jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
I think people aren't really evaluating Steadfast correctly, though that's not to say it's a good design.
Steadfast is a perk that only affects one generator, provides a reasonably worthwhile benefit (especially if the booning time is offset by other perks), and only has a single numerical downside to repair speed. To me, that's a perk that you would use by pairing it with things that both boost its upside and decrease its downside… both of which are covered for by just running a toolbox alongside it.
If you're in a SWF and can coordinate, you could also have someone running One-Two-Three-Four, and anyone running it can use Stake Out if they're not confident in hitting greats (like me ever since swapping to controller…), so on and so forth. It's not a perk you'd run on its own, which is fine, we have somewhere around 170 perks for survivor in the game right now, it's okay if someone of them are built around synergies instead of standalone value.The problem with this perk isn't that it's a worthless boon with no upsides that functions as a killer perk… the problem is that your clueless solo queue teammate is gonna set it up willy-nilly without having prepared for it and without you having had a chance to prepare for it either.
With THAT in mind I hope it gets some serious adjustments before it hits live servers, because that's going to be extremely annoying to deal with.
The rest of the perks seem neat. Both of the other survivor perks are ones I'd actually run and that I think are much healthier in design, and the killer perks vary a bit but don't seem too problematic. I don't really get why you'd run this particular killer OoO when we already have Deerstalker, and the regression one seems only okay, but I quite like the Hex, that'll be really nice for handling exhaustion perks in the early game.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076639#Comment_4076639
But that's the logic they presented. It was too much for just equipping a perk, now it requires an unhook.
But they went above and beyond to put it in the grave.
…But if it activated on any unhook, and everyone brought it, two people then would just be getting the value simply for equipping the perk. That wouldn't match their stated reasoning at all.
I'm not arguing if the change was good here, either way.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076635#Comment_4076635
The point of changing the activation condition is to limit how frequently you can get tokens, it was always going to result in less permanent progress overall.
That's not true, it'd depend on the activation condition. If it happened when -anyone- gots an unhook, it'd still change the activation condition without crippling the effect value.
I mean, sure, but there'd also be no point in doing it, that's functionally the same as it happening on the hook action. If the point of changing the activation condition is to make it less passive, it's always going to result in less activations.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076527#Comment_4076527
That's a very narrow view of it, since the amount of actual gen progress you get out of the perk is, in actual effect, heavily reduced. It's a bit of a weak argument to go 'well technically, the amount you get isn't reduced!' when in actuality, you're never going to get anywhere close to the same gen progress out of the perk because you're never going to be the one getting all the saves.
Yes, but that's the activation condition changing, which we already went over.
The point of changing the activation condition is to limit how frequently you can get tokens, it was always going to result in less permanent progress overall. My point is that them also nerfing the percentage isn't really relevant because that part doesn't move the needle at all, I honestly suspect they did it because 5% looks nicer than 6% in a description.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076521#Comment_4076521
It's 1% on 6%, if you don't account for the stacking exclusion. With that, it's 13%.
Yeah, looking at each actual use of the perk is more important. Only one survivor per hook getting to benefit is also important, but not numerically, that's part of the activation trigger changing.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076508#Comment_4076508
They chose one, some would've preferred choosing the other.
They didn't choose one, they did both at the same time.
That doesn't really change anything, it still fits with what they said, but for the record I also don't really think a 1% nerf is worth including in the discussion. It doesn't affect any breakpoints for value in the perk or anything.
It happened, worth mentioning for thoroughness, but it doesn't impact the discussion any.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076501#Comment_4076501
Not really. Again, there's their track record. This isn't some court of law, they either have the benefit of the doubt, or they don't.
But beyond that, if, as stated, it was simply that the effect was too powerful for simply equipping the perk, why go to all the trouble of completely rewiring it on top of nerfing the effect?
When 3% wasn't a problem, but 6% is, if the issue is the value balance, would you:
A) Adjust the value from 6% to 4 or 5%
or
B) Nerf the value to 5% on top of adding an activation condition that makes the perk thoroughly unreliable and also removes the possibility for it to stack between survivors in a way that makes it even more unreliable
One of these is consistent with 'it just gave too much value' while the other perfectly lines up with the nerf call's excuse.
It's not really benefit of the doubt, it's just there not being any reason to think the thing being suggested here. Benefit of the doubt would imply there's something to doubt.
As for the rest of that, I don't disagree the decision made wasn't ideal, but we're not analysing if the decision was good, we're analysing if it matches the reasoning given, which it does.
Like I said up above, if the problem is a combination of the effect and the activation not matching, you would logically fix that by changing one of those variables. They chose one, some would've preferred choosing the other.My personal opinion on the perk is a little outside of the point being made here, but for the record, I don't mind changing the perk's activation because the prior version both wasn't very good and was difficult to safely buff, but I think this new version is too weak. I'm cooking up my own post for how to fix it, though, so I won't stray too off topic here.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076491#Comment_4076491
Could you not just as easily interpret that as them being wrong about Distortion…?
Sure, but the reason they're wrong ties into the same issue we're facing here.
Distortion becomes the FOTM nerf call, just calling it unfair doesn't work, since we're hot off a pretty hefty power creep on aura reading which gave rise to Distortion. Back-up plan: 'think of the
childrensurvivors!'-appeal by blaming rat behaviour.Argument is nonsense, since Distortion makes rats less of a problem, but the complaint is copied, verbatim, and the perk is taken out back.
Fast Track follows a similar pattern. FOTM nerf call shopping for an excuse, excuse is nonsense, BHVR takes it down anyway, perk is taken out back.
Regardless of Distortion, that's plainly not what happened with Fast Track.
BHVR gave their reasoning for Fast Track and, whether you agree or not, it is internally consistent and logical. It's not nonsense, they identified a thing that is true of the perk that wasn't in line with how other tools work.
Which means accusing them of lying about it requires some pretty hefty evidence, due to their stated reasoning looking above board.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076478#Comment_4076478
Is there any evidence they lied about Distortion?
The stated reason about 'rat play' doesn't work with Distortion, as Distortion only allowed rats to help the team while playing safe. It didn't enable ratting since lockers still exist.
Could you not just as easily interpret that as them being wrong about Distortion…?
Also, I may be misremembering but I'm pretty sure BHVR's stated reasoning for Distortion was just that it made it too easy to hide from auras, not that it specifically enabled useless teammates never engaging with the objective.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076475#Comment_4076475
Does it? They've a track record. Even this change they lied about, as it was supposed to be a sidegrade. And they've lied about their reason before, as they did with Distortion.
While I agree calling this a sidegrade definitely isn't accurate, the rest of their communication has been pretty above board.
Their stated reasoning both scans logically and matches the change they made, which are the two most important parts, and also matches how other related perks are balanced as well. Whether you like the change or not - I think it's lacklustre , personally - isn't really relevant there.
Is there any evidence they lied about Distortion?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076432#Comment_4076432
I think it's worth pointing out that BHVR
didn'tcopy the common complaints about Fast Track, since they didn't bring up anything about punishing killers for doing their objective or encouraging slugging/tunnelling.
What they bring up isn't necessarily what they act on.
At that point you're just accusing them of lying, though, and I think that needs a bit more evidence.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076379#Comment_4076379
I know I'm repeating myself here, but it's not JUST the activation requirement they're talking about here. It's the activation requirement FOR THAT EFFECT.We probably both feel like we're repeating ourselves, but here goes.
Yes, for that effect, but they didn't modify the effect. Old, old Fast Track at 1% per token was too weak, let's presume BHVR thinks old Fast Track at 2% permanent per token was too strong, well then they should test out a middle ground. But they didn't change the 'effect', they changed the activation.
There are not just similar perks on the killer side, there are similarsurvivorperks too.I don't think anyone disagrees with that, it's just the way the discussions have gone that tend to turn this into a 'this would never exist on the killer side' that leads to a focus on the killer perks. Yes, its a pretty normal game element.
Other perks that give permanent progress require more, and other perks that require just the opponent playing the game give less, or at least less direct benefits.That's why it wasn't just nerfed. They're talking about the effect and activation combined.I don't think that follows. One of the easy ways they could have nerfed it was by removing the permanent effect. Its not like there was a rule that the perk had to be permanent progress.
There are other ways that the perk could have been nerfed to make the reward more commiserate for what the survivors were doing, but they went in a different direction. Which again, by itself wouldn't really be an issue, except how they've phrased things here and before really seems like they are knee jerk responding instead of making an informed decision.
At that point, aren't you more disagreeing with the decision more than the mindset or reasoning?
If the issue is the combination of activation and effect, then logically it follows the two ways of addressing that are to change one of those two things. BHVR chose to change the activation over the effect, but there's no reason that's inherently worse or wrong.
It doesn't indicate anything about BHVR's mindset or biases that they chose the one solution over the other, it's just personal preference at that point, surely?@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076379#Comment_4076379
Other perks that give permanent progress require more, and other perks that require just the opponent playing the game give less, or at least less direct benefits.
That doesn't go for Rancor, though, which permanently auto-completes up to two hookstates for the obsession and is done by survivors completing their objective.
Again, the much more likely explanation is that they just copied the complaint verbatim, put no thought into it, and just nerfhammered as demanded.
I think it's worth pointing out that BHVR didn't copy the common complaints about Fast Track, since they didn't bring up anything about punishing killers for doing their objective or encouraging slugging/tunnelling.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076364#Comment_4076364
They could've taken it back to non-permanent progress…. but that version of the perk was bad, sosomerework is probably more appropriate even if you don't feel this one hits the mark.I think there's a lot of middle ground they could have tried. 1%, but its permanent. 2% but its not permanent. Lower token maxes so it can't be stacked as easily and then applied to a 3 gen. If its just a power issue, lots of ways to adjust it.
That carries over to the other parts. If the perk was performing too well (very easily possible), why wasn't it just nerfed? But given the statement here, and Mandy's earlier forum comment, on top of what the focus of lots of complaints had been (their reference to the community which is always problematic because we have no idea who they are listening to), they seem to be viewing the activation requirement itself as a problem. Which naturally brings up the question of 'well, what about all the similar perks on the killer side?'
Basically - given the rush, what they've said, what they seem to be responding to, and their past actions, it feels extremely selective.
I know I'm repeating myself here, but it's not JUST the activation requirement they're talking about here. It's the activation requirement FOR THAT EFFECT.
There are not just similar perks on the killer side, there are similar survivor perks too. I gave a list a little further back - Kindred, Do No Harm, Low Profile, Desperate Measures, and Self Preservation all have close enough to the same activation requirement to be compared in this context, and none of those seem to be on the chopping block.
Similarly, there are survivor perks which have the same EFFECT, and they all require more from the player: Specialist requires chest searching and Weaving Spiders requires doing an Invocation.I obviously can't speak for BHVR's internal conversations but what they've said to us is fairly logically consistent. Fast Track gave permanent generator progress, and required nothing but the opponent to be playing the game for it. Other perks that give permanent progress require more, and other perks that require just the opponent playing the game give less, or at least less direct benefits.
That's why it wasn't just nerfed. They're talking about the effect and activation combined. -
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076275#Comment_4076275
What they're saying there is the problem, at least as I interpret it,I don't know, maybe I'm just way past the point of giving BHVR any benefit of the doubt, but the message reads to me like its just a litany of the killer arguments about this perk that are divorced from any overall view of the game.
The 'period of observation and assessment' - if they think the perk is overperforming after having it live, just say that. If they think the perk is a bad design, then having a period to assess it isn't really relevant unless they are seeing it be used in some way they didn't predict.
The 'too great a source of permanent progress' - if this is true, it calls for a nerf, not a rework. Less progress and/or removing the permanent nature.
The 'responsibility' portion - is this meant to be unique to survivors (and I can live with that if its BHVR's perspective, I don't think both sides needed to be treated the same, but as gets pointed out there's lots of perks like this)? Because if the concept is that perks need to be earned by the player equipping them, there's a lot of perks that need to be reworked.
The 'incentivize' portion - well, this is just a bad argument. It creates an incentive to have a dedicated unhooker, which is much easier to do as a SWF, when many of the complaints about old Fast Track where its abusability by SWFs, but we've made it worse (presuming the perk is even worth running, possibly its just another dead perk).
And none of this helps that it comes off a PTB where we didn't even get the perk change for discussion given the seeming rushed nature that BHVR took to address this.
To respond to a couple of those-
I don't think we want to dissuade BHVR away from actually monitoring perks before making decisions, I think completely divorced from this conversation about Fast Track there are plenty of reasons to monitor and assess how something is actually performing in the live environment, not just providing too-good results.
Again, I don't personally think Fast Track was a huge problem, but I do think the process of monitoring how and when a perk is used once it hits live is important.For the second part, again, I think it's not just that it provided too much permanent progress in a vacuum, I think it provided too much permanent progress for the activation condition it had, in BHVR's eyes. Compare it to something like Specialist or Weaving Spiders, those perks take a lot more than Fast Track did.
They could've taken it back to non-permanent progress…. but that version of the perk was bad, so some rework is probably more appropriate even if you don't feel this one hits the mark.Same reasoning for the "responsibility" portion, they're talking about what you put in for what you get, not that EVERY perk should require you to earn their effects. THIS perk should, in their eyes, BECAUSE it gives you permanent progress.
Remember, BHVR are just talking about one perk here, what they're saying is just about that one perk.The incentive part is a little wishful, though, that I won't argue with.
-
@AGM said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4075568#Comment_4075568
Perks I've found to be severely affected by diminishing returns when used with other perks or killer powers that apply the same modifier:
Survivor:
- Better Than New
- Blood Pact
- Boon: Dark Theory
- Champion of Light
- Deadline
- Desperate Measures
- Empathic Connection
- Flow State
- Leader
- Teamwork: Power of Two
Killer:
- Dying Light
- Dark Arrogance
- Fire Up
- Forever Entwined
- Game Afoot
- Help Wanted
- Hex: Nothing but Misery
- Hex: Wretched Fate
- Knock Out
- Leverage
- Overcharge
- Scourge Hook: Gift of Pain
- Sloppy Butcher
- Thanatophobia
What's the reasoning for Deadline, may I ask? I was under the impression the only meaningful synergy people ran that perk with is Autodidact, and that shouldn't be affected by Diminishing Returns.
I'd also personally contest Champion of Light, that perk is damn good on its own and definitely isn't severely harmed by the DR system.
Some good picks in there to look at for future adjustments though, for sure.
-
The web novel Worm is always my first pick. Its protagonist Taylor Hebert/Skitter would make for a perfect killer, and now that we have survivors with voicelines making Lisa/Tattletale the survivor would be pretty fun, it'd be neat to hear her #########-talking the killers lol.
For a secondary pick, Doctor Who comes up surprisingly infrequently in these conversations despite it being iconic horror media of its sort. Licensing it might be kinda hard since the iconic monsters are technically owned by different people/estates, but there are some viable options for killer in a chapter like that.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4076093#Comment_4076093
I'm using killer examples because this outcry was about a survivor perk, but yeah, those perks as well. And if the issue is being rewarded for your opponenent's successes—or just normal actions—then we need to look at 2/3 of this game's perks.
If the problem was that you could sit on a gen while your team traded hooks and instafinish halfway through, solely from the killer doing their objective, that's what the perk already did for years. If the problem was the permanent progress, it still has that. If the problem was stacking, they should have made it so the tokens only go to one randomly-chosen user. They should have just reverted it really, and not doing so just feels stubborn. To top it off, Mandy called this a side grade. It's not. It's a massive nerf. Not just to the last iteration, but to the one before.
And all of this happened over the course of a couple weeks. It used to take long (often excessively so) periods for things like this to happen. DH, MfT, stacking Vigil, Blight's recent nerfs. These had long runs. But there's been a trend in the last year or so of things getting instanuked, and the increasing loudness of CCs seems to be the sole reason. Every time they get mad about something en masse, you'll see people on social media parroting their exact words. The amplification of a handful of people's views has become insanely influential, and it seems like BHVR will decimate anything that gets any of that negative traction. Fog vials made it, what, less than 2 weeks? Pallet denstity got a similar treatment.The anti-tunnnel ptb was a few days, not enough time to gather data on so many large changes, many of which could have gone through with adjustments. But they walked it back completely. All of these share the same common thread of hyperbolic complaining on various platforms.
So my issue isn't that it happened, it's the real reasons it happened.
Well, that's my point - the problem isn't any of those things, at least not according to BHVR's wording in the screenshot you shared.
What they're saying there is the problem, at least as I interpret it, is the combination of activating on any hook action and providing permanent objective progress.
Now, again, personally, I don't really agree that was a problem, but we're evaluating BHVR's position here and that's the part they're saying is an issue, not any of the examples you gave there.
That's why the other perks are relevant. They share the activation condition, but they don't share the effect, so evidently they're fine - or at least aren't being weighed in on yet. Similarly, other things provide permanent generator progress, but they have different activation conditions, so it can be inferred that BHVR have decided permanent progress needs a less passive activation condition.Whether you agree or disagree with it, I think it's always important to evaluate what is actually being said about any given change.
-
I don't think there's much of a double standard here, BHVR were pretty plainly speaking about Fast Track specifically and not making an overall point about perk design.
Their argument in that quote isn't "survivors shouldn't get benefits for their opponent progressing the objective", it's that "a passive activation condition was too strong for permanent gen progress". Personally I never really saw an issue with Fast Track at all, but that isn't really what's being evaluated here, just thought I'd mention it.
Your list of killer perks that activate on generator progress is definitely the start of a good comparison, but you also have to include the opposing side.
Sure, BHVR made the judgement call that the killer getting a hook wasn't an appropriate activation condition for Fast Track, but they've yet to make that decision for perks like Kindred, Desperate Measures, Do No Harm, Low Profile, and Self Preservation. These are just the perks that activate based on other people being hooked with no other action required on your part, to be clear, zooming out to just being based around the opponent's objective progression gives far more examples.Rather than it being fine when a perk is unpopular, I think the constructive takeaway from this regarding BHVR's mindset is that activating upon your teammates being hooked is seen as a variable that must inform other parts of the perk, and permanent objective progress was deemed to be too far over the line relative to the accessibility of that activation condition.
EG, the other perks are fine because they provide bonuses that aren't generator progress, meaning their contribution towards winning the game is more indirect and more up to skill/gameplay.Whether you agree with that or not, it's how I interpret BHVR's comments here.
-
I have to say I'm a little bit baffled at the claims Diminishing Returns somehow kills build variety, specifically when people say that build crafting in general is now dead.
Even if the system hard removed stacking effects from the game, there are tons of synergies which aren't related to different percentages of the same modifier. Like, to use an example of a survivor who wants to run a "medic" build, you might see them use something like the following:
Botany Knowledge | We'll Make It | Empathic Connection | Desperate Measures
Now, this certainly counts as a "medic" build, and it's one that'd be pretty firmly weakened by the DR system too… but not only is it not the only way you'd craft a "medic" build, I'd argue it's also the least interesting way of crafting that kind of build.
Bearing in mind that weakening stacking isn't the same as removing stacking, consider instead a build like the following:Botany Knowledge (or other heal speed increase of choice) | Empathy | Second Wind/Clean Break | Flow State
What we have here is a build that is affected by Diminishing Returns, because Flow State's heal speed will be cut down per token, but that makes up for slower speed with utility. You can keep track of who needs healing, get them healthy faster with the speed bonus you do have, set up your own heal later on down the line, and as a nice little bonus you get unhook speed and, if you need it, totem cleansing speed on top of it.
Hell, say you don't want to be affected by Diminishing Returns at all, even if it isn't that detrimental to your build. Just swap out Flow State for something that gives a different kind of medic-themed bonus; run Kindred or Babysitter for unhook protection, run WGLF or Buckle Up for anti-slug, run Bite the Bullet or A Place For Us to get stealth and reset in peace, run Self Preservation to skulk around without drawing the killer's attention so your altruism is harder to punish…This is just one build type for one of the two roles, and I'm not even suggesting any actively weak perks for to boot, this isn't sacrificing strength for the sake of variety. Build crafting involves way more than just stacking two or more of the exact same percentage-based effect for high speeds, and I really chafe against the idea that certain combos being made weaker means build variety is dead.
That's not to say no combos are being harmed unduly, I think the ongoing process of evaluating what's affected unfairly and how to address it is important, but the DR system isn't nearly as far-reaching as people are acting like it is.
-
@tjt85 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4075415#Comment_4075415
What about a Trapper with Trapper sack being revealed to the other players before they can set up by getting into an early chase? Now you know to stay away from basement and watch your feet.
Or say you get a Billy with stealth perks and the Filthy Slippers add-on. Before the update, you wouldn't know a Billy was out there. But now their first chase will tell you to go find shack or a set up with some windows to loop around.
Survivors that know to split up will be able to deny early pressure to pretty much every Legion, even before they've heard their terror radius music playing. Just a few examples but I'm sure there are more. Anything that relies on an element of surprise is dead in the water after this update. Even between stealth Killers like Wraith, Ghostie or Myers, there will be differences between how players will behave with the new information.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4075394#Comment_4075394
You are right, it is difficult to balance the game for both groups of players. But my preference is to nerf SWF, not to boost SoloQ up. Mostly because it's a half measure and there's nothing BHVR can really do to fully bring Solo up to par with a SWF. But also because I worry about the unintended consequences that might arise.
Like how the extra 5 seconds of BT and haste off hook did nothing to help the players that really needed it (the easily tunnelled weak links), but instead gifted SWFs an easier end game out, so long as they're never hooked too far away from an open gate. The will undoubtedly make the game a little bit tougher for Killers, but it's the duos and a trios that will really benefit and become stronger from this. It's not going to help true SoloQ players all that much if the game is to be balanced around SWF, because the gap will always be too great to bridge between SWF and Solo.
Well, like I said, you can't.
It's impossible to nerf the things that actually set SWF apart from solo queue. This is a different argument to it being a bad idea to nerf SWF in other ways, to be clear, I'm saying that if we want to change the relative strengths of the two directly only one of the two approaches is literally possible.
You can't nerf SWF sharing information on voice call, it's not something BHVR have control over. You can't nerf their capacity to coordinate with those voice calls, either, for the same reason. Ditto the knowledge of who you're playing with and how they can be expected to act, it just isn't a variable BHVR can affect.
Those things are also far and away the most potent strengths of SWF, those things ensure SWF will basically always have an advantage over solo queue even if other parts of SWF are targeted.
You can, though, address the fact that solo queue often ends up at an active detriment. Raising up the baseline for solo queue allows things like perk changes and killer tweaks to land better in a way that's actually achievable.
-
@random1543 said:
Toughen Up being number 1 is so deserved its such a odd and confusing perk.
1. Be 24 meters from another survivor
2. Have another survivor stun or blind the killerReward? Your scratch marks and blood are hidden for 30 seconds. the person not in chase. it seems backwards I would rather give the other person that effect.
I see it as a perk that helps you get away if your teammate gets a flashlight save, or something like that. It's kind of the opposite of his other perk, in that both swap the aggro from one player to the other - Come And Get Me is the offensive one, Toughen Up is the defensive one.
Is it good at that? Eh, I never really bothered finding out. That's just the use case I'd say is its most promising.
-
@Neprašheart said:
Will there be an option to turn these settings back to the old ones?
As much as I'm aware of the benefit, I'd like to keep the killer hidden and the way it is until the update, so to provide me with a bit of a challenge and figure things out for myself rather than having the game do it for me.
If there's something that I genuinely enjoy about this game, it's the element of surprise; Updates such as this one are removing it, so to compensate for the competitive environment that I absolutely despise of, because I've seen it ruin the games' potentials far too many times over the years..
To be fair, it's in the Match Details screen, so you could always just not look there and preserve the mystery, right?
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4075269#Comment_4075269
>fill a need
95% of the time there is a global audio cue or visual indicator before the first hit
At that point, what's the complaint?
This just fills the need for the 5% that don't have some kind of indicator, then.
-
@tjt85 said:
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why we're now balancing the game around the info that SWFs can get from voice chat (in other words, by using a tool to gain an unfair advantage that doesn't exist within the game).
I still think it will be a huge mistake to begin balancing DBD around the strength of SWF, but if the game is really going to go in this direction, you may as well just bite the bullet and add voice chat (then buff/rework killers and perks accordingly).
The divide between solo queue and SWF makes the game very difficult to balance, and that affects killer balance too- tune something for SWF and that something destroys solo queue, but tune it for solo queue and you've got an uphill battle against SWF.
There are three major benefits to SWF that solo queue currently do not have. SWF have a better baseline of information gain, better ability to coordinate important actions, and you also know who your teammates are so you can reliably assume parts of their gameplay.
Now, if we want to bridge the gap between solo queue and SWF - which benefits everyone, remember - then certain things are just off the table. You obviously can't restrict a SWF when it comes to the information they can share or who they're allowed to queue with, that's a physical impossibility, so instead solo queue needs to be improved proportionally.
Since you can't make solo queue players be familiar with their random teammates (outside of adding a party finder, which I do support but at that point isn't solo queue anymore) and ways of adding coordination to solo queue need to be done very carefully to avoid harming the game's tone, that means solo queue needs a whole bunch of information-gain buffs.
-
@Anti051 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4075278#Comment_4075278
You can only get the first result if you do not pause the pressure of the rampage to initiate the hooking process.
If you down somebody and can get even more damage or another down shortly after, you should, if not, then hook.
If you go ahead and use a more knockdown oriented playstyle for awhile, you'll find that generators do not fly anywhere near as fast so long as you're winning chases and keeping the team against the ropes with injuries and downs. The evidence you're overlooking lies in the perks commonly used that activate from being hooked as well as the time it takes to stop, pickup a player and successfully hook them.
Personally, I haven't noticed gens flying either way.
Though to be fair, I've not played consistently in a short while, so it's possible something's changed either way.
To the point about perks that activate from being hooked, what makes those evidence exactly? Most of them don't actually affect the basic value of hooking (take something like Dead Hard, which only buffs survivors for well after you've gotten full value from hooking them, or something like Decisive Strike that only buffs survivors if you choose to target them after an unhook), and while there are a few that do, I don't really buy they're so dramatically overpowered that they make hooking actively not worth it.
Sure, Resurgence is too good and lowers your pressure after the unhook, but you're still gaining more than the survivors do by a huge margin- and that's the best current hook-activation perk survivors have.
-
@Anti051 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/466698/i-have-to-ask
Getting multiple knockdowns has always generated more pressure.
If the survivors are clueless enough to allow the opportunity (knock —> knock —> knock —> knock) is the most pressuring play you can make.
It's more likely that you only get the opportunity to (knock —> knock —> stop —> pickup —> hook —> continue rampage).
The least pressuring way to play killer at this point is (knock —> stop —> pickup —> hook —> repeat) especially with all the bullshit that activates from being hooked as well as the short amount of time you have to create a threatening scenario.
There's a lot of manipulation and shaming within the community to get as many killers as possible to adopt the least efficient way to play the role. Listening to feedback from survivors about your gameplay is like a cat taking hunting advice from mice, it's dumb. It doesn't become your problem if a bunch of misguided fools insist on seeking a single player experience in a pvp game.
To be fair, looking at that first scenario, I think it's fair to say it's more pressuring to have all those survivors on a hook instead. At that point the match is over because you won.
I think people mistake what makes slugging appealing at the moment. It's not that hooking is weak (there's especially no real evidence for this), or even that slugging itself is just flat stronger… it's that slugging has a low barrier to entry and also tends to catch people off guard.
A team, even just a team of good solos, who prepared for aggressive slugging at the loadout screen can absolutely demolish it. Hooking, by contrast, is a lot harder to flat out beat at all, and requires a lot more than just equipping one or two perks to even substantially weaken. -
Definitely a lot better, this actually does fill a need instead of just harming killers.
The first chase/first hit out of nowhere is when a SWF would know what killer it is, so it's a good baseline to shoot for. Very glad this was adjusted, it would've been a problem otherwise.
-
Personally, I don't aggressively slug the whole team partially because it's a dick move but mostly because it's a pretty big gamble.
Don't get me wrong, it's one that in the current state of the game is likely to pay off, but that's just because - despite what some might say here on the forums - it's still quite uncommon so not many people think to prepare themselves for it at the loadout screen.
A generic decent build often includes one anti-tunnel perk, and several common perks that can be filtered in to any specific build activate off the hook for other purposes like Resurgence and Dead Hard and the like. If everyone swapped those two perk slots out for Unbreakable and then another slug-related perk (Tenacity, WGLF, Conviction, etc) then aggressively slugging the whole team becomes far weaker than how people portray hooking right now.(There's also a secret reason hidden in here, which is that what I'm describing is a strategy that often requires specific perks to beat, which is something BHVR have been trying to move away from over the years- I also try not to rely on strategies I think will get nerfed where I can)
Plus, honestly, people exaggerate the weakness of hooking right now. It still fundamentally progresses your objective efficiently and slows down the survivor objective, and it does those things well enough for skilled players to compete with appropriate opponents. That's good enough for me.
-
@Starrseed said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4075037#Comment_4075037
As someone that relies on the perk for health reasons think this is a good compromise.
Let it always block the visual effect since I don't think any survivor actually cares about that and make the safe immunity token based.
The only addition I would have is that either the tokens need to be fairly easy to acquire or a token only gets consumed if it actually prevents a safe.
There simply is no good way to play around getting blinded when you need to break a pallet, if that eats tokens too the perk is worthless
Definitely- if it protects against flashlight saves on a token system, tokens should only be burned when a save would've happened. That way they can be appropriately restricted and scarce while still doing their job.
-
Lightborn definitely isn't healthy and definitely needs changes- it's the same reasoning as Distortion, you can't have something be completely passive and also hard shut down an entire archetype of tools on the opponent's side, it just isn't reasonable.
I also have this suspicion that Lightborn can sort of stunt a player's skill development, because whenever someone brings up Lightborn being kinda messed up, there's often responses that seem to imply you need Lightborn to counter flashlight squads, which obviously isn't true.
Putting that aside, though, I don't think you need to go too overboard with Lightborn changes. I've maintained for a while that what Lightborn should do is still let the blind go through mechanically, just not affect the killer's screen (+ obviously still give the aura afterwards), so that it allows blind-related perks on both sides to still activate while still providing its own benefit and still helping out people who have accessibility issues with the blind visuals.
If we really want Lightborn to still protect against flashlight saves on top of that, then that part should be limited, like with a token system or something along those lines. Some thought and skill should go into outplaying flashlight saves no matter what perks you bring against them, after all. -
Looking at that screenshot, would hooking really have made that much of a difference?
There are a lot of hook-related perks here, sure, but I don't think anyone would argue a single proc of Dead Hard is going to swing the game, and Shoulder the Burden + Decisive Strike can be reliably avoided with a 100% success rate even while hooking so they aren't going to be what's contentious here either.
I know what we're meant to be looking at here is mostly Fast Track, but even then… these survivors all have stacked toolboxes, and what Fast Track adds pales in comparison to what you get from that item. In this scenario, hooking would've given them slightly more progression, to be sure, but it also would've given you objective progression and slowdown on top of it— more importantly than that, not hooking does nothing to stop their biggest offender.
I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but I really feel there's an ongoing problem where people aren't acknowledging that genrushing begins and ends with toolboxes, they are the problematic source of gen speed and every problematic build requires them to function.
Slugging may have won you the game here, but I'd argue that's just a reflection of how excessive slugging is good at catching players off guard. Hooking here wouldn't have lost you the game, toolboxes here would've lost you the game. -
@BongoBoys said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074831#Comment_4074831
Idk usually some of my fun builds are usually All vault perks all aura all blindness etc but now builds will just be one aura one exhaustion one anti tunnel one gen rush perk that sorta thing while it is variety I just don't think it's as fun as stacking into one silly category
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the current setup wouldn't affect all aura or all blindness, right? It's only when you stack the same % modifier, like healing speed or repair speed?
-
I honestly don't think Diminishing Returns will actually affect that many gimmick, niche, or off-meta builds, honestly.
Most of the ones I run won't be affected that I can think of off the top of my head, and if they are it'll probably just be swapping out one perk for something else. There's still plenty of opportunity to mix and match things around for fun variety— if anything you might be more encouraged to do that since you can't lean as hard into just stacking the same effect.
-
Maybe I'm being baited by the thumbnail here (I haven't watched the video) but I really don't understand why people act like the presence of a rocket launcher is the sole determining factor for whether Nemesis is accurate to the games or not.
Everything he does have is accurate, why does it matter that he doesn't have that one highly specific thing?
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074421#Comment_4074421
The problem with that Bloodlust thing in 9.3 PTB was that it didn't last long enough to be of any use to many of the killer roster that don't have the mobility of Nurse and Blight, and even those that could make use if it couldn't because it was also deactivated if you used your power… So it ended up doing nothing at all.
It was a few small tweaks away from functioning, the bigger problem was how handhold-y it was.
All it needed to work was to be Bloodlust 3 instead of Bloodlust 1, and for a handful of killers to have their Bloodlust interactions tweaked.
It doesn't need to do much because the base reward for hooking is already good. It's just an encouragement to engage with that system.
-
@NeverSolus said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074440#Comment_4074440
For clarity, when you refer to slugging as being a riskier play, do you think it's acceptable for Killers to have the option to make those riskier plays? If it is riskier, then that would insinuate to me that slugging isn't too much of an issue (as others here, cog included, have stated). If that's the case, that is to say that slugging isn't that much of an issue, why engage in considering disincentivizing it?
If it's not an issue because the Killer shoulders the burden (no pun intended) of the riskier play, shouldn't we see such behavior encouraged rather than discouraged?
I'm personally of the camp of honey over vinegar not because I particularly hate slugging I couldn't care less about the actual practice, but because it seems to me that hooks are undervalued. As 100 pointed out, you can take perks to incentivize hooking, but you do have to take them, just as much as you'd theoretically build a 'slug build' to incentivize yourself to slug.
The idea I'm digesting is that it seems awkward to me that a core mechanic (hooking) isn't basekit encouraged enough to surpass the benefits of slugging. I'm unsure of any incentivizations that would work short of having each killer using their own personal incentivization system basekit, and thus it would be burdensome. But I do want to encourage people to make risky plays, and get risky payouts. Playstyles and all that.
So should I, you think, consider Slugging nothing but a risky tactic that should not be encouraged or discouraged?
I do recognize you don't agree with my presented topic regarding slugging being superior, and I won't argue it overmuch, I'm just gathering the data at this point.It depends on where the risk comes from.
If survivors had basekit tools to punish slugging with, even if they required some skill and knowledge to use, then it being a high risk/high reward option would be appropriate.
Right now though, the risk comes from whether or not the survivors brought anti-slugging tools, not how well they use what the game gives them by default. It's the worst of both worlds- as killer the risk breaking away from your favour has nothing to do with your gameplay, but as survivor you're just kinda screwed if you face a killer dedicated to slugging when you didn't prepare for it at the loadout screen.
That's another reason I liked the 9.3 PTB solution, it let you try for aggressive slugging but there was risk you wouldn't be able to down survivors fast enough to avoid the self pickup.
Though again, I think slugging's primary position within the game should be as a situational answer to certain situations, like sabotaging or survivors lurking for pallet/flashlight saves. It'd be fine to have a riskier option with it, though.
-
@NeverSolus said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074431#Comment_4074431
I don't think I'm looking in the wrong direction at all - because I think you're right that's another possible option! Hook incentives or an alternative incentive, or alternatively yes slug disincentivizing would also work. I make the assumption admittedly that incentives will be the chosen route as we haven't see disincentivizations come through from PTB Tests in the past.
Either will work, certainly; but anti-slugging has been discussed to death, so I'm wondering if honey might catch the fly in this case.
Also, unbreakable only works once. Maybe if it worked more it would be a more suitable counter to slug builds? Or if it became base kit as is, is that the thought process you're approaching?
Apologies if I sound combative, not the intent, just trying to shave away these outer layers and see if anyone can present an argument as to why to not slug that goes beyond "It won't work" or "It makes you bad person hue hue", and equally a presentation of what would be enough to convert the play.When it comes to incentives versus nerfs or active disincentives, it's important to look at the sheer strength of what you're trying to fix in general too.
For example, incentives not to tunnel will never work because tunnelling is at its base just far, far too strong, it's an overpowered cheese strat. People won't be incentivised away from that when it's still an option, they'll just have their cake and eat it too by keeping tunnelling in the back pocket and benefiting from incentives only when it's convenient.If the position we're starting from is that slugging is just as good as hooking (which I'm not entirely in agreement on, just for transparency) then we're rubbing up against that problem. If you only use honey instead of vinegar here, you're not really fixing the core reason people slug.
That's why it's important to recognise that hooking isn't weak and does give you more than just activating slowdown perks, because that's the real comparison being made here- two tools that both do their job, but one's less risky + has a higher likelihood of shutting down more of your opponent's perks.Personally speaking, while I don't view slugging as a HUGE problem, I do think something like those old PTBs with a limited way of picking yourself up in aggressive slugging scenarios would probably be appropriate. That way slugging remains a limited tool you'd use situationally when circumstances demand, but you can't replace hooking with it.
Honestly that part of those PTBs was basically fine the second time around, I think it caught unnecessary strays because of how flawed the anti-tunnel parts were.
-
@NeverSolus said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074421#Comment_4074421
In the interest of transparency, I don't feel i'm ignoring the 'benefits of hooking' at all. From what I can tell from the community and the math, the point is that hooking does nothing for the killer (outside of perk activation) that slugging cannot do better. Hooking can 'progress your objective', but so does slugging given the bleed-out meter. Hooking can 'spread pressure' but so can knocking someone down, equally if not more so. Hooking 'slows down opponent objectives' but so does slugging.
That's very much the point, actually! Hooking isn't doing anything in these scenarios that slugging does not do with superior metrics. It takes about as much time to unhook someone as it does to get a recovered slug off the ground, by example - in both hook and slug states the survivor on the ground wasn't doing objectives. Therefor, why wouldn't a killer bypass all those potential perk activations by simply bypassing the hook entirely?
The 'End objective' can be completed by slugging or hooking.
The question then, as I'll repose it, is do we think hook incentives would draw people out of slugging being the more optimized gameplay loop? I agree with you in that generic hook incentives will not work, as a 5% haste for 10 seconds on unique hooking (by example) gives a much higher value to Kaneki or Blight than it does to the Twins or Plague.
I'm not even bothering to try defining potential hook incentives here - I'm just asking if killers feel they would effectively counter-act the higher efficiency rate of slugging or if we think another direction is necessary.
For the record I also agree that the bloodlust approach was a bit hand-holdy, but I also think bloodlust is a pointless and ultimately worthless mechanic as it exists today anyway.Well, I'd repeat that slugging only provide similar or even sometimes superior metrics if players aren't expecting it. All it takes is the whole team running Unbreakable and slugging's value drops off a cliff.
To the larger point, though, you're still looking in the wrong direction. Considering that hooking as a baseline does its job of slowing the game down and progressing the objective… if slugging does better or even the same, that means slugging is too strong, not that hooking is too weak.
You wouldn't fix the issue with hook incentives, you'd fix it by reigning in slugging so it doesn't function as an alternative anymore. It's only meant to be a specific tool for specific purposes, you shouldn't be able to avoid the game's fundamental interactions with it. -
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074421#Comment_4074421
Just a quick question about this. You said hooking slows down survivor objectives. How so? Downing someone makes it so they can't do their objective, but hooking someone isn't going to provide anything beyond that.
The basic rundown is this:
The survivor you've downed cannot do objectives, but neither can the survivor who comes to rescue or the survivor who you occupy in chase while they're rescuing, leaving only one survivor doing gens for that time period. Even if it's short, skilled play has you looping it, continually slowing down the game.
Now, comparing that to slugging, things get a little messy because of the awkward position slugging is in right now. Realistically slugging probably does provide basically similar slowdown… but that's only because the vast majority of survivors, even the coordinated teams, aren't prepared to deal with slugging.
If they are, then slugging just provides weaker slowdown across the board. The survivors have longer to leave their teammate on the ground, that survivor isn't immobilised so they can crawl to teammates to diminish downtime, the methods of picking yourself up are way more accessible than methods of unhooking yourself, so on and so forth.My point isn't that hooking is just flat better than slugging, though, to be clear my point is that if you're going to be talking about what hooking gives you then you need to talk about what hooking gives you or the conversation isn't starting from the right place.
-
There's a major element of the game missing from your rundown here, which is what you get for hooking- it's more than just activating perks, there are basekit benefits to hooking that are very relevant and important to the conversation.
To simplify those benefits, hooking both efficiently progresses your own objective and efficiently slows down your opponent's objective. It's already good at this, spreading pressure this way is as effective as it should be proportional to your skill in keeping it up, and if you just directly buff killers for hooking you run a very real risk of tilting the balance too far towards making killers - especially the stronger ones - far too powerful.
The issue that does exist here isn't that hooking needs to be incentivised over other options, it's that other options can be too good for the effort involved. Slugging is completely fine when it's done in limited, situational ways, but countering very aggressive slugging strats can be dependent on communication and preparing with specific perks ahead of time, which isn't exactly the best spot for something to be in.
To be blunt, the way you fix this issue isn't by adding basekit incentives to hook, it's by just weakening the cheese strat some people employ. It really is that simple.
Something like 9.3's PTB info and bloodlust after hooking could work, to encourage players towards the already good option that currently exists, but even that is a little handhold-y. -
To be fair, if you don't think there's enough to justify going for P100… don't do it? It's an opt-in grind for people who want something to work towards, not a requirement.
The actual day-to-day usage of bloodpoints really isn't an issue anymore. It used to be, back when I started playing, but just getting enough bloodpoints to keep your main characters topped up with consumables like addons and offerings is pretty automatic these days- between all the various sources of BP that are readily available at any given time, BHVR give BP out like halloween candy compared to how it used to be.
Though I will say that…
@Firellius said:
They should bring back the BP bonus side missions of WGLF and BBQ as basekit elements, to help steer the game towards a healthier and more rewarding gameplay.
This is a good idea, people like getting more BP and rewarding them for playing healthily in a match with more of it is a solid idea. It won't fix everything on its own, but it'd be one strong layer.
Probably make the survivor one a little more standardised than old WGLF, though. BBQ is really basic gameplay, WGLF required a little more. Not sure what to replace it with, however.
One of the best features of the anti-tunnel PTBs was the stacking BP bonus for fresh hooks, bringing that into the game alongside some equivalent for survivor would be something to look into in general. -
I don't know about overpowered, but Dracula is definitely way stronger than a lot of people seem to credit him for, I'd personally place him in the S tier- and he's the first killer to break in there for years for me.
Wolf form is good, but I also think Bat form is crazy underrated. On its own its a slightly worse Spirit power… and it's one of his three powers. Spirit may not be S tier anymore but she's far from bad, having something slightly worse than her plus two more chase powers is nuts.
Though, again, I don't know that he's problematically strong, really. In comparison to Nurse and Blight he's probably a few tweaks and maybe a soft rework to Bat form away from being completely fine.
-
@cogsturning said:
So a few things are visible that weren't before:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/NITU4TWEWXJI/screenshot-20260420-144209.jpg
What are points?
Upvotes and possibly downvotes, I think?
Judging by the "points" thing being visible underneath posts as well, alongside the return of numbered views.
-
I had the same thought, I don't mind some of the other changes but MAN I really do not like the white background, I hope that changes.
Or at least, I hope to get the option for dark mode again…
-
To be fair, I'm not so sure that Trapper would benefit from being in the list of small number tweaks. Maybe faster setting speed could help? But honestly even then, he needs more of an update than a set of number tweaks.
I'd potentially criticise choosing Ghostface for the same reason, he doesn't really benefit much from small number tweaks while needing more of an update… but honestly I wonder if he's on the list because someone at BHVR just didn't like his cooldown being such an odd, awkward number, lol.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4073449#Comment_4073449
I think my big problem in general is just that defensive perks will absolutely be used offensively if they are strong.
But that's the thing: DS cannot effectively be used for that. As long as the killer doesn't pick you up, you severely hinder your own team by going down for a single bodyblock and spending however long slugged out.
I've only had DS used offensively against me once, and it was my own fault. I never fell for it again and any further attempts to use it resulted in a 4K.
That's why DS is such a strong solution.
Thats why I would rather see bhvr go for more stealth for the unhooked while the unhooker gets the heat with aura reading plus other incentives to go for unique hooks then them just making stronger anti tunnel perks
The problem with that is that the game is already extremely heavily tilted in the killers' favour and giving them yet more buffs is going to render the game unplayable for survivors.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4073451#Comment_4073451
Did it not? If a killer tunnels you off hook but you put on a good chase and he hits you 31 seconds after you get unhooked, is that not a nerf to OTR's function? If the timer was paused during chase, that'd be fine, but it isn't.
Realistically, if the killer's chasing you off hook, you're going to get hit within forty seconds. If it were at all possible to reliably last that long when targeted off hook, anti-tunnel wouldn't even be necessary because tunnelling wouldn't be as strong as it currently is- A thirty second chase is considered quite good, and that's for chases that don't start tilted heavily in the killer's favour.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the nerf, but that's because it makes the perk weaker at being a general post-unhook stealth perk, and that was never a problem. As an anti-tunnel tool, the times where you're getting hit at the 41 second onward mark are pretty rare outliers.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4073400#Comment_4073400
I mean I named two things they could still do but we have to accept that tunneling will always exist.
Sure, it'll exist, in that it will likely always be an option.
It just shouldn't always be the categorically best option, and there's ways to limit scenarios in which that is the case. It'd also help if we'd look at the problem without immediately leaning towards nerfing the survivor side.
And you are right old ds did a good job at discouraging tunneling but because it was very strong it was also very good to use when the killer doesn't tunnel.
It wasn't. DS cannot be activated by the survivor and the killer, when someone tries to DS-bait, can simply leave the survivor slugged out on the ground. That'll slow the survivors down more.
The only problem now is that OTR permits you to take another extra hit, which can be fixed by changing OTR to an info black-out perk. Then DS goes back to 5 seconds, or X seconds basekit with Y seconds added with the perk, and you'd have a meaningful deterrent to tunnelling.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4073401#Comment_4073401
Out of curiosity, what are you referring to when you say that all we got from the anti-tunnel PTBs was a nerf to anti-tunnel?
The basekit duration for Haste and Endurance went up, that's a buff, no?
Oh, true, +5 seconds to basekit Borrowed Time.
And then -50% duration to OTR.
Oh that's right, that was in the same patch, I forgot about that.
Kinda misleading though, it's not like the OTR nerf affected its performance for anti-tunnel specifically.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4073365#Comment_4073365
This defeatist talk is just another strategy to keep the needle from moving.
It's nonsense that there's nothing they can do. We know that killers were less eager to tunnel when they were very likely to be hit in the face with a 5 second stun from DS, so why is that not back?
We got two attempts, the second completely half-hearted, and the only thing that rolled out of it was a nerf to anti-tunnel because the ones in charge of the anti-tunnel design are the tunnellers.
Out of curiosity, what are you referring to when you say that all we got from the anti-tunnel PTBs was a nerf to anti-tunnel?
The basekit duration for Haste and Endurance went up, that's a buff, no?
-
@Shinkiro said:
Yes, easier and less conditional perks like sprint burst and lithe should have longer exhaustion timers, make harder to use ones more rewarding. Remove exhaustion reduction effects because you can't balance these perks with reduced timers unless you balance it for it existing so you'd have to double nerf the recovery timer.
I'm thinking more of the actual effect, not the Exhaustion timers.
So, hypothetically, Sprint Burst/Lithe getting a smaller Haste bonus/shorter duration, and/or Balanced Landing/Smash Hit having higher bonus/longer time.
Whichever way around you'd resolve the difference, what I'm examining here is whether these perks should all give you approximately the same distance by design.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/466442/should-exhaustion-perk-haste-vary-more
I think its fine for them all to have the same effect with different conditions. It lets you pick which one suits your playstyle. The main thing is making sure that the effect is the same distance. For example smash hit lasts a little bit longer because you are stuck in the pallet animation. I'd also say head-on could probably increase the stun slightly, or so its less abusable, give you a shorter duration sprint burst when you come out, so it can be a bit more in line with the others.
The main problem one as mentioned is sprint burst. The problem isn't how effective it necessarily is at dealing with m1 killers, because with sprint burst you can also choose to not take the chase. The problem is that it can be 99'd and then used in a chase anyway. That is where i think its probably a bit too strong. Perhaps maybe if it had a condition that said that it went on a short cooldown while you in chase, like 5 seconds, so that if the killer starts a chase with you it can't be used in the middle of the chase unless you first drop chase. That way it can appropriately be used as intended as sprinting quickly away from a gen or something when the killer starts coming closer to you.
The conversation I'm trying to start here isn't really about if Sprint Burst is fair to deal with, M1 killer or otherwise, it's about the comparative design space between these perks.
If they all have the same distance gain, then the perk that gives that distance with the most reliability and/or least effort will always just objectively be the better perk, and not picking it will always be a case of being willing to sacrifice less value for the satisfaction of running something different.
If, though, the amount of distance you gained was a balance variable, I think there's a fair argument to be made that there'd be more of a decision to make based on playstyle— do you take the most distance but play around trying to activate it, or do you pick the more consistent + accessible perk but make less distance per activation, that sort of thing.