Sure I did, you don't lose out on value in this scenario with my suggested changes.
What you'd do is one of two things depending on context:
1: Chase survivor 2 away, loop back around and pick up survivor 1
2: Chase survivor 2 and down them, see survivor 3, and loop back around to pick up survivor 1
Sure, you won't get to outright win anymore from just that series of events, but you can still gain quite a bit of value. Hell, let's look at hypothetical scenario three here, just to showcase how many options you'd have depending on what you're going for:
3: Chase survivor 2 and down them, chase survivor 3 and down them, chase survivor 4 and down them, then pick up and hook survivor 4. From there, go backwards to everyone still on the ground.
Does scenario three actually look bad for you just because survivor 1 and possibly survivor 2 picked themselves up? No, of course not, you've massively damaged generator efficiency and you've effectively forced the team to reset. That's a good position for the killer to be in.
You could argue that maybe survivors 1 and 2 would try and get into position to save survivor 4 if you pick them up, but they're injured and who knows how far away. That is an extremely risky play and at worst only delays your pickup by an extra down or two. If they don't reset, they can't threaten saves as easily, and they will lose if they keep trying.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875839#Comment_3875839
Earlier this week I had a game where…
- I knocked the 1st survivor to a ground, searched around for nearby flashlight users, and found the 2nd survivor with a flashlight.
- So I chased the 2nd survivor, and they suspiciously got knocked down under an undropped pallet, so I searched around a found the 3rd survivor.
- So I chased the 3rd survivor, and they also suspiciously got knocked down under an undropped pallet, so I searched around a found the 4th survivor.
- So I chased the 4th survivor, knocked them to the ground, and now all 4 survivors are slugged.
Everything I did was valid and justifiable. I literally had 3 times in a row, where a survivor purposely chose to try to make a flashlight save or pallet save. This is why anti-slugging solutions need to care about both sides of the game.
I agree with that last part, anti-slugging solutions need to care about both sides of the game.
…That's why I crafted my suggestions to allow the killer time to chase flashlight savers away and even to just outright slug someone for a second down if there's someone nearby. I already took this kind of thing into account.
-
@bjorksnas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875627#Comment_3875627
45s is a long time for killers, but its 45s MAX of a single survivors time which is basically nothing.
If you compare it to what it is now, with the ability to pick yourself up you drastically increase the time efficiency of survivors it is always efficient to not go pick a teammate up if they are outside of 52m even if you could go after them directly with no pressure from the killer and no worry about having to be healthy, the time spent going to them, and picking them up 45s (52m away slug = (13s of travel + 9.5s of healing) x 2 for 2 survivors time being taken up) 45s. Now for fun lets add into the mix you have to back where you came from like a gen or something like that, you know get travel time x 3 and healing time x2 for total time taken up. Meaning if the survivor is further than ~26m away, you lose time efficiency as a team to go get them.
And again best case scenario the killer slugs them and vanishes into the mist. You don't go for pickups outside ~26m for time efficiency to sit on a gen
You remove any of the requirement to play smart of play as a team if you let everyone do everything by themselves as the team role and drastically reduce the effect on survivor time efficiency because 45s from one player doesn't compare even close to the upper limit that a single slug can cost the survivors as a team currently. If you add any other factors like being healed up before going for a save, healing yourself before going for a save, ect you also have to think about the time spent preforming actions before going for a save vs weighing the risk reward of going for it anyway.
Grand scheme huge survivor buff to not actually having to play as a team no buffs to the killers who basically need it to get by or get through some matches, no dice.
…Isn't all that assuming you'll actually let those survivors pick themselves up, though?
You don't have to do that. I acknowledged that you could to try and knock everyone down and force them to reset, but you don't have to.
Killers with slug-happy powers would be pushed to just cash out with two downs at worst, as far as I can see. You very rarely are in a situation where you have to slug for over 45 seconds, and anyone picking themselves up during that time is catastrophically bad for you.
Your post seems to be from the perspective of a player that just wants to knock everyone down before even trying to hook as just, their basic strategy, and that's the literal thing that these changes would be trying to weaken, that's the entire purpose of doing this in the first place.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875751#Comment_3875751
Many killers may feel that hooking isn't worth it in the current state of the game, but they're wrong. That feeling may be relevant to conversations, but it shouldn't be considered an unquestioned truth.
No, your wrong. your the one that is complaining about my gameplay or other killer's gameplay to slug. Your not in charge of dictating how i(Other) should be playing.
Also, even if hooking weren't worth it in the current state of the game, you wouldn't fix that by reintroducing old problems like no tunnel protection or easier camping.
Enable tunneling to be stronger or easier camping is increase in reward for hooking. it may be unpopular way to boost reward of hooking but it is still metric to be considered.
I have a couple of issues here— the first is that I think it's kind of debatable whether aggressive four man slugging is fair gameplay. It definitely does have counterplay, but a lot of that counterplay is locked behind either specific perk picks or coordination, the latter being effectively locked out of solo queue games.
The coordination is not any different than holding m1 to recover and healing someone of the floor. there is knock out and third seal which remove the UI info from soloq survivor and that is questionable design within in the game but swf vs soloq is separate problem that many player talked about. take away information is likely WRONG way to balance dbd. they still have no aura's to find healing survivors. they still have no auras to see where survivor are working gens to lead killer in efficient chase paths. there is no aura for-co-op gens. there is still no aura for pallets are used. it's separate issue to slugging.
As right now, BVHR believes that taking away information is good design and so we are here with said perk designs to nerf soloq so that killer can 4k more easily by bad plays.
I am sympathetic to the idea that the solution should be some kind of information instead of a more potent effect,
game-delay perks just some of possible thing to add to hook to increase reward. other ways is to invent 6 perk slots and every time a killer hook all 4 survivors, they unlock perk slot. that is another potencial reward. the problem is, if your reward sucks or isn't good enough for that "slugging" killer player where they say, who cares 6 perks, they'll just continue slug until you present them with solution that is stronger then what they're doing.
In order:
1: Absolutely, I don't dictate how anyone should play. That's… pretty obviously not what I'm doing here, though. This thread is pretty obviously some suggestions to make certain elements of the game more fair and balanced, not decrees that other players must follow of their own volition.
2: "Unpopular" is a misleading way of phrasing it. They'd be ways of increasing the reward for hooking that are unfair and unbalanced, so the only real relevance they have to discussions like this is that they're obviously not viable options. If we wanted to increase the reward for hooking - which, the reward is perfectly good right now so that's not necessary - we'd have to look elsewhere because we can't just make the game unfair and unbalanced on purpose.
3: The coordination starts with knowing you need to do those things to begin with. A survivor left on the ground for a few seconds could be the start of a killer that's trying to slug aggressively, or it could be a killer kicking a pallet, or a killing trying to harass away someone with a flashlight. If it's one of those scenarios, you going over there makes things worse, it takes someone off generators to give the killer free value + pressure.
In solo queue, you don't even know you need to start running over to aggressively pick up your teammates for sure until someone else gets downed. From there, you have to gamble on whether the killer's looping back around to their first down or not- if they are, congrats, you're giving the killer more free value + pressure by approaching.
In addition, you also have the smaller questions. Who's going over to pick the first guy up? Does the first guy have Unbreakable? Will anyone else actually be doing generators if I leave mine to go pick this person up? Is the first guy even recovering right now? None of these are The Reasons to address slugging on their own, but they compound the main reasons above.
All that on top of default recovery being kinda slow, incentivising bringing perks to make it quicker, makes countering aggressive slugging without preparation kinda hard. Not impossible, but hard enough that it warrants a conversation about whether it's fair. I don't think it's absurd to say it isn't, which is why I thought it'd be a fun thought exercise to come up with a fair way of fixing it.
4: I don't know why this point is connected to that quote? I was talking about the survivors getting more information so they knew to start countering an aggressive slugging strategy.
But, as stated, the reward for hooking is more than good enough if you're actively using that reward. It doesn't give it to you for free passively, you have to go chase someone to actually get the reward for hooking.
-
@VibranToucan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875754#Comment_3875754
You need to down 3 Survivors in a 45 second window to get 1 hook or unless they can go in for the save. And if you fail they can recover.
I feel like this hypothetical is getting away from us here.
At this stage you're talking about a scenario where nobody is doing generators, everyone is getting downed one after another, and even when they pick themselves up they go right back towards the killer instead of resetting.
That doesn't sound like a game the survivors are going to win, to me. One of them is, unavoidably, going to go down next to a tall enough structure that they can be picked up, and if nobody is doing generators it doesn't matter how long that takes.
-
@VibranToucan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875745#Comment_3875745
Yes it would. It would allow the Survivors coming in to be as risky as they want and it would stop slugging from being punishing because no one needs to waste their time coming for the pick up.
I mean, they can't be that risky or they'll get downed as well.
45 seconds isn't particularly short by DBD standards, if survivors are reckless you have time to down them depending on context.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875717#Comment_3875717
aggressive four man slugging is fair gameplay. the whole premise is that it is on the survivor to go down and be put into the dying state. it is entirely survivor fault for being put into dying state. they are also at fault for being put on the hook.
being put on the hook is intermediate step towards an optional killer objective where you are suppose to be rewarded for completing this objective. The default reward is suppose to be killing survivors faster however due to changes such as increasing hook timer from 60→70, it has made unhooking unrewarding. Survivor are also suppose to be put in vulnerable positions for hooking however this is largely mitigated by perks such as Base-kit borrow time and items like stypic agent where you unhook, pop styptic and than you get to move 30 meter in any direction.
as result of these type of nerfs to hooks, many killer feel that the rewards are not there and more of drawback as you waste 10-12 seconds on hook+give up position map advantage. as a result, they slug.
the way to fix slugging is to make hooking more rewarding such as reverting 60→70 second change and removal base-kit borrow time. other alternatives are to look into perk that reward killer for hooking. the per we will be talking about are game-delay perks.
these perk being
Pop goes weasel
Grim embrace
Scourge hook: pain res
Scourage hook: Gift of pain.
Instead of removing base-kit BT or decreasing hook timers, you may choose take one of these perks and put them into base-kit. they give game-delay to the killer which cancels out the delay for hooking. Pop goes weasel to kick a gen, easily worst one out of 4. Grim embrace block all gens, it's very mild but does cancel it perfectly. Pain res hits 1 gen. it is reward would be over-time regression to cancel 12x3 progression bonus. Gift of pain grants -16% repair and healing after healing. this does incentive spreading hooks but the amount of charges remaining in the game varies from # of gens needed to complete so it has early game syndrome problem. survivor may also choose remain injured so there is that problem.
I have a couple of issues here— the first is that I think it's kind of debatable whether aggressive four man slugging is fair gameplay. It definitely does have counterplay, but a lot of that counterplay is locked behind either specific perk picks or coordination, the latter being effectively locked out of solo queue games.
Regular slugging is unambiguously fair gameplay, but as more survivors get knocked down, the less fair it becomes. In solo queue it's often not obvious to any one player that they need to be aggressively trying to pick up their teammates until the second person's knocked down, and by that point the killer's already looking for the third.
I am sympathetic to the idea that the solution should be some kind of information instead of a more potent effect, but personally speaking, I think that's too much of a half-measure. Basekit Unbreakable is a scary proposition because of the ways it could be abused, but if potential abuse is properly removed from the system, it's a perfectly fair way of addressing the issue while maintaining the fair gameplay. It's best to just, try and fix the problem outright if you can.
The rest is stuff I know you and I have gone over before, so I won't belabour the point too intensely. Suffice to say, hooking is supposed to be rewarding because of the opportunities it opens up for you, not because it's supposed to generate the value for you the way regression perks like Pain Res and even arguably Pop do. When you actively capitalise on hooks, the time spent doing the hooking pays for itself and then some.
Many killers may feel that hooking isn't worth it in the current state of the game, but they're wrong. That feeling may be relevant to conversations, but it shouldn't be considered an unquestioned truth.
Also, even if hooking weren't worth it in the current state of the game, you wouldn't fix that by reintroducing old problems like no tunnel protection or easier camping.
-
@VibranToucan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875742#Comment_3875742
Flashbangs and Pallets are unavoidable if timed right.
Flashlgihts can be avoided by looking away so they don't work on randoms as well, but in a SWF the Survivor will know to go down in the open and will likely have multiple people ready to come in for a save and/or teammates with background player.
That is the one very specific scenario in which flashlights can be harder to avoid, yeah. In my experience it's not super common.
There's still stuff you can do, but you do have to be more on the ball about it. Having a basekit Unbreakable that activates twice as slowly wouldn't really change much there.
-
@VibranToucan said:
Those are terrible suggestions. It practically eliminates all the risks to a flashllight squad. They can be as risky with their saves as they want because by the time the killer downs them all the other half will up again and ready to go in for the save and repeat that over and over until after over 6 full slugs each they will finally bleed out or, more likely, the killer will make a mistake somewhere down the line and they will return top a dominant position.
I mean, the main risk of a flashlight play is just plainly that it's very likely not to work and you've wasted your time.
Flashlights can be avoided easier than pallet saves in most scenarios, so that's not really a big concern here.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
no thanks. i as killer will never agree to be punished for slugging in any shape or form. the only feedback i have towards performing slugging is that 4 minute bleed out timers in isolation are too long and drag out the game. that is why for awhile, i always suggesting that survivors when picking a survivor up have 10-25 second bleed out penalty for picking up a survivor from dying state to injured state.
this rewards me as killer for successfully downing a survivor and artificially lowers bleed out timer for survivor that repetitively are put into the dying state.
All these suggestions of 45 second unbreakable and 4→5 minutes and Your power as killer goes away upon down(Like freddy) is all complete non-sense. These idea are not good health and should be eradicated.
I don't think we'd see less aggressive, four-man slugging if you made slugging stronger. That's going in entirely the wrong direction to address the problem.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875682#Comment_3875682
But it doesn’t even really help the killer because it requires the survivors to do a specific action, that the survivors can delay indefinitely.
You could have just given killers an extra 20 second wiggle time as base kit, with zero requirements. But instead, you want it to be the survivor team’s decision on whether or not the killer can get extra wiggle time.
I mean, yeah?
It's only supposed to happen in very specific scenarios, IE, multiple survivors trying to make it impossible to hook them. Because leaving them slugged indefinitely would be impossible with my suggestions, and that's the way you'd primarily counter that team strategy right now, I wanted to suggest something that would help the killer in that scenario.
If you're in that scenario, someone has to get picked up eventually or they're just letting the killer win. When they get picked up, that's when this new status effect would kick in.
Ideally it'd just stop survivors from trying this deeply obnoxious strat in the first place, it's definitely not supposed to happen every game.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875628#Comment_3875628
Correction: Your system offers an answer to a good number of scenarios FOR SURVIVORS, but barely helps killers at all.
You give survivors a huge buff, that automatically triggers on its own…. but the one buff you give killers requires the survivor team to make a specific event, which they can decide to delay as much as they want.
Nope, it offers an answer for one scenario for the killer: Survivors trying to make themselves unhookable as a team. It doesn't help as much for just one survivor doing it, but you don't really need a basekit answer to that, so that's fine.
And, yeah, obviously this is primarily a survivor buff, the issue is a killer action so that's how you'd fix it.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875665#Comment_3875665
I was confused by this because survivors can go through your hitbox... and the search for that led me to this:
I thought this was a feature... but maybe it's a bug? So your point has more validity.
I'm still veheremently against basekit Unbreakable, I feel a variation of basekit Tenacity to make it away from the site you are slugged at is the way to go to address aggressive slugging.
However with the context that's a bug, your suggestion at least makes more sense.
…Huh. I didn't know about that bug, I don't think anyone's actually used it against me any time recently at least.
I think that is a bug because I'm also pretty sure I remember survivors running uselessly into me while I was picking up survivors, yeah. Glad we reached some common ground, at least! We can agree to disagree from there, I think.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875661#Comment_3875661
You're running with current DBD logic though. You're saying it isn't a common scenario, and you'd be right... in current DBD.
However if you make this change, this is now basekit, all survivors know about this basekit mechanic and their playstyles adapt to compensate, even in soloQ.
Whenever a killer gets a down, you only need 1 player nearby, 2 people on gens. 1 player nearby means the killer can't pick up and has to push them off. It's at this moment the third player comes off gens.
The point you keep missing is survivors do not have to do anything dangerous to stall you. Weakly lingering nearby is a strong enough deterrent to prevent you from picking up... and the reason this doesn't happen now is the survivors have a big risk that comes with it, because they can be slugged... in your variant they can't be slugged, there is no danger to playing this way... even if you somehow manage to slug all 3 of them... who cares? They have basekit Unbreakable, you probably can't even hook all 3 before one of them gets up even if you get a 3 man Bubba chainsaw.
Once the Unbreakable is up, they throw the pallet, and you have to chase again. If you manage to down them without them reaching a pallet, great... but if you don't... this scenario just repeats.
If you can never advance your killer objective, it doesn't matter that only 1 survivor is on gens, because YOU CAN'T HOOK. This interaction happens again and again... you can't stop it, every interaction goes this way, cause there is simply no threat to survivors if you can't hook them.
You keep saying you can't slug, but you can. You have 45 seconds, more than enough time to push one guy away.
A third survivor coming off gens only works if that gen is very close to the action, otherwise the travel time would be too long to get there before the pickup starts. Remember, you're not committing to chasing the first guy properly, just forcing them to run away for a second or two.
Weakly lingering nearby is not a deterrent to picking up, is the thing. The survivor actually has to be able to get a save in order to be a threat, so if they're not super close and you can put yourself between them and the pallet… just pick up. They can't do anything about it even if they run at you, they have to be able to get the pallet dropping prompt or have clear line of sight to blind you.
There have been plenty of times in the past where I see a survivor lingering nearby, I know they can't do anything, so I just pick up. They run at me, they fail to get the save, sometimes they drop the pallet anyway which is kinda funny, and the game moves on. Survivors just "being nearby" doesn't matter unless they can also get in position for a save in the time it takes for you to pick up a survivor.
Sometimes, sure, I get hit unexpectedly. It happens. You'll always be at risk of sometimes getting hit out of nowhere by a survivor you didn't see or that had a perk you didn't expect. If you do see them, though, knowing a survivor can pick themselves up after a long delay doesn't make pickups impossible at all.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875657#Comment_3875657
I've already highlighted that it's possible to stall a killer like this with current Unbreakable... it's already something that can completely swing the games momentum to the survivor side... but what you're opting for is being able to do this repeatedly.
So explain to me... you're an m1 killer, you've chased your first survivor, get your down under a pallet maybe after... 60s or so. You see someone going for a save, you push them off with an injury... great... took you what? Another 25s to get there, hit them and come back?
Can you pick up? No... someone else might be close, you've got to check, you see another survivor hovering nearby who has probably moved over after you've started your chase on the 2nd survivor, so you've got to push the 3rd off too. They have a good structure nearby and run to it, you ain't a dummy, you drop chase and come back within 10 seconds. First injured survivor is seen coming back so, you still can't pick up... what do you do?
Do you commit to them? Probably should, but now your slug is about to pop Unbreakable... you can't switch to the 3rd survivor, they're in safety... if you leave the downed survivor, you lose them, and if you go after the injured survivor you've got to reach them before the reach safety... if you can't... you have literally nothing.
You've lost this exchange, a gen has popped in the background from the 4th survivor, at least 1 more is well on it's way for progress, and you STILL don't even have a hook. What is your choice? What should you have done different?
In DBD current, this scenario is a one off, that can only happen if the first survivor has Unbreakable. This isn't a common occurrence because a lot of things have to align for it to happen. With your changes, this becomes the standard way this plays out.
You acknowledge how game swinging this can be... but yet you want to make this a default interaction that happens every game, and multiple times in a game? That's busted dude... no matter how you slice it.
Alright, let's tackle this hypothetical!
The first thing to note is, obviously, this is a very, very specific variation on the normal interaction you'd expect to see here because you've got two survivors lingering around, not one. That already colours this scenario and affects how we talk about it, both in the sense that it meaningfully changes the options and in the sense that it's much more of an academic hypothetical instead of a realistic expectation.
Now, from there, let's look at answering what the killer should be doing here. I'll start by noting that you specify "push away with an injury" but you really don't have to commit to an injury specifically, you just need the survivor to be a certain distance away from the slug. I can't give you hard numbers for that distance, but just far enough that they'd have to run behind you for a good few seconds to even catch up to you.
From there, we notice our third survivor lingering for the save. At this point, we should be realising that this suddenly isn't a gamble to pick this one survivor up, this is a gamble to get as much value out of the favourable position the survivors have handed us as possible. This is a very aggressive SWF, so we should be looking to capitalise on that confidence and altruism.
Let's say for the sake of argument that survivor 3 here is too close for us to pick up, which I'll note isn't guaranteed and then move on with the assumption. From here, we'll acknowledge that survivor 1 is pretty likely to pick themselves up; that's fine, we're already getting about as much out of this scenario as we would if we'd just hooked them straight away.
I can't give as much of a play by play here because there are a lot of ways this could go, but the basic idea is this: They're all intentionally grouping themselves around this one pallet, and one of them is going to be out of position at some point. If survivor 1 picks themselves up, you can down them again outside that pallet, and if survivors 2 or 3 run closer to you to try and get you away from the pallet, that brings them out of position.
You are not losing this exchange if a gen pops. One guy is doing gens and you're occupying three of the others, you will come out ahead here. The gens have been stalled pretty heavily and you still do get a hook out of this. You just have to be patient and capitalise on your opponents putting themselves out of position.
As a final note… this is not the default interaction that'll play out multiple times a match. Even the more realistic version of this where someone's downed under a pallet and a second survivor is lingering nearby isn't something that happens every game, getting an actual coordinated team that try to deny pickups in this specific way is significantly less common than that.
-
@UndeddJester said:
Every once in a while you'll probably just eat a pallet stun because the survivors had a good setup, that's how it goes. I don't think survivors can engineer that at every pallet, though, not even close
But they can... you're ignoring Background Player, and even Sprint Burst. Maybe Fire Up can help, and Hex:Blood Favour (with all the usual hex problems), but it's still on survivors to screw it up… they can tag team the threat against you from mutual safety... I don't see why this problem is invisible to you...
Let me ask, have you ever played Ghost Face and been bum rushed by survivors for saves? Even you play this well, it still takes quite some time. You hold this opinion you can catch survivors trying to save really fast and still get your hook... how many seconds does the average down take through both health states as an m1 killer? 30s? 40s? 80s? How much time just to walk back to your down? Basically we're making it so the killer has to injure 3 survivors at least before they can even start trying to pick up? Ironically we're kinda forcing the killer to slug to prevent them from slugging... the only difference being the killer loses at the end…
I mean you do realise that for killers without high lethality, you're screwed right? Survivors can just do this over and over and over again and there is nothing you can do to stop it if you dont have an m2 killer. If you don't have a power that can down survivors quickly, your killer is fodder to pallet saves...
The complete inability to effectively slug in this scenario, means survivors can bully vast majority of m1 killers, they can literally tag team run back and forth and just the time it takes you to walk in a line behind them means you're losing your down, and probably getting little or nothing for it in return.
I agree with the sentiment of what you're trying to do, but this looks to me as someone who tends to play C and D tiers, like my hands are completely tied and I can only hope my opponents are idiots who don't know how to exploit this.
If you're playing a killer without lethality or mobility, and the survivor is healthy, you wouldn't be going for the down anyway in my experience. You'd be looking to harass them away, then pick up.
I have been bum rushed for saves by multiple survivors as low lethality killers. Oftentimes, they do get the save, but only because they're throwing the match to do it. You're describing a "bully squad" type situation, where all the team is nearby and trying to get saves, and it's not like they win matches against someone that's just a little patient.
For every other scenario, as an M1 killer, you'd just harass them away and loop back around to get the pickup while they're too far away to get to the other side of the loop. Nothing about my suggestions here would change that, it's the same situation that it'd always be.
They don't need to be that far away for them not to be able to get the save under normal conditions. Something like BGP would help, sure, but that's… what it's supposed to do. It's supposed to make saves possible in scenarios where they wouldn't otherwise be, that's the intent of bringing the perk. That's not really a flaw with this system so much as it is a perk existing that makes pickups difficult-but-not-impossible because the survivor going for the save is faster than normal. It still heavily depends on the pallet whether they can get all the way around it for the save, though— if the pallet's in a jungle gym or in shack, for example, there's no way they're getting all the way around it in time even with something like BGP or Sprint Burst.
There's always a risk, but this system doesn't really heighten that risk all that much, at least as far as I can see without testing. 45 seconds is enough time to harass someone away and get back to the slug— again, that works against current Unbreakable, and that's quicker than 45 seconds.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875647#Comment_3875647
I'm sorry if I'm being stupid, but that is exactly the problem I'm describing... none of this works because of the fact the killer is on a time limit, and especially because of Background Player... but even if BGP wasn't there, it basically comes down to map structure.
The killer is on a time limit to pick up... a survivor nearby means they can't pick up, they MUST push them off, and if there is a decent tile nearby, like a TL wall or something, the saving survivor can effectively loop the killer while stayimg nearby to the slugged survivor.
We might think "oh we can push them off and mind game them vaulting and go for the pick up" (which is a gamble itself), but even if we pull it off, there is always the possibility of another survivor being there to make the save... and again this survivor doesn't have to play risky to get there, they can wait in safety for Unbreakable as a backup... and run in if needed, the killer doesn't have time to check... and this extra survivor can also come with their own BGP...
The mere fact this is possible means the killer can't pick up in this scenario, but they then can't slug either because of basekit Unbreakable... Of course, this can all happen already, but the difference is, it happens once... whereas if it's basekit survivors can employ this strategy at every single pallet, and do it over and over and over again...we now have a big problem....how do you stop 3 players swarming you?
The entire point of slugging is meant to be a means of forcing survivors to leave out of risk of giving the killer monster pressure if they manage to successfully slug 3 players trying to impede them. With basekit Unbreakable this can't happen, and survivors can continually bully killers around pallets with no method of stopping them other than a hex.
Well, there's always going to be some risk of the survivors getting a save, of course. Especially if there's multiple nearby as you get the down- it shouldn't really be guaranteed that they can't push you into a bad situation, the more survivors they dedicate to this should raise the chance that they'll succeed because they're giving up generator pressure to do it, which is a pretty favourable trade for the killer. Bluntly, the answer to "how do you stop 3 players swarming you" is "you don't, and you celebrate that they're doing it".
I'm chiefly concerned with the ability for one extra survivor to push you into that kind of gameplay, and in my experience it just doesn't work out all that often that you're powerless. You chase them away, loop back around, pick up on the same side of the pallet as them, then the risk of them getting a save on you is very low. This works against current Unbreakable which is noticeably faster than what I'm suggesting.
Every once in a while you'll probably just eat a pallet stun because the survivors had a good setup, that's how it goes. I don't think survivors can engineer that at every pallet, though, not even close. It requires very specific tiles, both in the sense that the pallet the slugged survivor is beneath needs to be one you can get all the way around very quickly and the surrounding tiles need to be strong enough that you can stay nearby with little risk of the killer downing you quickly.
Even the two worst case scenarios really aren't that big of a deal, either, if you think about it.
Example one of a worst case scenario: The survivors successfully get a pallet save. While that can be game-swinging, a lot of the time it's a setback you can return from. You've gotten rid of a pallet and there are two survivors nearby, things could be a lot worse. This is the actual worst case scenario, too.
Example two of a (slightly less but still worth talking about) worst case scenario: You commit to chasing the second survivor away for too long and the first survivor picks themselves up. You've successfully kept two survivors occupied for over 45 seconds, and you're either in position to down the second survivor soon or you're close enough to down the first survivor again. You can fumble this, obviously, but it offers you plenty of opportunities to respond otherwise.
All scenarios I can think of at worst give you options to respond and won't lose you the game immediately, and most of them are just flat out good for you.
-
@UndeddJester said:
The immediate problem I see is how do you circumvent the problem of survivors going down under a pallet?
The main reason why Unbreakable basekit was a problem is survivors didn't have to get to the survivor to save them, they could hover in relative safety and basically put Killers in a situation where they can't pick up just by being nearby. This maans instead of moving to save the survivor, they merely have to stall the killer long enough for them to use Unbreakable, and there is nothing here I can see to prevent that issue.
I don't think you can solve the aggressive slugging problem with Unbreakable period. It's effect is too much of a counter to genuine instances where the Killer is forced to slug.
The actual issue of slugging to my mind is survivors moclve at 0.7m/s and can't get apart efficiently after being slugged.
As an exampleiIf you get slugged under hook for example, you're under hook, you can't move away quickly to get to a position to be saved. It's also the same if say killer catches a survivor trying to save.
This isn't an element of the game I feel should be removed (if you get slugged under hook or slugged trying for a save, that's on you and you should be punished), however this same issue is the same for aggressive slugging. Survivors can't get to places other survivors can reasonably save them effectively.
That's why I uncoupled the recovery timer from the pickup timer, specifically because of survivors going down under a pallet.
If you're the killer in that scenario, you basically have two things you're gonna try and do, depending on context- and to be clear I mean right now, not with this hypothetical change, this is how survivors being slugged under a pallet works in the current state of the game.
The first thing you'd try and do is down the person lingering for a save, since that's an obvious snowball. If you have some kind of instadown, if the survivor's already injured, if you're confident in your ability to catch up and get a second hit, you'd want to down the first survivor. With my change, you'd just have a time limit to do that of 45 (or possibly longer, I'm not married to that number specifically) seconds to get the down, which might just push you towards option two as a worst case scenario.
The second thing you'd have as an option and, in my opinion, the far more common one, is just to push the lingering survivor far enough away that they can't get back in position for a save when you move to pick up. This already takes considerably less time than 45 seconds, so this one's basically unchanged.
In both scenarios here, knowing survivors can pick themselves up after a delay will affect your decisionmaking but won't meaningfully take that decision away, you still have two solid options depending on context.
As an aside, the reason that Unbreakable basekit was a problem on that PTB is because the self pickup perks were buffed, not the basekit feature itself. That feature gave you enough time to chase survivors away, or even secure a second down if you're in a position to. The problem was that Unbreakable itself made the self pickup extremely fast, alongside a few other tools. That PTB being the way it was is something I was heavily considering while I was drafting this post, I wanted to avoid the problems that cropped up there.
-
@UknownShredder said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875315#Comment_3875315
Look, A beggar do not choose. if you dont want to bleed out with your friends then you have to adhere to some of the killers demands to make our play more fun. We get punished so much by hooking you guys. Or you will continue to bleed out. Do you think the Survivors in North Korea negotiate rules with kim jong ?
The killer is not punished for hooking, that's not how any of this works.
This post isn't because I don't want to be slugged, I don't personally see slugging in all that many of my survivor games. This post is because I think excessive slugging can be a little unbalanced, and because I know a lot of other people find it a lot more boring than I do.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875431#Comment_3875431
The killer can't force a survivor to pick themselves off the ground, to trigger the extra 20 seconds wiggle time. And the killer really can't be expected to just stand over the slugged survivor while their teammates repair generators. The killer will have to leave the slugged survivor, at which point the survivor gets their base kit unbreakable, even though the killer was forced to slug.
If the other survivors are doing generators it implies only this one player is trying to do unhookable stuff, and I'm okay with them running around doing that while I pressure their teammates, personally.
I'm not saying unhookable stuff doesn't need some adjustments in its own right, to be clear, there shouldn't be as many places you can go down to make yourself really hard to hook as there are. I'm just saying this system won't make it any worse and even offers an answer to a good number of those scenarios.
-
@bjorksnas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875457#Comment_3875457
Half the pressure from slugging is the slugging itself the other half is the threat of slugging to then snowball into a win.
Killers like twins, and oni who are basically built to slug to get max power value aren't eating good. Theres almost no reason to heal against twins anymore just cross the map and make it too much of a slog to hook you and they get 1:5th of the value they currently get. Oni gets punished for taking long on his second chase or even going after a second chase.
Killers like Wesker and singularity get punished for hooking because the power decays down or goes away so removing slugging just removes an avenue to win with them
Freddy is on the way and people already are assuming slugging is gonna be the way to go because he is ok otherwise but only really great for slugging
Survivors should be scared to stay injured against killers who can put them on the ground and keep them there, with no threat to a person being slugged and the assumption that the killer now basically has to always hook you there is no threat, there is no peril to most actions and gamestates. No real threat of putting them on the ground quickly and keeping them there less time bought from survivors healing.
Yeah sure you can "slug" but you can't slug and win off bad survivor plays it just babyproofs the game with no meaningful buffs to the killers it drastically impacts and no buff to the overall state of killer that now loses one of the 3 best pressure / game winning strategies because survivors don't like using their 16 perk slots or playing as a team.
I feel like I have to point out that 45 seconds is a pretty long time by DBD standards, you'd absolutely still have the chance to snowball off a down.
Sure, it'd get harder for any of these killers to knock down everyone in a single power activation, but as long as you actually know where survivors are and aren't wandering around aimlessly during the timer, you can absolutely get a second survivor knocked down with plenty of time to spare for hooking.
Or, y'know, you can get greedier and go for more downs. The first guy's probably picked up by then, but they were off generators for 45 seconds and they're still injured at this point, so you're hardly in a bad position there. As long as you're hooking someone and not trying to just get everyone on the ground at once, this system can be worked around pretty easily.
I don't think it's a bad thing to curtail someone's ability to win off a single power activation, that seems like a kinda questionable thing to be in the game to me.
-
@YuffieGreatestWaifu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875499#Comment_3875499
Pre-patch gave both players endurance now it gives a weak haste which fast killers can still out chase.
Oh, right, gotcha. The OG version of Buckle Up was not that, for the record, it was a mostly worthless aura colour change to show how progressed someone's recovery was and some aura reading after pickup.
To be honest, the scenarios where Buckle Up worked aren't really the ones I'm looking to address here.
-
@YuffieGreatestWaifu said:
Slugging had a decent counter with OG buckle up now its worth crap.
The only proper counters being through perks isn't a great idea, it means you have to run those perks every game just in case.
…Though, OG Buckle Up was terrible, I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
-
@bjorksnas said:
I don't agree with the premise of basekit unbreakable, removing an entire form of pressure from killers with no actual buffs to the killers that lose or overall killer effectiveness, pressure, or action economy is not great for the game, you would need to do an actual gamewide comprehensive rework just to remove the 1 thing properly and even then who knows if the players would actually like it.
The goal isn't to remove the pressure you can get by leaving someone on the ground, that's why I put a hard requirement of 45 seconds on it - which could be raised a bit if it's too short, of course, all of this would be tested.
You would still, with this change implemented, be able to slug. You'd just be put on a time limit to actually get value from that slug, meaning you'd have to be a little more discerning about when you'd do it. I don't think that's a bad thing, personally.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875343#Comment_3875343
You're still punishing killers for slugging when it's not the killer's choice to slug.
The problem is that your solution really isn't different for the slugging problems that negatively affect killers, but it completely fixes the slugging problems that negatively affect survivors.
What problems even remain, though?
Flashbang saves being borderline uncounterable would be fixed, and anyone who tries to make themselves unhookable puts themselves at a disadvantage because they'll be hooked after their first attempt at picking themselves up.
What's left that forces the killer to slug for longer than 45 seconds that they'd be punished for here?
-
@sanees said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875375#Comment_3875375
The problem is all at once, if the killer goes after survivor number 2 (note that yourself suggested)during this time, survivor number 1 will already get up and either he or survivor number 3 can come to the help of survivor number 2 so on until the palettes run outthe second case is if you decide to drive away survivor number 2 but not pursue him (there is still a chance that he will quickly return and blind/throw off the palette) and survivor number 1 will charge Power Struggle during this time
And most importantly, all this punishes precisely that the killer who wants to go on hooks, and the killer who wants to slug just down each survivor 6/7 times
If you really want to solve this problem, you shouldn't create situations in which the killer loses no matter what he does, and you shouldn't make it even more difficult for the killer to go on hooks.English is not my native language, but you should get at least 1 meaning, the anti-slug should not interfere with killers who go on hooks more than slug killers
I see, that does clear some things up.
So, the main point of disagreement I have is in that it still takes 45 seconds to pick yourself up here. If you just walk away to harass survivor 2 away, you have plenty of time to do that before you're at risk of survivor 1 picking themselves up. You could, depending on the scenario, even down survivor 2 before survivor 1 picks themselves up and still have time to hook both.
The second thing to bring up is… how likely is it you're going to face all of these concepts at once? It's possible, but it's not likely, and the Flip Flop + Power Struggle combo (since you need Flip Flop for this strat to work) hasn't even changed, that's how those perks work right now.
It doesn't even happen every match that you get a down under a pallet and there's someone lingering for a save, for that matter. That's already a specific scenario that isn't going to be the case all the time.
-
@sanees said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875369#Comment_3875369
THIS IS THE PROBLEM!
If you spend 10 seconds to drive away a survivor with a firecracker, then during this time the survivor on the ground will already charge the perk and, when you try to pick it up, will drop a palette on you…I'm a little confused, sorry.
Are you saying the issue isn't Unbreakable at all but is actually Power Struggle…?
Because Power Struggle is completely unchanged here, the scenario you're describing in this post is someone who has Flip Flop + Power Struggle so whenever they're left on the floor they can charge up Power Struggle.
Unless you're saying that they pick themselves up and then drop the pallet on you, in which case, 10 seconds isn't long enough to do that even with the current tools, let alone the tools I'm suggesting.
I'm genuinely not sure what you're saying here, I apologise. Could you elaborate?
-
@sanees said:
And now this is a case that punishes an ordinary player, not a slugger, let's move on Shift W chase takes about 30 seconds, with unbreakable it will take you 32 seconds to get up let's say after 30 seconds you down a second survivor, but then 3 survivors come running with a firecracker, and at this time 1 has already recovered and can repair the generator, according to your idea, the killer should again abandon the fallen survivor and chase a new one
Or having won the chase, get hit in the face with a palette and start the chase again, on game 20+ pallets, killer must win chase at least 32 times, which is absurd, you literally just want free wins.Well, if you think the survivor's going to Shift W you just… wouldn't take that chase? You'd harass them away and then go back to the down you already have.
Also, it's 45 seconds, not 32. Unbreakable wouldn't change the self pickup timer with my changes, the only thing that'd let you bypass that number is Exponential.
-
@sanees said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875326#Comment_3875326
Okay, I knocked down the survivor under the pallet and next to me is his ally with a firecracker, if I don’t pick it up right away, the survivor will use the perk and throw the palette at me, if I go to drive the survivor away with a firecracker, the survivor under the palette will simply stand up. Question is what should a killer do?
You don't want a level playing field you want to limit killer gameplayyou nerfed the hook perks of killers so much and buffed the perks of survivors that the hook for survivors became more profitable than for the killerand the previously extremely questionable slug tactic has become one of the most effective
The answer is: Leave the survivor under the pallet and chase the person with a firecracker.
From there, one of two things happens. Either you down the person trying to save within 45 seconds, in which case you get two hooks, or you get them far enough away that they can't loop back around and then return to your slug within 45 seconds to get the one hook.
You're acting like the system I'm pitching would kick in immediately, but 45 seconds is a fairly long time for DBD.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875315#Comment_3875315
So the killer moves toward another hook, and the survivor runs in front of them to sabotage that hook too. And if two survivors have toolboxes, then they can easily sabotage any hook the killer goes near even with an extra 40 seconds. It’s also not addressing the fact that slowly carrying a boil over survivor for over 30 seconds would be very unfun for the killer.
And getting a remote hook prompt after 10 seconds of carrying a survivor has absolutely nothing to do with rewarding the killer for slugging. It’s literally rewarding the killer for attempting the hook a survivor.
If you move after they commit to actually sabotaging, they don't have time to run in front of you and sabotage that hook too. If there's a third survivor also doing this, then just play it patient and wait for them to exhaust their options, there's only one survivor doing generators in this scenario.
Plus, y'know, you can always drop the survivor you're carrying and chase one of those survivors. You'd have 45 seconds to finish that chase and still get two hooks, and worst case scenario you've still done a lot of damage to the survivor's generator efficiency.
This really isn't different to current sabotage plays except for that you have more time to get the hook. That's not a bad thing, this is still an improvement.
-
@sanees said:
Or maybe, instead of giving all survivors unreasonably strong buffs that break tons of mechanics, survivors should just let go of the generator for 10 seconds and go raise their ally?
Why should survivors even receive rewards for losing the chase?That would still be the better call if they're in a position to do it, yeah, since it'd be much quicker.
None of these changes would break anything, I'm reasonably sure of that. I was careful in crafting them to ensure the only thing they'd affect is trying to leave survivors on the ground for unreasonable amounts of time, or trying to make yourself unhookable, two things that do warrant changes.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875283#Comment_3875283
Spending 36 seconds carrying a survivor, and watching their teammate repeatedly run in front of me to sabotage a hook, sounds terrible.
If the killer has carried a survivor for 10 seconds, they should get a button to remotely hook the survivor.
All you need to do is just head towards a different hook once they commit to the sabotage, it's not that big of a deal.
You already get a huge bonus in getting that 20 seconds of no wiggle progression anyway, you don't need to be rewarded more for slugging.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
20 seconds doesn’t help at all if a survivor is running around with a toolbox to sabotage hooks before the killer gets there.
You’re basically saying it’s fine for survivors to force the killer to slug, but not fine if the killer actually wants to slug.
There should be an additional rule that if a survivor is slugged for X seconds, the killer can remotely hook them without picking them off the ground. Because killers shouldn’t be punished for prolonged slugging if they were forced into it.
Yes it would?
Let's assume that there's a second survivor that wants to sabotage after you pick up someone who recently recovered from the dying state.
You now have the 20 seconds of the new feature PLUS the 16 seconds it typically takes to wiggle free.
That's plenty of time to reach another hook even with a sabotage or two forcing you to change directions. It wouldn't necessarily be impossible for survivors to deny a hook this way, but with 20 seconds of free Mad Grit without needing to hit someone it's going to be quite unlikely.
-
Pyramid Head undoubtedly, once Freddy's done with he'll be the one left with truly abysmal addons.
A few killers have a number of underwhelming addons, especially ones that are just "good enough but boring to use", so they'd be ones I'd look at. Clown has a lot of addons like that, imo, as does Nemesis. They're not bad addon spreads by any means, but they could be more interesting by a long shot.
-
@SelectDevotee68 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874049#Comment_3874049
Players who have really high mmr tend to have a great understanding of their killer or the killers they go against. Look at OTZSdarva, Coconutrts, Lilith Omen, etc. They have a great understanding of the game and it's mechanics. They're the ones that BHVR listen to the most when it comes to changes. OTZ's got them to finally buff Trapper.
The players you're referring to aren't just high MMR, though, they're also content creators who, to varying degrees depending on the name, make their job to know about DBD.
Those players might have a better understanding - and even they'll have blind spots because they're only human + aren't automatically right even outside of those blind spots - but to assume any player that isn't talking about DBD professionally on a near daily basis will also have that level of understanding just because they're good at winning the game consistently is a mistake.
MMR doesn't measure how much like Otzdarva someone is, it's just to sort them into a group with other players who have a roughly equal chance at winning the match as them. It doesn't care how they win, or how knowledgeable they are about the game.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874120#Comment_3874120
i am saying that hooking and spread pressure are two different concepts. spreading pressure is injures 2-3 survivors than chasing 3rd survivor or one of the injured survivors. the problem is that you face too many med-kit to do this and pre-run shift-w makes it inefficient time investment. like survivor heal faster in grouping than your ability to spread injuries.
I mean, I've given my definition of pressure and it includes more than hit and run injuring. Is there some other definition you think is more instructive here?
Just defining spreading pressure as hit and run doesn't seem all that helpful in this context.