jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
@dollidahlia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3310885#Comment_3310885
If it makes me dramatic to switch from killer to survivor then yeah.
I love being dramatic if it means I can win easily on survivor
It makes you dramatic to claim that the most overpowered killer getting a frankly pretty moderate nerf is a "might as well be a survivor main" situation, as if you specifically need Exposed on the Nurse to stand any chance, as well as to point at the only other overpowered killer and claim that trying to fix that would also be unfair.
Still, if you think you'd have more fun on survivor, by all means. I started playing some more myself, though I would definitely say finding a team is best if all you want is easy wins because you will not get them in solo queue.
-
CoH is a 50% penalty on its own, right? That's not really all that fast, the problem is that it stacks well with other healing speed boosts.
Also, CoH should not function differently to all the other boons, with regard to charges. I've not watched that video so maybe it addresses that, but if it can't function like the others, it needs to just be reworked entirely- an outcome I'd personally be in favour of.
-
I'd imagine Blight will be next, some of his addons are overtuned.
Is it not exhausting, being this dramatic?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3310625#Comment_3310625
I acknowledged that the reason they gave was a problem as well, but I pointed out that the solution they decided on was specifically tailored to remove the perk's ability to reliably and effectively counter camping.
Keep in mind, they changed it from 'use whenever it's off cooldown', not to 'use once per survivor with the perk' or 'use once per hook state' or any other option that would limit its maximum potential, but to an entirely new, unique use condition that absolutely demolishes its usability, especially in solo queue.
It's blatantly obvious that the reason they gave is not the reason they actually had in mind since they went above and beyond to nerf this perk from its PTB show. The reason they gave had simpler solutions, but they invested extra time and effort into making the perk worse beyond that.
Ah, so you're just accusing the devs of lying. That does explain your insistence, I suppose.
-
To be fair, I'm not sure what difference it would make if you'd seen their prestiges beforehand, unless you wanted to dodge that lobby- and at that point, lobby dodging is not a thing that we want to encourage.
Also to be fair, the killer can change their loadout, just not what killer they're playing, which is the case for matchmaking reasons and not balance reasons.
-
I don't think the gender of the survivor matters, does it?
The reason you get hit around walls is because your hitbox lags while running, most of the time, that's kind of agnostic to what the survivor actually looks like. I guess maybe some of the thinner/weedier survivors might look odd where someone beefier would track a little better, but there are skinny dudes too.
-
Agreed. Right now it only really works against light proxy camping, which... is fine, obviously, but I'd love to see it function against proper facecamping too. In the same vein, there's no reason it shouldn't work in shack if the basement is right below you, that'd be another great change.
@Firellius said:
It doesn't counter camping because killers complained that if they played into this perk really hard, it could cost them a kill. I doubt it'll ever come back.
You keep saying that even though I'm pretty sure I've seen you acknowledge the actual reason it got nerfed from PTB, what's up with that? You have to know that's not right, so what gives?
-
It's up for debate whether Dead Hard needs to be changed at all, saying it needs to be removed is a bit of a reach.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
Just once, I would like for a mod to be really excited to share with us news of something that would improve the killer experience. Really? Killers couldn't get an FoV slider, or anything to improve their experience? Are survivors people that should be celebrated and applauded, and killers are just mandatory pesky nuisances that don't ever deserve nice things?
And for the love of the entity, if the survivor icons do move the kill rate, can killers get actual feels good changes like an FoV slider, instead of getting generic uninspired number buffs, that don't actually improve the killer experience even though they are effective in moving the kill rate?
Eyrie changes, Knight buffs, Killer Adepts getting easier, and the both-sides changes like the in-game challenge tracker and ability to browse during the match queue don't improve the killer experience? Heck, they even changed the wiggle skillchecks to no longer grant extra progression.
I think you're overreacting to literally two of the many changes in this update, both of which are long overdue and comparatively not even that much.
-
Holy moly, we're actually getting Nurse nerfs. That alone makes this update a massive W, let alone all the other fantastic looking changes.
Absolutely blew my expectations out of the water, I'm very pleased to see all this!
-
Possibly, but the Bloodlust requirement still cripples that perk's efficacy even on her. It could be useful, survivors wouldn't hear her demanifesting so they wouldn't necessarily expect the lack of a red stain... but you've still gotta be in chase for a while before you can use it.
Still, probably the most useful on her.
-
@Saiph said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308843#Comment_3308843
Myers will not be a little slower, no. With full stack he gets 130% speed, without he has 115%. But because survivors run at 100%, that is not just a 15% improvement, but a 100% improvement, because he now gains twice as much distance in the same time. Add bloodlust and it becomes impossible to loop him more than 5 seconds.
If you don't like the Tombstone issue then just look at Rancor. Concretely, as a solo survivor in this situation, what are your options to win, apart from going back in time and queuing in SWF.
I'm not "exaggerating an issue". Something is either well designed or badly designed, it does not have anything to do with its current viability. If we had the conversation 6 months ago, I would have told you that Eruption is a stupid perk, and you would have said "nah it's fine, there are better perks"
Difference in scale does matter, though. Six months ago if you told me Eruption was a badly designed perk, I'd have agreed not because it was too strong or too unfair for survivors, but because it was just too much finnicky setup for not enough reward. Now that its effects are stronger, it's swung in the other direction, because specifics do matter. Viability isn't the issue, the specifics of what the perk does and how it does it is what matters. Most of the Obsession perks are either too weak, or perfectly fine, none of them are actually badly designed or unfair in the way that Eruption is.
As for Rancor, I'm struggling to see the issue here. If you don't like getting smacked out of nowhere with an instadown mori, that's one thing, but surely the Obsession angle doesn't matter? Would you really feel better about Rancor if it did the same thing but didn't have the Obsession requirement, or is it that you don't like what Rancor does? The Obsession mechanic doesn't make Grim Embrace or Furtive Chase unfair, in fact it's a hindrance on Grim Embrace, and I think that says it all; the mechanic itself isn't inherently unfair, only when it's attached to certain other mechanics.
Hell, from the perspective of a solo queue player, I've always been grateful for the Obsession mechanic. If I see those legs a-wigglin', I know the killer's chasing someone.
-
...Are almost all the other Exhaustion perks comparatively lacking in value? Lithe, Balanced, and Sprint Burst are all fantastic perks, Overcome is almost overpowered in some builds, even Head On has its place. I'm pretty sure it's just Smash Hit that lacks in versatility and value.
I'm not so sure that just bringing in more Exhaustion perks is the right call, really. Dead Hard is still run more often than the rest of them, it looks like, and that might be worth looking into- but your only real option for responding is nerfing Dead Hard, since its competition is already pretty solid across the board and anything designed to compete with it is necessarily going to be even stronger.
-
@Saiph said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308794#Comment_3308794
Let's take a bet, imagine we take a group of 5 random players with 100-200 hours of playtime each, 4 survivors and 1 Tombstone Myers + PWYF, who is going to win? 90% of the time it's going to be a 3K at least. In order to win this match as a survivor you have a ridiculous list of things to be cautious of, you need to have the obsession hiding all match, know that you shouldn't take risk in chase (probably shouldn't even go for chases if he has PWYF), somehow be able to track the amount of stalk even though you have no idea of how your teammates are doing, have everyone getting ready to jump into lockers at all time when close to tier 3, not go for the rescue if Myers proxy camps, etc. any mistake by any of the survivors and it's an instant game over. Do you realistically see these conditions met by casual players? I think at 100 hours I didn't even know Tombstone was a thing, let alone PWYF.
For the killer, the only non-obvious trick to know is that you can 99 the Tier 3, but everything else is straightforward, the perk literally tells you what to do, and it's even a Myers perk. Whereas for the survivors, the counterplay is not only to know all the perks in the game and a list of completely obscure mechanics, but also to have a divination gift to know what your teammates see and want to do.
The other perks you mention just have bad values to be useful, but it does not mean they are well designed. As soon as you buff these perks they will be problematic just like Eruption is today, not because they will be impossible to beat, but because they rely on unfun mechanics and the same problem of "easy to use, hard to counter" as I described above. Obsession is inherently a bad mechanic for solo queue because it usually involves one survivor A noticing the killer has X, then survivor B needs to do Y in reaction to counter it, but in a game where you don't give any ability to communicate between survivors A and B, how does that make sense? This just creates frustration and toxicity towards your teammates.
Another Obsession example, take Rancor. It's a useless perk but that's not the point. Imagine as a survivor, you're the obsession and the killer chases you at 1 gen. If you are in a SWF, then fine, you just tell your friends to 99 the gens until you're downed, and the killer can get literally NO VALUE from it. If you are in solo queue, then now it's the complete opposite, killer gets full value from it, both the mori AND the exposed synergize extremely well in this situation since as soon as the gates are powered it will be 1 hit = 1 dead. Maybe your teammates could take hits for you but they have no way to know, and because of the fear of NOED, it is extremely unlikely to happen anyway. So the perk will get either full value or no value at all depending on an entirely uncontrollable factor. It is inherently a gimmick, luckily it's bad so noone uses it today, but even if it would become viable it would ALWAYS turn on to be a problem.
Everything in your example is a problem with Tombstone, not a problem with PWYF. Take that perk out of the equation and what do you get? The same situation, except the Myers is a little slower. Far more importantly, though, take Tombstone Myers out of the equation and put that same perk on Trapper. Do we still have a problem in that scenario, or is that perk honestly not doing much of anything in the second case?
As for your second point, no you wouldn't, because those perks aren't designed to need countering in that way. They just kind of do what they do and that's it, similar to other perks that just provide some small benefit without being something survivors can counter beyond just, playing around it. The Obsession perks don't require survivor B to notice and counter, unless it's a perk that warrants doing that. Even the ones that do require countering don't require survivor A noticing but survivor B acting- if survivor B notices, that's enough.
Really, I think you're exaggerating this issue. In almost all cases the Obsession mechanic is a hindrance for a killer perk, not a benefit.
-
@Saiph said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308775#Comment_3308775
Save the Best for Last's counter involves the Obsession somehow first realizing that the killer has it (while the killer will obviously try to avoid the Obsession at all costs), THEN taking hits for their teammates. Good luck having that level of coordination in solo queue. And without the Obsession drawback STBFL is completely busted.
Play with your Food gives tombstone Myers an easy 4k against 90% players and probably can be used in other cheese strats as well.
At 100 hours a player might not even know what the perk does.
STBFL is strong, sure, but I wouldn't call it "completely busted". It's a good idea for the Obsession to start taking hits if they suspect the killer has it, but if they don't realise... on a majority of killers, it's good, but not broken. Certain killers do make better use of it (giving a far more hefty hint that they're running it from the get-go), but even on its best user it's still just "above average".
PWYF, similarly, isn't even all that great? Tombstone Myers is its own thing whether he's running that perk or not, and it's almost useless on literally every other killer due to how it loses tokens. Clearly not a problem.
Those are also, for the record, not the only Obsession perks. What about Grim Embrace, or Furtive Chase? Dying Light? The Obsession mechanic isn't inherently a problem because there's one pretty decent perk that uses it, surely?
-
@Saiph said:
One big problem of the DBD designers is that they think it is fine to have mechanics that are ridiculously cheap and unfun, as long as there is a "counter".
- Tunneling
- Camping
- NOED
- Obsession-related perks (STBFL, PWYF,...)
Yes, all of these have a counter, but the counter is either boring (eg. do gens to counter camping, hide to get hatch...) or it requires WAY more skill to execute the counter than it does for the killer. The problem is that casual players are never going to be motivated to play a game for hundreds of hours just for a chance to not lose against someone who looks like a newbie to them. They are going to be frustrated and DC.
And even when you have 2000 hours, the counter usually relies SO HEAVILY on the execution of your teammates that it's still almost never working in practice, what is the point of learning and trying to become good in chase when the killer can always just stop chasing you and tunnel one of the baby Megs in your team instead?
...Wait, what's wrong with the Obsession perks in this context? I expect to see NOED pop up here despite not warranting it as it has a weird reputation, but this is the first time I've seen someone call the Obsession perks as a whole "ridiculously cheap and unfun", I'd love to hear your reasoning there.
As for the topic as a whole, I think this point probably would've seemed slightly more reasonable before the update on the action icons. Clearly, BHVR are in fact willing to attempt addressing solo queue.
-
@TOFFU said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308340#Comment_3308340
i think you are not top mmr if you BEAT swf all the time....
and point even if you do doent mean that - HEY DUDE GET OFF GEN i am going down = dead Eruption - is ok
ITS NOT FCK OK
Eruption is a bad example, that perk is overtuned and needs a nerf.
And, who cares about top MMR? Even if it mattered, being at top MMR means you win more, not less, because that's how MMR works.
-
@TOFFU said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308009#Comment_3308009
NOT PASSIVE????
i can name you more things how OP it is
LETS SAY
FOG OF WISE and perk for great skillchecks = CONSTANT AURA KILLER FOR ALL TEAM
That's... still not passive? It's active. You have to actively talk to your teammates, and tell them the thing that you're seeing, before they get any benefit.
Anyway, SWF aren't as OP as you're making them out to be. They're stronger than SoloQ, yes, and can even make certain perk combinations OP, but survivors being on comms doesn't instantly make the game unplayably difficult for killer. I beat SWF teams all the time, and you do too, you just don't notice unless you lose.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308168#Comment_3308168
Alright, you had a point there. It baffles me how I didn't think of that myself with english not being my birth language 😅
I still think that in-game voicechat should be something they need to add to the game, as it would also help cross platform SWF and would be an step up for SoloQ as I said, but yeah, language barrier would be a problem without doubt and other types of way to convey that information would also help. Maybe even a pin point system like other games has (e.g. Fortnite).
It's a bit of a lateral-thinking issue, to be fair, I don't blame you.
Yeah, basically, they'd need to add non-voice ways of conveying information first either way. A ping system isn't the worst idea, I'd support that too, but basically anything that tells you in basic terms what your teammates are doing and what's happening would work. Buffing the heck out of aura perks and items would also work, let them be more useful and numerous to justify them being nearly required.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308117#Comment_3308117
"A tool only fixes a problem if it can actually be used by the people affected by the problem" Yeah... that's why they need to give SoloQ that tools. And dude, having common sense and talking is not reading diagrams in invisible ink and instructions in some death language, it's just having common sense and talking 😅
And what more information survivors need, apart of what they can see and hear playing normally? One of them with a map and some aura perks would be the ultimate source of information in a SWF with voicechat! And even if no SoloQ player would think of doing an "informational build" to help the other survivors, they would still be able to give all the information they normally have (where they at, where the killer is, are they being chased, have they located the hex totem, etc.). Also, as far as I know they are adding status icons to survivors, meaning they get even more info of what survivors is doing for free.
So, if we agree that them having the right tools but not using them correctly would be their problem, sorry, but I can see what is your point here.
I feel like I'm not getting across that the problem is not everyone can talk on mic. The biggest problem is the language barrier; the only server I'm aware of where the language barrier wouldn't be a gigantic problem would be the NA servers, and even then I'm not sure what all territories that encompasses. Everywhere else, you have the question of if all the players even speak the same language, let alone in a manner that can be interpreted easily through average quality mics.
There are too many elements entirely outside of the game's control that would affect whether people can - not want to, can - communicate through voice to their teammates. It's not that players don't want to use the tools provided properly, it's that in a huge number of cases, they wouldn't be able to. More than that, maybe they can but their teammates can't, which means... the comms are useless, because all players understanding the information being conveyed is the part that matters.
Passive information would actually be a tool they can use, if they want to put in the effort. Voice comms may not be, depending on circumstances completely outside of their control.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308009#Comment_3308009
The benefits of voicecomm is not passive, yes... but the thing is right now SoloQ players don't even have the opportunity to use it actively, as they don't have them. The point is people pretend for BHVR to balance the killer side of the game for SoloQ players as they don't have the same advantages of SWF with voicechat ignoring the fact that being in a SWF with voicechat is the most efficient way to play competitively, and that is a no-no as the moment you nerf killers to put them at SoloQ level, SWF would destroy them even more they do right now the moment the killer don't have regression perks (i.e. not adapting to the current survivor meta).
Other thing would be that SoloQ players had that tools and they didn't use them in the correct or beneficial way. That would be their problem and doing, and other survivors would only have those players to blame. It's not Ikea's fault if you can't assemble the wardrobe you bought when they give you all the tools for doing it right.
So yeah, that is the only and best solution to the problem, level SoloQ player by giving them what is the greatest advantage SWF have and balance the game taking in count the fact that survivors can communicate and coordinate across the whole map, sharing information to their partners that they shouldn't had by game design. Wanting to nerf killers to the ground so SoloQs have a chance is just wanting to nerf them because you can't play in a competitive way at the cost of them not being able to be competitive. Simply, no.
It may not be Ikea's fault you can't assemble a wardrobe if they give you all the instructions, but if the instructions are all in a different language and the diagrams are drawn in invisible ink, it's also not exactly your fault if you end up with a pretty shoddily assembled piece of furniture at the end. A tool only fixes a problem if it can actually be used by the people affected by the problem, is what I'm saying.
I agree that players who do not think to actively use information shouldn't be balanced around, that is their fault, but they actually need to have that information to use it, and just adding voice comms will not give it to them. The game needs to give them that information itself, not rely on hoping that all four survivors have working mics of good quality, and that they also all speak the same language with the right knowledge of what to call out and when.
I agree that SoloQ players need to be brought up closer to SWF, but voice comms won't achieve that.
-
@bunnyfengenthusiast said:
How is Kinship superior to Reassurance? Reassurance can add 30s per hook stage and is one of 16 perks. Kinship can stop struggle for 32s and is 4 of 16 perks if run across the team.
It's hook action, not hook stage, so Kinship is technically superior by two seconds if someone is camped from first hook to dead.
I do agree with you that Reassurance is better, though.
-
@Stabby_Widdershins said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308053#Comment_3308053
why exactly should there be risk for using an anti-camping perk?Because camping is sometimes valid, and the perk does not exist to punish all camping all the time everywhere without risk. Nor should Survivors get a risk-free punishment perk just because they hate camping.
having that range be "just enough to proc from the middle of shack" should be reasonableOnce again, no, because you're ignoring how increasing it to 'just enough for shack' buffs it everywhere else. No buff or nerf exists in a vacuum.
I'm not ignoring that at all, I specifically said I don't believe that would allow the perk to be useful for anything other than anti-camping. Hypothetically, from a pure balance standpoint, infinite Reassurance isn't actually OP- at that point, you've just got a functionally dead survivor, it gives no inherent value to the survivors if the killer isn't also standing there.
(That's not to say we should have infinite Reassurance, it'd be a problem from a griefing/trolling standpoint.)
So, being able to activate it from further away than you currently can would achieve... nothing, inherently, if the killer isn't camping. Certainly camping is sometimes valid, and that's why the range should be close enough that you're less likely to be able to activate it stealthily, but... it does punish all camping right now, except for the basement, which is the place it should punish most.
-
@Stabby_Widdershins said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308036#Comment_3308036
Reassurance either needs a much broader range (20+ meters)Brokenly OP. Be able to pause the hook without getting anywhere NEAR M1 Killers.
repeated use per hook with a cooldownBrokenly OP. Imagine all 4 Survivors bringing Reassurance and taking turns running past the hook; They could leave that Survivor on the hook infinitely.
Which is how it worked on the PTB, and how it was abused. So you're literally asking for the PTB Reassurance that can be used to give an infinite hook state.
And I already pointed out that 1 Survivor can Reassure while 2 more do gens, so it's not applying much pressure for the Killer, at all.
No and no.
More a response to your overall position than this particular post, but why exactly should there be risk for using an anti-camping perk? The entire purpose is to punish killers for being glued to hooks and not taking chases to leave, doesn't it defeat the purpose to ensure there must be risk to use it?
Take a facecamping Bubba in the basement. Right now, you have to risk going into the basement and getting downed just to activate a perk that is supposed to punish that Bubba for camping. Doesn't that seem backwards? Shouldn't it be that the Leatherface has to stare at a glowing survivor without ever seeing the other survivors, specifically because those survivors brought a perk that punishes that playstyle?
Certainly, there's a maximum range this should have that should be pretty low, but having that range be "just enough to proc from the middle of shack" should be reasonable. It wouldn't allow the perk to do anything other than punish camping, which is what it's supposed to do.
-
I'm not so sure, personally. Trapper's simplicity is part of his charm, yes, but it's also a strength in that newer players have a simple, reliable, easy to understand killer to start out with. Even Wraith and Hillbilly, and especially Nurse, aren't quite as simple and easy to intuit as the Trapper is, imo. Not to say they're complicated at all once you know how the game works, but rather that specifically when you're first approaching it, there's nuance to those killers that Trapper doesn't really have. Doesn't require knowing how this game works to understand "put down bear trap, survivor gets trapped, hit survivor".
I think just buffing him a little more would be best. Help him manage his considerable downtime a little more, have his traps spawn closer and maybe remove them from Map tracking.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307602#Comment_3307602
But makes good survivors great. A well coordinated SWF with voicechat is a nightmare to play against, and if they are well coordinated and playing competitively they would be doing what he described there.
But the solution is not a no-SWF matchmaking list (even if I would thank it) because that would mean no killer in his right mind would go against a SWF for that same reason. The best solution for this is to add in-game voicechat to the game so every survivor, SoloQ or SWF now has that advantage and start balancing the game taking it in count.
This isn't the best solution, it's not even really a solution at all.
The benefits that a SWF group get from voice comms aren't passive, they aren't present just from access to voice comms. It's that they use those voice comms to convey information, and simply giving solo queue a voice comms feature does not result in everyone getting the same information as a SWF. Not everyone has a mic, not everyone cares to use it if they do, not everyone knows what to call out and when, not everyone speaks the same language, some people are harder to understand through others (especially through shoddy mics or poor connection)... you'd be in a position where solo queue is functionally the same for a huge majority of players, with the sole difference that there's some random unfriendly person screaming in your ear if you don't mute voice comms by default.
Better would be to give survivors passive information from the game itself, like basekit Kindred, showing teammate loadouts, better survivor-aura perks, and the status icons they've teased already.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307761#Comment_3307761
That's not hypocrisy. If two people are left and one or both are being slugged, that match is over.Direct quote you made in this thread.
Now you are right if both are being slugged and the killer has no intention of picking up either one up and no get up perks in play.
However that's only one of many scenarios that can arise from this particular situation, and can only be confirmed if those players are in chat or both have already used an unbreakable during the match.
Where the issue actually arises is in the double standard, that survivors get a concede option whenever they want when they are on hook, and killers don't get any at all.
If they completely got rid of the ability to let yourself go on hook, I would gladly say fine no concede option for killers, but as they devs have stated they believe that agency should be available, I believe it should be on both sides. Even if on the killer side it was locked behind strict conditions, even if it was only available when the killer opens the gates after gens are done and can proceed to walk out only saving the 2 min of the end game collapse.
If you can honestly say that you have NEVER given up on hook, for ANY reason. Including to get hatch to spawn for a teammate.
I admit it'll be hard for me to believe, but I will take you at face value and believe you and respect your opinion as I hope you can understand mine whether you agree with it or not.
That is indeed my quote. I will gladly admit that I should've appended an "unless there's an Unbreakable in play", but other than that, it's completely correct. The equivalent of that situation for the killer is all alive survivors standing in an open exit gate, at which point - without perks or addons that block the gate - the match is over.
And yes, I agree, there currently is a double standard that shouldn't exist. If the devs have explicitly said that they want survivors to be able to give up on hook, then I disagree with the devs, I'm comfortable with that. As for your last point, I actually have given up specifically to give a teammate hatch, but that doesn't mean I have to therefore agree with it being possible; I wouldn't shed any tears if the option was completely removed and would consider strategic hatch play an acceptable collateral damage for addressing survivors actually giving up.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307694#Comment_3307694
You may not have given it 2 thumbs up of approval, however you clearly validate and can see it as an option for survivors. Who not to mention can already do this at any point in the match while they are on hook.
You have no issue with the killer having to wait 2 minutes for the survivors to leave, but you can acknowledge that 4 minutes can be a problem for survivors the only difference is 2 minutes which you have implied isnt a big deal. This also means that a survivor having to be on hook for 2 minutes also shouldn't be an issue if the last survivor is running around or hiding for hatch.
Your stance seems to be (And feel free to correct me if Im wrong) that for the killer the game isnt over until all survivors are dead or escaped.
By this logic the game for survivors isnt over until they are dead or escaped.
But when 2 people are left and 1 is slugged you acknowledge that the match is over without even taking into account the game situation and how many gens are left.
Yet you deny that a killer can make that same assessment even when stipulating a situation where most of the gens have been completed and the survivors have a very high chance of escape, without also considering a large part of a killers ability to make a comeback is the killer believing they can make a comeback, and the more demoralized the killer is the less likely that is to happen.
I think that there are some contradictions in that stance that if you look at objectively, you can see where I see an issue with that.
As a parallel when it comes to giving up on hook, I disagree with it when someone does it on the first hook of the match, I can understand it when they are getting tunneled out and are the first two hooks of the match, and I really have no issue with it when the killer has 6+ hooks and your on death hook and there are still 4-5 gens left or when someone has already been tunneled out and no body is doing gens and there are still 4-5 gens left.
I can stipulate that alot of these issues arise from problems in the matchmaking, However short of creating a very strict SBMM system that would most likely create crazy issues with queue times, I dont really see that happening.
While you are correct that the examples I put forth are some of my more extreme experiences, being stuck in a match for 5+ minutes after giving up is a fairly common occurance.
So, what you're missing here is that the scenario you're describing for killer - the game is very very nearly over and it's passed the point where you can make any plays - is the point where killers can concede, by opening the exit gates. You seem to be trying to draw a comparison between a game that is functionally over because no more agency can be expressed by the player, and a game that is still very much in progress because the player has plenty of agency left. The game for killer is not over until survivors are standing in the exit gates, excepting for Blood Warden plays, kind of. For survivor, the game is not over until everyone is either dead or downed, excepting for scenarios where the downed survivors have a way of picking themselves back up. When those conditions are met, then and only then can you say the match is over, not when a few generators are done and you had some bad chases, and not when the killer has a decisive lead and got someone sacrificed at three gens remaining.
And, again, I was against the bleedout timer hastening. I don't think waiting four minutes is a deal huge enough to warrant a concede option, and I definitely don't think waiting on a hook is bad at all, I legitimately don't know where you got that idea from. Though, despite not actually being in favour of the bleedout timer reduction, I do want to point out that... yeah, waiting a set amount of time can be fine in one instance and not fine in another instance if the time you have to wait doubles between examples. That's not really a great argument.
Finally, giving up on hook shouldn't be possible. I believe in my stance that this game doesn't need options to end the match early without penalty, and that extends to the ones that currently exist- the only one I'm fine with is the ability to open the exit gate as killer, and that's really more a necessity to avoid games being taken hostage than it is a true concede option.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307684#Comment_3307684
Except for the fact that survivors can decide to do 4 gens and then hold the killer in the game bullying them for as long as they want and their skills allow, which can be a long time depending on the difference in skill level.
I've had a few different SWF groups hold me for over 30 min, sure I get hits and even some downs, but 0 hooks and the only reason I got out of those games before the match timer finished was because I gave up and they finally ended the match because I stopped engaging with them.
Not too mention even if the killer opens the gate they cant leave they are still stuck for 2 min while survivors tbag at the gate, and dont give me that "oh just hit them out" line, unless your also gonna tell the survivors to "just alt tab and watch a video or something"
Either the match isnt over until its over, or people can determine when a match has hit a point where continuing the match is less valueable than moving on. Its one or the other, cant be both, they are diametrically opposed options.
That's further proof that the game is not over, though? We've all had obnoxious games against annoying survivors, but that still doesn't really make a concede option necessary for the vast majority of scenarios. That happens pretty darn rarely, it's not a scourge of the game that needs swiftly addressing, it's a rare annoyance. It's even more rare for a team to consciously refuse to do the last generator, that's happened to me maybe once or twice? Besides, the longer they're in the match, the more opportunities you have to start hooking them.
I would also like to point out that, as evidenced in the lines you quoted up there, I was against the bleed out faster idea. I don't really think it's necessary, even if I see why someone might want one. I was specifically responding to someone getting sarcastic and hostile at the mere idea of it being discussed, which you'll notice was not the tone of my response here- I engaged with the idea on its level and just disagreed with it.
And, yeah, sure, you have to wait two minutes. It's two minutes. You can wait two minutes to concede a match, that seems like a fair tradeoff to me; you don't want to finish the match properly, so you start a timer to end it a little early. I also dislike survivors teabagging at the exit gates, but you can go break pallets or walls, or farm with your power, or yes- go hit them out, that's not equivalent to needing to alt tab and wait.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307553#Comment_3307553
You are correct when regarding matchmaking, and if matchmaking was fixed, then sure I would be in agreement that a concede button wouldnt be needed.
As to not believing how often I get affected by matchmaking, thats fine for you to say, but this has always been my issue with the game and it goes back to the old rank based matchmaking. It used to be like 1 out of 5-10 games minimum my rank 13-15 killer would get matched against full teams of rank 1 survivors. While its better now than it used to be, when the incentive is 100% on the killer side (which happens alot of the time when I happen to be playing killer), MMR gets thrown out the window in favor of queue times. If I'm jumping on for like an hour and just knocking out a handful of matches its not ussually an issue, but if I am doing a multi hour BP grinding session it can easily come up once an hour, and if I get a couple within a short time, that's a huge hit to my mental fortitude.
So lets say I am doing a 4 hour session and I get 1 in the 1st hour, fine I try and play through that, then I get one near the end of hour 2 which I also try and play through, and another 1 or 2 games later. I know I'm intending to keep playing for a couple more hours and trying to play this 3rd one out is going to frustrate me too much to continue, so I AFK the end of the match out. You consider this poor sportsmanship, which is fine thats your opinion, I consider this preserving my ability to play the game and not punishing myself for the games terrible matchmaking.
It happens often enough that I Don’t DC, due to a few reasons. I don't know how the DC penalty stacks/cools down so the only time I DC is if I am shutting down or changing games.
Personally I hate when a survivor DCS, and screws me over on a challenge, I dont wanna screw over a survivors challenge for escaping or have the game stop in the middle of doing a glyph or something.
Finally I want my BP, its not my fault matchmaking screwed me over, if Im sitting at 8k BP, I earned that I played my best against a team outside my skill to the point that for all intents and purposes the game is over. I'm not having fun, the fact that they are because they know they can bully me and take advantage of the bad matchmaking is Irrelevant.
As to your comment about a killer giving up after one bad chase, like I said it shouldnt be unconditional, and the conditions I suggested would pretty much cover this, you would still have plenty of killers who wanna try to camp out for a kill in the endgame, personally I get no satisfaction out of that, it's barely worth the BP, rarely makes a difference in how you pip and it really only works with certain killers/builds. When your up against decent survivors, especially if you are in endgame with no one on death hook and 99'd exit gates, as a basic killer with no expose, or endgame perks. Heck I've even done it defending a strong 3 gen against 3 good survivors because its boring to play that game where all they do is run away from the gens and if I chase them instead of kicking gens I lose. In a game like that even though there is a chance I can win it isnt fun and I'd rather just move on, the only difference is those survivors dont taunt they finish gens, they might wait at the gate for half the timer but generally those end quickly.
I would even take a 5 min matchmaking ban if it didnt stack with regular DCs, and use that time to spend bloodpoints or play with builds before queuing back up. There is a big difference between having a bad first chase and DCing because 3 gens pop, thats maybe 25% of the total game at that point. Where you can be 5 minutes in 4 gens done having chased multiple people, thats more like 75% of the game at that point. While I wont give up at 25%, I can live with playing 75% and giving up with what little I have earned at that point, and I can be productively spending BP, which is a whole seperate grind of time,instead of waiting for the survivors to let me go and the match to end
I am working on getting all perks on all killers, half my roster has no add ons or general perks because I lost them all putting them to P1 to get them to P3 on the prestige update for perks, so I play them at base. I dont run full slowdown builds I find that boring, I play killers that I suck with like huntress, nurse, trickster (Yes I'm on console so I'm more suceptible to bad tracking, and other techs and gimmicks), I have a solid understanding of the game in general, as well as my skill level, and how the build I'm using works and it's shortcomings.
But maybe I'm wrong and your right, every game is winable until every survivor escapes right.
By that logic every survivor game is winable until your dead, I'm sure you've never given up on hook to give hatch or wanted to give up faster when your whole team is slugged/dead, or when a killer slugs for the 4k.
But then there is this post you made in a thread where someone wanted to be able to bleed out faster. I have bolded a couple of parts of your statement.
Two of the things on your list are worthy of being discussed as problems (and a further third is categorically true, just without the strawman reasoning you tacked on), so that doesn't really help your point all that much, and it's not as though OP is asking for the killer to be unable to slug them- they just want to accept that the killer won and move on. That's hardly being salty or entitled, it's not as though they could do anything to turn the match around.Slugging for the 4K, while obviously fine, is hardly a necessary component of killer gameplay. It's still a win for you if the last guy gets hatch. What exactly makes this topic so absurd it can't be discussed? I wouldn't view it as super necessary myself, but I hardly think it's a case of salty crying. It's not exactly fun to sit on the ground for up to four minutes knowing you've already lost, I can see why someone would want to hasten that along.And to head it off, yes, I play killer more than I play survivor, this take isn't easy to toss out because of bias.
So you're fine with it on one side but not the other, oops your hypocrisy is showing.
...That's not hypocrisy. If two people are left and one or both are being slugged, that match is over. When people have been talking about killers conceding, it is never when the match is actually over, it's just when the other team has gained a lead. The equivalent would be people wanting to bleed out early just because one person has been sacrificed, or because they've seen their teammates self-caring in a corner and think the match is unwinnable because of it.
Killers actually have a method of conceding when the game is nearly over, in a sense. Opening the exit gate to trigger an early EGC can hasten a game along towards its end and it has the same conditions as any fair concede button that gets added, so in that vein, isn't this discussion somewhat moot?
-
Does blessing Haunted Grounds not trigger its effects? I thought it did.
If it doesn't, the simpler fix would just to be making it still activate the perk after it's blessed, not making a mechanic-wide change for its interaction with one perk.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307313#Comment_3307313
Maybe in a world with actual balanced matchmaking but that isnt this game, I can get matched with survivors way outside my skill level, where it doesnt matter what mistakes they make and it will end as a 0-2 hook 0 kill game, frankly I am not wasting my time dragging that out any longer than I have to.
I had a game earlier today in fact playing huntress, who I am terrible with, got 1 hook early on a David trying to finish a gen during my hit cooldown, I took turns chasing everyone trying to pressure gens, all for nothing 4 gens done and 1 hook 3 gens spread out that I can't patrol, survivors were better than me and knew it.
Had a kill survivors tome challenge which I already know thats not happening, still need to throw 1000 hatchets and get downs from 24m+ away so I found a locker with some distance and started just chucking at the gate switch to practice aim, all the while survivors are spam vaulting and trying to annoy me into chasing them which didnt work because when I go afk to end a match I always take my headset off, because thats what they always do.
Thankfully David decided to finish the last gen while the other 3 were taunting at me and even gave me a down trying to do the gate between hatchets, bless his heart I made no move to pick him up in the hopes maybe someone might follow his example which no one did, which is fine and they picked him up and he left right away while the other 3 sat there in the exit gate for the full timer.
Now you will say " oh you could have turned it around" or whatever you want along those lines, but I had already played out this scenario several times today, even if I get someone there is no way I'm gonna be able to defend the hook and get someone out against 3 bodyblocking survivors.
I can have fun in a 0 kill game as long as I am still getting hits downs and some hooks, but running around chasing people I cant hit thats not fun its frustrating, especially when some survivors will hold you in that match for 15+ minutes to punish you for not letting them bully you around if you give up.
No thanks, give me a concede button so I can take my measly 8k BP, depip, and 0k MMR drop, and move on.
I'm not saying it should be unconditional, but 4 gens done less than 4 total hooks no one on death hook, I see no reason why the killer should have to play that out if they dont want to. The game doesnt even have to end, replace the killer with a husk in the basement corner, notify the survivors and let them decide if they want to escape instantly or finish out the match, so the survivors who want to can also move on at that point, and ones who want to can stay to finish if they want.
Objectively there is no difference on the survivor side whether the killer gives up and is afk or leaves the match.
While I bluntly do not believe that you are being matched with survivors drastically outside your skill range that often (I believe it's much more likely you're just being matched with cocky survivors that know the basics of looping), to take that argument at face value, a concede button does not address or alleviate the issue. Matchmaking would still have to be fixed either way, and all you'd have achieved with a concede button is more salty players giving up because they had a bad first chase.
Addressing your final point, you're right: there is no difference between a killer conceding and a killer going AFK. Both are bad, both should be criticised, and both should be considered poor sportsmanship.
-
@YOURFRIEND said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307367#Comment_3307367
Standardizing killers with is a very uninteresting way to go about things. Variety is vital to keeping the game feel fresh and his slinger's abnormal terror radius was part of his identity. Having a killer that actually makes use of Monitor was really novel.
It's not like he was overpowered with 24. He was still an alright killer with a super high skill cap. It's not like there aren't perks to counter it anyway(fogwise, spine chill, dark sense if it weren't terrible).
It may be uninteresting, but there's a reason there's a pattern for how killers are normally laid out. You still get variety in how the lullaby sounds, and it's not as though Slinger actually plays appreciably similarly to either of the other killers with a lullaby in terms of gameplay variety for either side.
Also, how d'you mean, actually makes use of Monitor? That perk is pretty decent on a few killers, most noticeably Myers. If you had to pick one killer who "actually made use of" that perk, it wouldn't be old Slinger, it'd be the Shape.
-
Personally, what I'd want to see is them making him work exactly the same as Huntress and Trickster- shrink his Terror Radius back down, but make up the difference with a lullaby. I'm generally on board with the idea that they don't want him to be perfectly stealthy and able to line up shots from further away than survivors could hear him, but I do think him having a full 32 meter TR is a bit much.
The lullaby radius should definitely be a quieter one like Trickster's, of course. Something with rattling, maybe, give it a Western feel.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307273#Comment_3307273
In the first few minutes of a match I can easily tell whether I have any chance in a game or not, 3 gens popped and I have chased multiple survivors without getting a down or hit, I have a decent idea of their skill and I know mine completely, and know the match is a lost cause.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307283#Comment_3307283
Too both of you it isnt about the win its about the fun, I can have fun in 4-8 hook 0 kill game
That's the thing- those aren't lost games, you're making it a self-fulfilling prophecy by acting like they are. Are you more likely to lose? Sure, but it's by no means an impossible-odds longshot that the survivors make enough key mistakes for you to turn it around either.
If you say that you can have fun without the win, also, then surely there's no reason to call for a concede button? Just play the match out and have fun with it.
-
I feel like the skilled and experienced players are the ones that know you're not guaranteed to lose in those scenarios, and know that - realistically - any game can be turned around. Certainly, if you're in a position where it'd be drastically unlikely for you to make a comeback, it's never within the first few minutes of spawning in that it becomes obvious.
Besides, winning isn't everything. If the idea of playing out a match you think you'll lose is inherently, always going to make you miserable... I kind of feel like that's a you thing, not a problem the game needs to fix.
-
@gnehehe said:
Devs decided to kill stealth gameplay year after year.
Always consider:
- LP at start, denying early stealth in sub-optimal area (e.g., outer border in Pale Rose)
- BBQ/S:FoR denying - more or less - stealth in the middle of game
- NWH after gen kick, denying stealth around generators (pretty huge radius)
- ...
This gameplay is dead unless:
- you already know the killer loadout (usually, lots of slowdowns)
- or you play Distorsion perk
They didn't kill it, they just made it require perks and active decision making. There's a difference, and I for one think stealth being something you have to commit to is perfectly serviceable.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3306568#Comment_3306568
True, but this thread is about the filter that filters non slur words.
Or do you know, why the german word for germany is censored?
Yes, but it's more specifically asking why a game that's rated 18+ has a filter in the first place, and OP even pulls the same "we're all adults can't you handle bad words" thing, so my take is still very very relevant.
That being said, yes, this game's filter is way too aggressive for no reason.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3306542#Comment_3306542
I think it would be more efficient to just ban the people that do those things.
That's not an either/or scenario, though, you do both. Make it impossible to actually call people slurs, and then ban the people who try.
People shouldn't have to deal with hate speech even if they know that person will be banned afterwards. Both is the right call.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3306189#Comment_3306189
The game is rated mature. Why do we even have a profanity filter to begin with, when everyone is supposed to be an adult?
Hate speech, and vicious insults.
Both totally acceptable targets for preventing, even for a game full of adults.
-
To be fair, there's a point at which it's not anything to do with the game's mechanics at all, and just the killer player knowing to look for you.
For instance, if I know a generator has been worked on but I don't see any scratch marks, it stands to reason that there's a survivor nearby. That's when you start looking round corners, and checking lockers... plus, there are more tells than you might think in the moment. Scratch marks that end at a locker, pools of blood leading to a bush, disturbed crows, that kind of thing.
It's not really about how much vision killers have, it's just that... survivors have to be somewhere. There's good reason to check obvious hiding spots in a lot of scenarios.
-
As much as I also think this game's profanity filter is ludicrously over-sensitive, I do think it's somewhat missing the point to talk about how this game is rated 18. It's not really about "naughty words", in theory, it's far more about vicious insults and honest to god hate speech.
It's not about players being sensitive, it's about cutting down on unacceptable behaviour by making it impossible to convey, or at least much harder. The filter we have goes wayyyyy further than that, for no reason, but the core idea is sound.
-
@Stabby_Widdershins said:
So far, I've seen on these forums:
- Killer cannot slug
- Cannot camp
- Cannot tunnel
- Cannot use NoED or other 'crutch perks'
- Nurse and Blight need nerfs because 'crutch'
- Move the exit gates so Killers can't easily patrol them
- Move gens so they can't 3-gen
And now add a 'give up button' so Survivors can quit & give their friend the hatch. Because Killers don't deserve a 4K if it makes Survivors sad.
So, basically, Killers should not play the game. 🙃
Two of the things on your list are worthy of being discussed as problems (and a further third is categorically true, just without the strawman reasoning you tacked on), so that doesn't really help your point all that much, and it's not as though OP is asking for the killer to be unable to slug them- they just want to accept that the killer won and move on. That's hardly being salty or entitled, it's not as though they could do anything to turn the match around.
Slugging for the 4K, while obviously fine, is hardly a necessary component of killer gameplay. It's still a win for you if the last guy gets hatch. What exactly makes this topic so absurd it can't be discussed? I wouldn't view it as super necessary myself, but I hardly think it's a case of salty crying. It's not exactly fun to sit on the ground for up to four minutes knowing you've already lost, I can see why someone would want to hasten that along.
And to head it off, yes, I play killer more than I play survivor, this take isn't easy to toss out because of bias.
-
I don't think CoH should be the only boon perk that works completely differently to the rest, so I think it'd be better to just completely overhaul the entire perk to do something different, with a new name, if it's causing that much of a problem.
-
Not so often people just admit that they're being an #########, I'll admit that threw me a little.
Good answer.
-
@Rudjohns said:
Good idea
Now for killers addons do the same. Killer need to go to one side of the map and interact with a glyth to unlock 1 addon and then move to the other side of the map for the second addon
Why would that be necessary?
There's a clear reasoning behind this proposed change, even if you disagree with it. What's the reasoning behind this supposed equivalent change?
-
@Forza said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3305162#Comment_3305162
killer shack provides survivors with a strong loop and a god pallet. even when the killer plays it well it can still waste plenty of their time. and of course any other nearby pallets or vaults can make it feel like an infinite. often killers just have to abandon chase if a survivor makes it to the shack safely. when a map already has numerous other extremely safe tiles and buildings then a killer shack can take a map that may be slightly survivor sided and make it very survivor sided.
Right, but- every map has a shack, unless it's indoors, save for Haddonfield, right?. So... it's not as though it's a thing they chose to add, it's just how maps work.
Also it's not that strong, every killer is able to play around shack. I feel you, I struggle with it too, but it's not really the worst tile.
-
I've liked every match I've played on Shattered Square since they fixed the pallet bug. The colours of the map could use a bit more refining, but the actual layout doesn't seem that bad- but it's still new, so maybe I've just not noticed the truly awful elements, if any exist. I also enjoy Eyrie depending on which killer I'm playing, I just like the more medium-sized maps and while there are some quite safe pallets near the graveyard-y area the rest of the map is pretty neutral to play around. But, it must be said, Trapper and Ghostface among a few others really suffer there.
Side note, genuine question, why are so many people saying that these maps have a killer shack? Doesn't every outdoor map except Haddonfield have a shack...?
-
I don't mind this idea, it was something I suggested way back when for reworking old Dead Hard too. Overall I think the perk's in a good spot, it's a decent-value but tricky to use and somewhat risky tool for tanking a hit and saving yourself from a deadzone in most scenarios, while being mostly decent in other areas too-- if you couldn't greed pallets with it, it'd still be very good, but always a gamble on whose timing is better.
I'd be down, certainly worth testing.
-
This is a pretty neat idea, I don't mind that at all. It'd stop toolboxes from massacring early generators, it'd make first chase more impactful if you have to drop it because they'd at least need to go get their medkit to heal, it'd make flashlight squads waste even more time actually going and picking up their item...
This would be entirely unnecessary for maps and keys but the problem there is more that those items aren't very useful, lol.
Yeah, I'd like to see this tested. I think more would need to be done at the same time, but this is a workable idea that'd give killers more early game pressure without actually making items less strong. I like it.