jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4084015#Comment_4084015
Fair enough, when these discussions pop up, usually the argument is "nerf nurse she op" but the reasoning for it also by definition implies that survivors are a problem as well but said person would never agree with that.
So, then, you believe that nurse is a problem and needs to be dealt with. And that survivors are also a problem given the current state of balance against the vast majority of the killer cast?
If that is true, then we agree and there really isn't anything more to say.
I wouldn't say "survivors are a problem" because survivors don't differ like killers, I'd say some survivor tools are a problem. There are also other killers that are problems, or at least have problems worth fixing.
The current state of balance works out okay overall for killers, a majority can compete and there's a lot of heat you can bring, but that doesn't mean there aren't problems.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4083983#Comment_4083983
But that is PRECISELY MY POINT.
If it means that she is "not easy to weaponise" that by definition is going to likely fall in the hands of a high skilled player who has played thousands of hours. And when balance discussions come in, i am reliably informed that we must ignore those types of players because they are so rare and that survivors aren't a problem because most players aren't like that.
MY POINT is that if you hold that belief, then BY DEFINITION you must hold that belief for killers as well, and if you do not, than you are biased. If you DO NOT hold that belief and truly believe that nurse is a problem (btw i agree with you again as a nurse main with thousands of hours) then BY DEFINITION you MUST also agree that survivors at that level are also a problem and need to be dealt with.
You do not get to have it both ways.
I think you're maybe responding to arguments I haven't made here?
My response to you was about the choice you presented, that you have to balance the game around the average or around the top, which I don't think is accurate at all. You have to balance for the whole game, you don't get to pick.
I've definitely said nothing about survivors here. Sure, there's definitely stuff about survivor worth addressing, at all levels even. That's just not related to the point I'm making.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4083981#Comment_4083981
But if you look at the statistics of the middling levels like you are talking about and they show that she has the lowest kill rate, then clearly there is something going on here.
Looking at statistics isn't enough. You also have to be able to interpret those statistics.
There are a lot of reasons Nurse might underperform relative to her power level. That doesn't mean she isn't a problem, just that she isn't a problem you can easily weaponise.
Probably why she hasn't been fully nerfed yet, she's a low priority problem. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be appropriate to take care of it eventually.
(Also I don't recall us ever getting statistics that specify middling levels?)
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4083968#Comment_4083968
But you still miss the point, even at "high mmr" nurse is often the lowest kill rate killer in the game. So at what point to you is "nurse a problem" it appears to me with the data that nurse only becomes a problem when the hands of like a comp level player. Which whenever balance discussions come in, i am reliably informed that comp players should not be considered for balance discussion because they aren't playing normal queues.
That'd be the problem with relying only on statistics, they don't tell the whole story.
If Nurse is a problem, and I believe she is, I think the place that's most evident is around the mid to high-mid sort of area. At the lowest levels she can't get anything done and at the highest levels you can reasonably expect players to both know how to counter her & have experience doing so.
At the middling levels, though, we run into a problem. Nurse players are good enough to be holding their own, but there's another issue: after you get over the initial hump of getting used to Blink distances, Nurse can be pretty forgiving to play. Stuns don't matter against her, and you can line up very easy damaging hits on players by just watching their aura through a wall.
That's why I suggest what I suggest. The two changes I favour most won't affect lower levels because she's already performing badly, and it'd affect higher levels less because higher level players rely on her cheese less, but it addresses her where she's most likely to be a potent problem.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4083859#Comment_4083859
I disagree. There are 2 philosophies you can have for balancing the game:
- The game should be balanced around high level players
- The game should be balanced around average level players.
Both of these points are mutually exclusive when balancing for power.
If you balance the game for average players, then nurse actually needs buffs or ways to make her easier.
If you balance the game for high level players, then maybe nurse needs nerfs? (have we ever even gotten stats for nurse at the highest levels?) But by definition you have to deal with the fact that most of the killer roster is not viable at that level.
You don't get to have it both ways, either you balance the game for the average, or for the top, you don't get to pick and choose. Unless of course you think we should be balance the game around high level KILLER players, but average level SURVIVOR players. Which if you think that, then you are in favor of balancing the game differently for different sides which shows an inherent bias.
Surely when it comes to live service games like this (IE, ones that are marketed outwards and aren't highly specific products for very specific communities), you don't have the luxury of framing a choice like that?
All groups must be balanced for at once overall. If a change is aimed at a specific group, then the others must be kept in mind to ensure things don't get out of hand. You don't have the luxury of choosing top or middle or bottom as an overall philosophy, it's all at once and must be all at once, there aren't other reasonable options.
With that understanding Nurse clearly needs changes but also the nuances become more apparent. Yes, her absolute power level needs to go down, obviously, but she also could benefit from being made more accessible at the same time— if that's even the tactic you want to take, too. Separate to the discussion of power level and skill level, there's also the design intent; is Nurse supposed to be kinda inaccessible but strong to compensate? If she is, lowering her absolute power is still appropriate but not by as much, and nothing needs to be done about her ease of use.
If she's just meant to be a normal killer, though, she needs to be considerably weaker and noticeably easier to access. This is a question of artistic vision more than flat balance, though.@ the topic overall, of those the best outcome imo is to make her like Oni, give her a limited time to use Blinks that has to charge up through basic gameplay in exchange for a more standard movement speed. I think BHVR are (somewhat rightfully) hesitant to change Nurse that fundamentally considering how long she's been in the game and how iconic she is, though, so personally I'd suggest giving her Blindness while charging a Blink and have her tokens reset to 0 when she's stunned as the next steps in balancing her.
After that, see where she is. -
I think the idea behind Jason's speed is that he's slower by default but he's basically always going to have the Haste from exiting his power, so he's functionally going to be at normal speed most of the time.
-
@Crowman said:
Better tutorials wouldn't solve anything. BHVR has been catering to the survivor players who refuse to get good at the game.
Apologies for singling you out, you're just the latest person I've seen say this and I've decided to finally ask: What are you referring to with this?
I see people say in passing that BHVR cater to bad survivor players who refuse to get better but I rarely see any examples given, would you mind elaborating?
-
@Lorelei_Albrecht_TTV said:
But my main gripe is bugs that are beneficial to survivors or hinder the killer stay with no signs that it'll be removed but, the day footage pops up of a bug that causes something beneficial for a specific killer they get kill switched. Wesker wasn't available for most of 2 v 8 because of it. All I'm saying is BHVR needs to prioritize bug fixes more
To be fair, that's not what the bulk of your post is referencing, so I assumed the overall strength of killer vs survivor was your main point.
Sure, though, it'd be nice if BHVR prioritised bug fixes better, I won't disagree with that.
-
@Lorelei_Albrecht_TTV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4083432#Comment_4083432
And I was talking about the whole don't worry it won't make it to live attitude isn't reassuring. Also my post mentioned killer bugs some people can't play as or against doctor because of his bug and hound master isn't as strong as she should be due to fact that snug still up and vanishes
Oh, right, I see.
To clarify: I'm not saying "don't worry it won't make it to live", I'm saying "my focus here is on the live game and not the PTB". If those perks hit live unaltered, yes, they'll be a problem, I'm just not talking about the PTB right now, I'm talking about how killer's in a pretty good spot overall with only some problem areas.
-
@Lorelei_Albrecht_TTV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4083430#Comment_4083430
Y'all said that with fast track and it went to live as is and took 2 months to rectify meanwhile the Wesker bug got him kill switched immediately. Also BHVR not touching KNOWN bugs one of which can cause seizures isn't a good look chief
…Sorry? What does what I said have to do with Fast Track…?
I might be misunderstanding but I'm talking about killer strength overall here.
-
To be fair, mentioning Sadako is putting your thumb on the scale a little. She may be weak - though for the record I've been learning her and I think she's not COMPLETELY incapable of performing - but she's also one of the four actively weak killers in the game.
There's a big difference between "only some killers CAN compete" and "only some killers CAN'T compete", and DBD is way closer to the latter. Sure, you'll struggle a lot if you play D tiers like Trapper, Skull Merchant, and arguably Sadako + Ghostface depending on how strict you're being, but if you just move up to mid tiers like Wraith, Clown, Demogorgon, and Legion you'll have a much smoother time.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of killers can compete, and the main distinction between top-but-not-S-tiers like Wesker or Nemesis or especially Ghoul and respectable B tiers like the above is just how easy and how straightforward their gameplans are. Not to say that's a bad thing, necessarily, but I think some people get almost tricked into thinking some killers are weaker than they are because the straightforward gameplan that works with strong chase killers isn't how you'd go about playing them.I won't touch on the PTB perk stuff because none of that has actually happened yet, we're still in the "give feedback and wait" phase, but other than that the game really isn't in as bad a spot as you're claiming, I don't think.
-
@Slurp_Ramen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4083074#Comment_4083074
you’re right, I technically dont have to chase anyone.
It just so happens she is the best position possible and was the worst player. The others simply either made themselves scarce or pre-ran and pre-dropped.
The time is constantly ticking, gens are constantly being done, there simply isn’t enough time to do what you suggest, especially on someone like trapper and on a map with no grass.And forgive me for misunderstanding, but doesn’t the bodyblocking already fall under using it aggressively. Whether basekit BT ran out or whether I decided to hit them or not, bodyblocking in that manner is inherently aggressive/weaponizing, no?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like a bigger problem going on here is you were having a hard time finding any other chase to take? That sounds like a more pressing concern than this survivor trying to get your attention, and it's also definitely something you can work on and/or bring perks to correct.
Even with that in mind, if I suspected that the person trying to get my attention was trying to fish for a DS stun, I'd let them follow me while I looked for someone else. Free pressure.And bodyblocking with Endurance can be weaponised, DS can't. Nothing forces you to peel off and chase that survivor and nothing forces you to pick them up. It isn't even the best call most of the time.
-
If you're open to a little constructive advice to stop something like this happening again: You don't have to chase her, she legitimately cannot force you to peel off and focus on her.
If you know she used Deliverance and ran directly at you, chances are good she has some kind of anti-tunnel she wants to weaponise. Whatever chase you're in when she catches up to you, continue it, let her run around like a headless chicken behind you and waste a bunch of her time for no benefit.
That's what makes DS in particular impossible to weaponise, you can't force the killer to engage with you. Endurance can be used to bodyblock, but DS can't be forced.
-
The way I've always understood MMR systems is that they're not supposed to measure a match, they're supposed to measure many matches. To elaborate, my understanding of how and why an MMR system works the way it does goes like this:
If a player plays one match and wins it, that could be up to a variety of factors, any number of things could've contributed to the win outside of that player making smart decisions and executing on them properly.
If a player plays ten matches and wins six, though, that starts to indicate better that they're playing well. A variety of factors still applies, but something has to be going right for their approach to the game.
If a player players a hundred matches and wins sixty, that's even firmer evidence, at that point they must be doing something right- it has to be up to their decisions at least as much as it's up to random flukes.
So, that'd explain why DBD's doesn't currently measure match performance and imo suggests it wouldn't really matter much if it did, since one match doesn't move the needle on its own. You'd just be kinda adding in more avenues for false positives and false negatives, really.
It also seems, at least to this layperson, that it's better future-proofing against balance problems, that way you can just safely address whatever problems exist in the game without worrying about how it'd affect the matchmaker.I'm sure letting some of those variables act like modifiers to increase or decrease the amount of MMR gain/loss after the win/loss could make a degree of sense, though. Still, what I'd want to see in that regard is for us to have a better system to measure your performance after a match that isn't the MMR system, like overhauling the emblem system. That'd be the best of both worlds, people get rewarded for good play on a match-by-match basis but it doesn't mess with the matchmaker.
-
The big one at the moment would probably be that build-crafting entails and encompasses far more than just stacking the same % number and Diminishing Returns is only making the tiniest dent on the narrowest band of possible creative expression.
There are SO MANY ways of crafting a build that never even have repeated % effects at all, let alone the ways that are affected by the DR system but only mildly. Any time I express confusion about why people are saying the DR system kills build creativity I get downvoted, so it counts for this I think, lol.
For another one though: Stealth on the survivor side isn't dead and it's completely viable. It's just an active playstyle now instead of a passive one.
-
I don't think I agree that the problem with either perk is prerequisites.
Scared To Death only requires you to perform normal gameplay actions and its activation being delayed is to its benefit, since the single big problem with hexes is how brittle they can be in the early game before they've had a chance to affect anything. This way, you earn the perk pretty soon into the match but it's not lit next to a survivor's spawn, and then you're good to go, you can just use the perk.
Vigil is a concern for it, but that's not a prerequisite so I won't dwell on that.Rampage, again, I think the prerequisite is fine, it's just kicking pallets. The problem with that perk that I can see (testing is hard with PTB killer queues lol) is that it's almost certainly going to be scaling up too slowly, especially considering it's a counter perk that requires survivors perform an action first. If you reached the first reasonable breakpoint of like, 8% much sooner, the perk would be a lot better without anything else needing to change.
Honestly, I don't really see the argument in general that modern perks are strangled by a dozen hoops to jump through, no matter which side it's made for. Perks are more specific these days but their actual prerequisites tend to be pretty minor, with exceptions.
-
Definitely not.
The big central issue with DS/UB/DH/IW as a build (which was the full "small pp" build) was the combo of DS and UB gave the killer three options that were all losses.
If a survivor with DS active got in your face, then you could ignore them… and they'd do gens in your face.
You could down them and slug them… and they'd use UB to get back up and get on gens.
You could down them and pick them up… and they'd hit you with DS.
Add in the two other universally applicable and strong meta perks (one of which was the most broken single perk in the game's history) and you've got a build worthy of derision.
These days survivors don't really have anything that'll force that sort of lose/lose/lose scenario, let alone to that extent.
-
One, usually, but I'll sometimes run two if it's part of a build synergy situation.
On my Sadako who I've been playing most recently, I run Gift of Pain as my one slowdown perk then rely on aura and one chase perk (Dissolution) to further slow down the game. Surprisingly effective on a killer with weak chase presence, and it's better on killers who have something innate to help them get downs.
Personally I think it's a trap to run more than two slowdown max, you end up with a very brittle gameplan that can paradoxically make gens fly by faster because you're not actually getting downs or capitalising on hooks as effectively as you could be. Slowdown doesn't save you from that.
-
A little aside the point of the thread, I know, but it's kinda surprising to see Mending in this list.
Is there even any source of Mend speed modifiers in either direction that don't come from addons anyway?
-
And we have our answer!
Hardly a disappointment, I'd say, that was a pretty fun buildup imo.
-
@Lexilogo said:
I've caught the past ~4-5 hrs, what I remember off the top of my head:
- As time went on, day eventually became night. The barely visible flame of a campfire was around for several hours to the left and fluctuated from very bright
- Fog rolled in and eventually got very thick, it has since rolled back but is still somewhat around
- Eventually fireworks started going off for several minutes with noises of people celebrating
- There have been various noises (besides these f**king crickets I want to strangle them at this point), I think there was a distant scream at one point, and some weird animal chittering?
- At one point the cabin's power seemingly overloaded and the lightbulb inside shattered
- Two people begun looking around with flashlights seemingly looking for something/someone. (though they didn't speak) Eventually one of them returned alone, again with a flashlight, this time moving around in a much more panicked way
- Intermittent visual/audio distortions like has been happening across the whole stream, just got another one while I was writing this. I THINK based on the flashlight people we could actually infer those flickers are syncing up with people dying off camera, but that is just a guess
- Two times, the view completely changed for a few seconds- Once to a Trial-ified version of the cabin with an alternating red/yellow pallette and a visible hook, and again to just a view of a Generator illuminated in darkness
- Unknown made a brief cameo dashing past the cabin
- A large figure begun aura farming with dramatic music far in the distance. Cannot tell any detail other than it's probably a large man. (before anyone screams JASON, it could've very easily been Trapper)
- Oh, and the cabin door just briefly creaked open from the inside and slammed shut, that's grand
So, my interpretation is that this is a quiet spot in the woods, some people have been celebrating, and they have been picked off slowly by Unknown and at least one other person. I'm pretty sure at this point that someone's been inside the cabin this whole time, probably Jason trying to get a wink of f**king sleep with all these crickets nearby
Appreciate the rundown!
Personally I also remember what sounded like a gunshot before I went to sleep, which is an interesting addition. Curious what all this comes together for at this point!
-
@BongoBoys said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4080720#Comment_4080720
Yeah but we all just want the reveal the bit has gone on long enough
Is there some reason to assume there is a reveal and this isn't just another teaser?
That's a genuine question, enough people are convinced that I'm starting to think I must've missed something.
-
I have to admit I'm still not sure why people are talking about Diminishing Returns as though it's making a bunch of things worthless or obsolete. When I saw how it was actually being implemented, my honest prediction was that people would complain that it isn't affecting anything directly, because it's really not the kind of system that has that kind of direct hard impact.
The only things I've seen this system fully affect are highly specific gimmick builds where three or more of the same effect is stacked, which is also kinda what it's meant to do so I don't see that as a problem. Actual build crafting and synergy-finding are still very much a thing and also largely unchanged from this system.
I really don't think it's even affecting as many perks as people claim it is, let alone making them worthless.
-
Largely I agree, and I think it's been pretty interesting listening out for clues so far.
To build on your position though, I'd like to point out there's a difference between being personally disappointed and there actually being something wrong. It's okay to just personally not enjoy something without it being worth getting this worked up over.
Sometimes a thing just doesn't vibe with you and that's fine.
-
@random1543 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4080720#Comment_4080720
The stream isnt doing anything meaninful tho.
someone mentioned it was going darker but its just going darker and lighter like its a issue with the video they are using and not anything meaningful.
Regardless should of been advertised as such. "listen to the sounds and make assumptions" Most people where expecting information about the anniversaryJust sharing my opinion.
I think people are majorly overreacting either way, though, at worst this is a disappointing teaser lol
-
@random1543 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/467467/omg-its-13-hours-of-teasers
Wait what's the point of the stream then if all the teaser content is just going to be shown on third party posts 😵
Stuff is happening on the stream, just infrequently.
Reads to me like the stream is for people who are so inclined to either leave open or scrub through afterwards, while everyone else looks at the more direct teasers.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4080096#Comment_4080096
No. By default she makes some static noises while walking around but it doesnt trigger visual terror radius or anything like that.
Excellent, that's what I was hoping to hear.
I don't play against Sadako often so I don't get much choice to look out for that sort of thing, lol.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/467377/technical-question-about-sadako
Yeah, the directional lullaby is still present. If you use a perk that gives you stealth, do not demanifest.
My question is if she has the lullaby while Undetectable and Manifested, specifically.
I'm pretty sure Chucky's ambient noises are tied to him being Undetectable, which is why I ask. I'm hoping being Undetectable and Manifested means no lullaby, though.
-
Honestly I hope they never do adjust the healing animation, it's kinda iconic in my eyes. I think it's okay for parts of the game to still look a little dated, it adds to the charm.
-
Based on how they're written here, I'd personally say each side only has one really great perk.
Fruits Of Your Labour looks completely cracked, it's better than Adrenaline which is already a damn good perk, and I'd actually say that hex is going to be really nice for countering Sprint Burst since most anti-Exhaustion perks don't do that very well.
Salvation's Cry looks fine, I'd kinda prefer it work both ways so you see your teammates too, but as it's written it looks perfectly serviceable. Similarly, Vigilance looks fine, in a vacuum it's perfectly serviceable info but personally it looks just like it'll be outclassed by Deerstalker.
Lay Waste will probably be bad based on how it's written, and obviously Steadfast needs huge changes & it being weak isn't even why. Two bad perks out of six isn't a bad hit rate, though.
-
A good starting rule of thumb, I've found, is never exceed more than two slowdown perks unless all of them flow into one another and you're okay with running a gimmick build lacking in other tools.
It's a trap to think you should run all four slowdown perks; the more you have the less likely you are to consistently activate them, and any slowdown perks you do run are supposed to complement basekit slowdown, not replace it.
From that point, generally what I do is look at the killer's power and figure out both what it already has, and what kind of gameplan goes along with it.
For example, I've been playing Sadako a lot recently, so let's look at her. Sadako has mobility and stealth, but she doesn't have much else; no chase, no info (for the most part anyway), no other utility like an instadown, very little slowdown (but to be fair it does exist).
So on a killer like her, while slowdown is always good and you'd bring at least one perk for it, what she really needs more is chase and info; the former helps her with something she doesn't have, and the latter boosts what she does have by directing you where to best teleport and not waste time.
Evaluating what a killer is lacking and what would support their basic gameplan is a good first step, I think, and you can come to some pretty fun conclusions on that path. For example, I like running Furtive Chase and Nemesis plus something like BBQ on Bubba, because sneaking up on survivors who are suddenly faced with a chainsaw from point blank range is very entertaining and honestly fairly strong— and I came to this conclusion because I realised after one of the old Halloween events that sneaking up before revving is pretty threatening when you can pull it off, the utility of an instadown is heightened by not letting survivors make distance before hearing it start up.
Applying this metric to some other areas can answer some of your other questions, too: Who can best use Hexes? Answering that question, I'd look at what Hexes represent - a timesink survivors have to spend all at once to break the bone - and then start looking at killers with information to know when they start, some form of ability to more easily stop the breaking process, or some other innate slowdown to stack on top of the timesink.
So, Houndmaster's good: she can target totems directly for Search and even if she couldn't, the AOE comfortably covers totem spots, and if she does detect someone she gets a speed boost towards them which helps her more easily stop them to a small degree. Plus, she has an addon that helps protect totems a bit by causing regular screams.
Doctor works here too, Static Blast both tells you when someone's on a totem and resets their progress, plus Madness 3 stops them from interacting with the totem at all. He doesn't have any mobility, but he's still got something that works alongside how totems work.
Pig embodies the third option, the RBTs give survivors enough to do that hunting totems can be a pretty big deal on top of it. No detection and no mobility, but she still has the synergy.TL;DR, it helps to break killer powers down into what utility they provide, and pick perks that either support what they have or cover what they lack. Also, don't fall into the trap of bringing more than two slowdown perks.
-
Generally you've gotta match their efficiency with your own.
Improving your chase is definitely going to help, but I've found it can be kind of a trap to think that's all you need to do- minimising downtime is just as, if not more important.
Personally I never take off Lethal Pursuer because it guarantees I'll get into my first chase ASAP and not give too much uncontested gen time to the survivors for nothing. If you don't have or don't want to use that perk, though, you can still get better at predicting where survivors spawn and cut down on potential wasted time wandering around searching for survivors.
Similarly, once you get that first hook, cutting down on search time afterwards is important, so I always recommend bringing info perks and keeping track of where survivors are. Going straight from a hook to chase someone that was on a generator is a really good way of cutting into survivor gen efficiency.
Basically, their efficiency is uncontested generator repair, so your efficiency needs to be contesting them with as little downtime as possible. If nothing else, it's the direction to look for improving even if you have to get inventive.
-
To be fair, I don't think the Diminishing Returns system was meant to affect the meta.
This is just my read but I was under the impression the point was to try and prevent future problematic metas as a bit of a safeguard, which is why the focus is on stacking the same modifier multiple times. I'm thinking here especially of the medkit + CoH busted self heal speeds, or stuff like stacking repair speed penalties at different points in the game's lifespan for awful slog matches.
(Hypothetically repair speed bonuses would go here too but that's just toolboxes so it's not as affected)I'm definitely on board for limiting slowdown in some way, but this system didn't really seem to be designed for that, so it's not really all that fair to say it's a failure because it doesn't achieve something it wasn't designed to do.
Also, this part's more of a question, what perks are you referring to when you say niche perks are even more worthless than before? As far as I can tell this system hasn't had a huge direct impact on really any individual perk, just a few builds.
-
To be fair, what you're pointing out here only applies to CoB and Overcharge, not the other examples, and at that point it's just kind of two bad perks.
I'm all for doing something to help them be strong and useful without being unhealthy again, but I don't think the Diminishing Returns system really makes much of a difference there, they're already bad without it.
-
Honestly, I'd actually prefer if it went in the opposite direction. A few different killers would make for a pretty cool Mortal Kombat guest fighter, and if I'd trust any studio to evoke this game's style and atmosphere in a fighting game character it'd be NRS.
The best outcome there is that it's Trapper and he's somehow top tier when he's visiting another game, lol
-
@UnicornMedal said:
At one time, I think this may have been possible. Synergy is something that can't be manufactured, but you could've gotten just short of that. These days however Killer is balanced to have the most agency and less macro play and Survivor is balanced to have the least agency and more macro play. That creates this disparity where Killer is balanced assuming most are low skill, while Survivor is balanced assuming most are high skill (some systems fall outside of this like the pallet density update, but those are always eventually reverted).
Any changes you make in this state to balance solos and SWF aren't going to matter much. Comms won't change the amount of knowledge, skill, and dumb luck required to even match your opponent. And that's before we even get into matchmaking. If we could level the playing field, it would give us a lot more to work with.
What makes you say that killer has less macro play than survivor?
If anything I'd probably have said it's the other way around, the changes made to the game over the past few years push the killer role harder towards macro play.
-
One killer that I have total free reign over means I'm gonna bang my same old gong: Taylor Hebert/Skitter from the web novel Worm.
She'd make for such a good killer. Though, adding her would probably exacerbate the need for some kind of phobia filter, lol.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077456#Comment_4077456
If we are talking about BHVR then they will bhvr'd it. My question is to the concept that once solo and swf are equal we can balance the game. The issue is, no one wants to pitch ideas on what that would look like.
To be fair, I think the argument is less that fixing solo queue will open up new balance options that weren't available before, and more that fixing solo queue means any changes which are made afterwards will land better because solo queue will be in a better position to feel the effects appropriately.
For example, any survivor nerf won't disproportionately harm solo queue (at least by as much, realistically) if solo queue isn't operating at an active detriment. Same for survivor buffs, they'll land better if solo queue can more adequately benefit from them compared to SWF.
Obviously complete parity is impossible but it can be a hell of a lot better than it is now, at least.
-
I think this would definitely be a lot better than our current situation. It'd make it genuinely harder for most killers to tunnel, while toning down what aggressive plays are available.
I suppose the big concern would be killers like Blight who would be able to chase the survivor down even through that speed boost, but at that point we're looking at Blight being a problem… again.
While I'd personally prefer looking in other directions this could absolutely be tested.
-
I see the vision, but "genrushing" as a problem has a really very narrow scope, it doesn't need basekit solutions.
All you need to do to fix genrushing is rework toolboxes to provide something other than generator repair. With that, the maximum repair speed realistically achievable by survivors both plummets and requires far more of their build to reach.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
If talking about current fast track it wouldn't be a issue adding it on a button (sans button confusion with controller controls).
Yeah, current Fast Track.
I don't think it'd be a problem for controllers? I'm pretty sure there are other perks that work this way, like Potential Energy.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077179#Comment_4077179
My argument, remember, is that it isn't a
detriment-50% repair speed will never be 'not a detriment'.
The bigger problem with the perk is that it affects your teammates
That's a different problem, but not a bigger one. This perk would still land comfortably below No Mither if it wasn't a boon.
I've clarified my position. On paper, this perk could be made to be a mediocre benefit instead of an active detriment. That's not a great position for a perk to be in, but there's a far bigger problem than that.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077172#Comment_4077172
If I'd phrased my rundown up there as "you're repairing at normal speed because of the toolbox", would you be objecting this hard? Because I don't like to accuse but it feels like you're maybe focusing too much on language choice and not the ideas being expressed.I agree with @Firellius that's its a pretty ridiculous framing.
Like you could say 'just throw three people on the gen and you get back to 1 c/s' (1.05 charges a second I think).That's not offsetting, you aren't repairing at normal speed, because the normal speed you should be repairing with a toolbox (or multiple survivors) is greater than 1 c/s.
Not to mention the toolbox will run out and then you're right back to the 0.5.
I'm just making that assessment correctly by looking at how the perk would reasonably be used with the parameters we've been givenBut its not reasonable because you could do the exact same thing (toolbox+toolbox supporting perks) and achieve a much greater outcome. This isn't like combining Stakeout+Hyperfocus where the two perks give potentially greater value when combined, using a toolbox with Steadfast will get you less value than if you did it without Steadfast.
You have to compare like to like scenarios to evaluate the perk.
To quickly clarify before I disengage here:
"Normal repair speed" here isn't normal for any scenario without the perk, it's just one charge per second. You could achieve that by throwing two more survivors on the gen, or you could achieve it with a toolbox, or whatever else. At that point, yes, you offset the penalty to be repairing at normal speed.
What you're both doing is talking about whether that offsetting is WORTH it, and because you think it isn't, you're concluding I must think it is, even though I've said it probably won't be.My argument, remember, is that it isn't a detriment, not that it's better than doing any other repair speed builds. My position, because I don't like how hard we're drifting away from it, is this:
"The bigger problem with the perk is that it affects your teammates, because the downside can be offset by you if you really wanted to run the perk yourself."
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077165#Comment_4077165
I'm not treating the +50% as part of Steadfast, I'm treating it as part of the combination I'm discussing.
But the combination isn't part of the perk. In a value assessment of the perk, you don't judge it based on the performance of other things that aren't part of the perk, unless those other things are synergistic and result in a sum greater than its parts.
But that's not the case here. Sourcing 50% repair speed elsewhere does not reduce the drawback inherent to the perk, and it's disingenuous to try and be optimistic about it by declaring its drawback 'circumvented'.
…So, alright, I promise this is a good faith question asked calmly, but:
If I'd phrased my rundown up there as "you're repairing at normal speed because of the toolbox", would you be objecting this hard? Because I don't like to accuse but it feels like you're maybe focusing too much on language choice and not the ideas being expressed.
Like, I never claimed the drawback doesn't exist. I laid out a scenario where you could make the perk work with its downside, because you've both offset the repair speed penalty and given yourself more skill checks. I'm making a value judgement based on how you'd use the perk, and just to be clear, my value judgement is "not good but there's a bigger problem than it not being good".
There's no disingenuous optimism here. I think the perk is probably gonna be pretty mediocre. I'm just making that assessment correctly by looking at how the perk would reasonably be used with the parameters we've been given, and I'm also pointing out the bigger problem in it screwing over solo queue teammates.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077162#Comment_4077162
In this scenario, you've effectively circumvented the debuff.
You grab this perk, and something that gives you +50% repair speed: Are you now repairing at 150%?
No?
Then you didn't 'circumvent' it. You powered through it. The debuff is still there, still slowing you down. Your interpretation is treating the +50% as part of Steadfast, which it isn't.
I'm a little confused, I think you might be arguing against a position I don't hold here?
So, to be clear: Equipping both the perk and the toolbox provides a buff and debuff that cancel each other out. While you're repairing in that scenario, the end result is neither a buff nor a debuff to repair speed, it's neutral.
I'm not treating the +50% as part of Steadfast, I'm treating it as part of the combination I'm discussing.
I guess to be completely thorough, I wouldn't really argue that requiring a toolbox to offset the debuff is a good thing, but that's the scenario I was looking at in that section of my post.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077148#Comment_4077148
That IS still incredibly disingenuous, since, again, you're not comparing like with like. You want to source +50% repair speed elsewhere, fine, but you're still being debuffed by the perk.
You can't toss in other mechanics and then treat them as 'part of'. Add that 50%, and you have to compare to someone without the perk also having that +50%.
And if the perk is taking you from 150% to 100%, that is a debuff.
That's the point: there simply isn't a use case when the drawback is this extreme. There is virtually no situation that would not improve by removing this perk from it.
What?
If you run the toolbox and the perk together, the buff and debuff cancel out, resetting you to neutral. You are no longer operating at under the normal repair speed. In this scenario, you've effectively circumvented the debuff. That's what I'm saying, I don't really know where you're coming from here.
For the rest, like I said, you have to compare the four setups to one another: Just the perk, just the toolbox, both together, and neither.
Obviously just the toolbox is best, but toolbox and perk is better than the other two scenarios. Is it worth going for? Eh. Probably not, the perk could probably use some buffs based on what we've seen.
As I said, my position is that the perk itself needs to be looked at in its reasonable use cases instead of in a vacuum, is mediocre in that evaluation, and has a far bigger problem than it just being mediocre. -
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077123#Comment_4077123
As for the last part, no, your speed isn't debuffed, it just isn't increased. There is a meaningful difference between those two things.
With the perk as it is in this preview, would it just be better to use a toolbox on its own? Probably, but that's a different question to "are you actively worse off using the perk and toolbox together". Yes, compare to just a toolbox on its own, but then compare to the perk without the toolbox and to base repair speed without either.
I wish I could downvote you multiple times for how unbelievably disingenuous this is. How are you going to refuse to compare like with like and then give it a value judgement?
It's not disingenuous at all.
There is a difference between a debuff that brings you below the baseline, and being prevented from exceeding the baseline.
We're talking about offsetting a penalty here, remember, so the question is: After the offset, are you below the baseline? If you aren't, you're not being debuffed, you have in fact successfully avoided the debuff.
Now, again, just so this doesn't go off the rails: My position is that I think people should be looking at this perk's reasonable use cases and making their critiques from that position, and as an extension of that, the bigger problem with the perk by FAR is that it can screw over your teammates (or you, if your teammates bring it), not that its use cases are just kinda niche and mediocre.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077114#Comment_4077114
Taking charges off the top of a gen is important because afterwards, any % regression the killer applies will represent less survivor repair time to undo1: We don't have many perks that are doing damage based on % complete anymore. We're looking at much more frequent flat rates.
2: Even to the extent they do, the progress you lost by going 50% slower is going to far eclipse the minor adjustment from from having a few less percent applied to the killer's regression event. There's not a killer perk in the game that's going to make 50 charges worse than 10 permanent and 20 regular.
your repair speed isn't debuffed because you're using the toolbox to offset itNo.
Your repair speed is absolutely debuffed because you could just be running the toolbox without the boon. You have to compare like scenarios.
Aren't most % regression perks total now?
Pain Res, Surge, Eruption, Pop, and I'm pretty sure Turn Back The Clock are all total progression. At this point are there any perks left that do current?
The second point is more about the numbers, which I agree look undertuned.
As for the last part, no, your speed isn't debuffed, it just isn't increased. There is a meaningful difference between those two things.
With the perk as it is in this preview, would it just be better to use a toolbox on its own? Probably, but that's a different question to "are you actively worse off using the perk and toolbox together". Yes, compare to just a toolbox on its own, but then compare to the perk without the toolbox and to base repair speed without either. -
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077094#Comment_4077094
As with all permanent progress options, I think it's meant to be used for contested gens, because it lessens how much the killer can regress it.Obviously in all scenarios you'd rather have a gen finished than partially done, but if finishing it is going to be a longer process because the killer can effectively pressure it, permanent charge reduction is a useful effect.Except this creates a few issues all on its own -
If the killer is coming back and pushing the survivor off, Hyperfocus no longer becomes viable for more skill checks, so we're dropping the rate.
Second if the gen is highly contested, that means the survivors are going to be frequently coming back to it, meaning they'll stop the regression well before it ever gets to the permanent progress (especially if we compare it to the larger value they could have achieved and the time spent setting up the boon). Survivors base progression will out pace regression, slowing the base progression is making the killer's life easier.
Third, if this is a gen that is being that highly fought over, with the survivors rushing in, retreating, etc. the killer is going to cap out on gen kicks long before the survivors make meaningful progress with the permanent progress.
Fourth, even in the scenario where the survivors are totally chased off the gen, have to do a mass reset, you've likely saved at best a few permanent charges which required massive perk investment and coordination.
And again, even this ideal situation requires a massive build investment and getting an ideal boon spawn (that you can't unboon, so if the killer sees what is going on can just stop playing defense your gen time is now doubled).
Again, this is the best case, not just a coordinated SWF, but a trial where the random spawns and how the killer behaves lines up just right.
The big issue is that permanent progress only matters if gen regression eats away all the normal progress (missing an opportunity to complete the gen is the other scenario). By slowing the normal progress you're actually giving the killer less progress that they need to regress (we haven't even got into the idea that this means the killer has to kick the gen less frequently).
and I can certainly think of ways that effect would be usefulThen go ahead and lay them out. I'm having to imagine some pretty outlandish scenarios to make the perk even break even, and the majority of cases its a downright detriment.
I'm not sure I agree that permanent progress is only useful if the regression eats away all the normal progress, that's just not really how this mechanic works?
Taking charges off the top of a gen is important because afterwards, any % regression the killer applies will represent less survivor repair time to undo, that's the major strength of doing it this way. That's why it's helpful for contested gens, all regression will just be flat less effective on it.
So, set up the boon and use a toolbox + something like One-Two-Three-Four or Deadline if you're feeling fancy, your repair speed isn't debuffed because you're using the toolbox to offset it and you're getting more skillchecks from both the toolbox and whatever else you decided to bring. From that point every great skill check weakens regression on that generator, which is useful if it's part of a three-gen the killer might want to try and pressure you away from, or it's a central gen the killer would want to try and protect.
Now I'll stop and repeat here, I don't think this perk is going to be very good and I do think it should probably get changes. My point is that THIS is the use case, so THIS is what should be discussed, and then additionally the main concern with the perk outside of it just maybe not being that good is that your teammates might screw you over with it.
Gut instinct, just seeing it on paper and not being able to test, it should probably give greater charges off the generator for every great skill check and should probably have less of a repair speed penalty, maybe 25-30% or something. Mostly though, I don't know how to fix it screwing over solo queue teammates, which is I think what we should be focusing on a bit more.
Setting that aside, the basic premise of the perk does function, it just looks like it has kinda low numbers. The basic premise of "downside you compensate for and upside of weakening regression" seems fine on paper to me, I'd just not use it. -
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077074#Comment_4077074
I think, even if we imagine the absolute best possible circumstance for the survivors, its still going to help the killer more than the survivors.
Let's take the best case - running perks to get more skill checks, actually having a totem spawn near the gen that is desired to be worked on, and a SWF of course.
Let's say a survivor works on that generator for 40 seconds and they get an absurd 15 skill checks during that period and they hit greats on all of them. They now have 15 permanent charges and 20 normal charges*.
Now let's say the boon is not in place - they would have 55 charges*.
*both scenarios would also have the benefits of any toolbox / hyperfocus, but it would be the same for both I believe
I'd rather have 55 charges over 35, how frequently are gens getting reduced to 0? Especially if you consider with the toolbox/hyperfocus they might just finish the gen.
This is on top of that if the survivor instead of doing the boon they just on the generator it would already be finished and could be using other perks. Its literally hurting the survivors more than helping, and this is imagining the absolute best scenario. The far more realistic scenarios would be even more tilted as a Sandbag perk.
As with all permanent progress options, I think it's meant to be used for contested gens, because it lessens how much the killer can regress it.
Obviously in all scenarios you'd rather have a gen finished than partially done, but if finishing it is going to be a longer process because the killer can effectively pressure it, permanent charge reduction is a useful effect.
Don't get me wrong, I'd personally never use this perk, but there's a world of difference between it having only niche uses and it being a perk that benefits the killer more than the survivor.
The thing I keep returning to is that if you just bring a toolbox, you have a perk that - after setting it up - you get permanent progression for great skill checks, and I can certainly think of ways that effect would be useful. The bigger concern for me is if my teammates run it and screw me over as a result.