pseudechis
pseudechis
About
- Username
- pseudechis
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3404639#Comment_3404639
I think many people consider proxy-camping in the scummy realm, because it tends to be done by the same caliber of Killer that hard tunnels off hook and then claims 'why did you rescue the Survivor if it wasn't a safe rescue?'. If a Killer never allows for the opportunity for a safe rescue, then blames the opposing team for it, I would argue they are acting scummy.
This silly party game is best when everyone has a chance to play the game, and forcing someone to sit on hook for 2 straight minutes is hardly fun. I generally try to go into matches only doing what I would want done to me, but many people (on both sides) play without that basic empathy. When the Killer isn't a snowball Killer, and is 0 hooks at 3 gens remaining, I ease up on the gas and do totems or chests or co-op gens w/out Prove. Dude is just having a bad game, I know I've had them. On the other hand if its Oni (or other snowball Killer) or someone intentionally camping their 3-gen, their victory is always within grasp. I don't need to give them an easier time.
Sometimes when I'm Killer, and the Survivors start to genb4fren, I understand needing to camp the extra hook state in the final 15s of a hook stage. I typically don't like doing that though because the person I'm punishing isn't the person who is responsible. That is just one of the weird facets of the game. I usually try to focus out players that I would hate to have as a soloq teammate. My (delusional) hope is that they will stop being bad teammates, and start being good ones.
You make some fair points and I'm not saying you are in the wrong.
But... even if tunneled out that really doesn't mean your opponent was out to ruin your fun its just part of the game.
You appear to have built up in your head this list of good and bad play and you'll punish or reward opponents and players accordingly with how the conform to your list of good and bad play.
Which you rightly identify as... well... delusional.
Now play however you want and if dolling out a sense of justice increases your enjoyment of the game then go for it, but keep this in mind and I can't stress this enough...
Doesn't matter what happens in game none of it means your opponents or team mates are bad people. What happens in game should stay in game.
-
@Robotfangirl67 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3405051#Comment_3405051
I was just rambling for the sack of rambling. But I will try not to ramble so much next time. I was having one of my days and I should of not been rambling about it. Thanks for the advice and I appreciate and have a good rest of your night.
Nothing wrong with a good vent, just thought I'd throw a different perspective out there. The game is meant to be fun after all.
What's the best mori you think you've ever been on the receiving end of? Either cinematically/thematically or gameplay wise...
The other one I can think is against a wraith really close game last one alive wraith closes the hatch but I'm hiding on the far side of the map next to the gate. get the gate open wraith rocks up and downs me and I'm mori'd 1 cm from the exit, soooo close. GG's all round.
Its the nail biting close games that are the most fun.
-
What's wrong with getting mori'd, the animations are (for the most part) great, its a real thematic way to die in game.
Best mori I ever received was the from the Hag on Hawkins lab, the camera got caught on some barrels and all I could see was my feet sticking out from behind the barrels twitching while the hag's hands and blood splatters kept popping up behind them.
She eventually got up chewing on my liver turned and left my toon lying there, it was a very cinematic off camera death scene and a fitting end to an otherwise pretty fun game.
I couldn't have framed it better if I'd been trying.
-
"A lot of this is unsubstantiated opinion being touted as fact"
Did you play in 2016? It was a complete joke. Look at the old killer vs survivor vault times and infinite windows. The only way we killed people reliably was NOED and the fact that ~15-20% of players tried to escape the hook in stage one so they immediately went to stage two (Where do these numbers come from this is what I mean by unsubstantiated opinion, you say we but I think you mean you, if you needed noed to get kills then great use noed then it's allowed).
Killer didn't get better really until bloodlust was added much much later. And then it was nerfed and DH got added.
DS HD Unbreakable and BT reigned supreme for like 3 years.
You do accept that things have more recently been changed to the positive of the killer player which kinda blows away your "they never consider how it feels to play killer" comment.
"Things got better and things got worse" - I didn't say it was all better but it is generally better than it was.
"Killer is fine - if you're playing the S tier killer at the time with meta perks. - I play trapper and Myers and have a great time, they are hardly "S tier" as people put it.
If I put you up against 10 comp squads in an "anything goes" format where I pick a weak killer for you to play you will be miserable." I probably won't win but yet again this is an unrealistic example because most players won't ever go against 10 comp squads in a row and it shouldn't take that kind of extreme experience to make your point, you say stop being a parrot but you keep continuing to make the same mistake every post.
Polly wants a cracker. I'm sure if you tied your hands behind your back and tried to play with your forehead it wouldn't be much fun either, but it doesn't make a very relevant point.
You said it was 1 step away from miserable which sounds pretty miserable, did you say it was miserable? well yeah you did, you also use miserable play experience as the main example point right above the bit where you ask did I say it was miserable. Its right there just look a paragraph up, I bolded it for you.
Your opinion of the game seems to be that the killer experience is pretty miserable.
Otz can play however he wants to play to maintain his streak its not an indicator of poor game health, and trutalent moans about swf all the time I don't think he's as objective about the game as you make him out to be. He strikes me as a bit of a sore loser.
"No how about we look at the factual evidence. Killer Moris do nothing and BNP's are still wickedly powerful. That's the status quo for DBD balance where killer gets obliterated and survivor gets a slap on the wrist." Why do BNP's and moris have to match each other in power?
Killer Moris do nothing, not a really a fact but they do do less than what they did
BNP's are still wickedly powerful. again an opinion, facts tend to be quantifiable, opinions tend to be vague wicked powerful as measure is an opinion. They definitely don't autocomplete a gen like they used to.
Patch 6.1 was a pretty big buff and QOL change for killers, which skewed the data back in the right direction reducing overall escapes. I liked most of it and don't think things were over tuned but like everything it tends to swing back and forth.
But to claim that survivors get it all and killers get nothing really isn't that accurate.
-
@DBDVulture said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3404532#Comment_3404532
-"Among us is still a fun game even when you get the more dull coordinated teams that make it harder to win and to ruin the game entirely it requires everyone to play like this which often isn't the case."
So you admit it ruins the game - interesting. But when we consider DBD it's 4 people who usually have each other on their friends list are in a voice call together. That's really easy to coordinate. In other words : it's easily to play survivor in a very scummy way that forces the killer to react in an unfun way. This is basically the last year of DBD content.
-"So if you define fair as being tools that are fun for the opponent and define fun as being the ability to win"
No I'm not accepting this definition either. The one I am using is from a game design article I saw more than 10 years ago. It's not mine and is literally the best definition of fair play I have ever heard.
Is killer fundamentally fun enough? It's probably not when we look at a raw statistics metric considering that most people do not play killer for a significant period of time. Most of the day is 100% killer bonus because not enough people are playing the role. Why on earth do you think that is?
-"If you have to propose such an extreme example to make your point then your point doesn't stand on its own validity, this is a very common mistake people make when debating."
Don't be a parrot.
It's also not as extreme as you think because such a system has existed (in a lesser form) in games and you know what - people hated it. If you make the example of something that already happened easier to explain so that I don't have to give you 3-5 paragraphs about another game then that in my eyes is a smaller crime. But I am fully aware of what you think you are calling me out for.
-"Having collision in game opens up all kinds of plays to use it as a tool, which is creative and fun."
It depends on how the tool is used. Let's look at another game with collisions : Mechwarrior Online. If I'm in an Atlas (100 ton mech) moving at max speed and you're in a Jenner also moving at max speed (35 ton mech) and we have a collision then one of is is getting knocked down. By the way it's not going to be the Atlas.
The collision system in this game was *mostly* fair. If you were moving too fast and hit something you usually fell over leaving you completely vulnerable for enemies to shoot.
One of the gripes everyone had about MWO is that they did not have a kick or punch system. That big Atlas in table top would have gotten a punch as soon as the Jenner got close. The Jenner would not like that any more than you would like to get hit by Mike Tyson. Why was the lack of kicking and punching a problem?
To easily relate this - in DBD you can crouch behind a killer and stop them from moving that way while carrying someone. Were you playing this game when it was possible to block basement stairs while crouching and prevent survivors from being able to be hit or carried to the basement? That was most definitely not "fair play". The survivors could do something that the killer had no way to counter. In a similar note do you remember the old MM map where a killer could just stand above the basement and there was no way to move past him? That was also unfair.
The lack of kicking and punching made getting close to an Atlas have no consequence. In the tabletop you would get mauled by a close combat attack. Since there was no penalty for it people often ran right next to big mechs and prevented them from moving or just moved behind them with impunity. A kick/punch system would have been lore appropriate AND it would have prevented abuse.
Since this game was basically pulled from an existing tabletop game it should have had a kick/punch system. If they had wanted to get really fancy they could have made some grab/throw animations and done some street fighter style cinematics. Did you ever play Street Fighter 2? Essentially the rule was this: if you moved your character to touch the opposing character you should expect to get thrown.
To make a very long sidestory short - If touching a killer knocked you down and stopped all motion for 1 second that would be a stiff punishment. You could still prevent a hit possibly but it would come at a cost. The problem with body blocking right now is that there is literally no cost for it.
A more severe penalty might be : touching the killer or moving through his space makes you exposed for 10 seconds (note this is different than the killer touching you).
See how long we needed to get to an example with no extremes? The extremes are a shortcut to make the point cleanly and quickly.
What's the counter play to body blocking survivors? You needed to "get good" and bring infinite MM with t3, Nurse, Blight or a chainsaw. That's a very dangerous road to go down where some killers stop bodyblocking and others do not.
Most people hate playing against Nurse but I rather enjoy it. I understand her limits so I know how to move to "mess her up". What is the counterplay to a Leatherface who backrevs with the chainsaw when the pallet is used and there is no nearby vault? The limitation on leatherface is that in theory you can't run one green addon and one purple addon every game. Except you can just choose to not play LF until you have more of those addons - it's quite stupid.
-"So the OP's question "is body blocking a fair technique?" well not in the specific example they give, but they are asking the wrong question, its not body blocking that's the problem here its the bad map design that allows body blocking to become exploitable."
You are also asking the wrong question. What game design elements make Blocking unfun/unfair?
I find it hilarious that the only time it's not ok to body block is when you hold someone hostage by pinning them in place.
"So you admit it ruins the game - interesting." um no, you made the point that if everyone played as you described it would ruin the game, not everyone plays as you describe and if it requires everyone to play that way then its not as bad as you think because most people don't play that coordinated, which is my point. Similar to SWF in DBD not every game is against highly coordinated SWF teams but you'd swear it was the way people go on about it. I'm sorry you missed the point here.
You can't reject that definition its your definition not mine.
"Body blocking is not fun for the killer when the survivors do it to the killer. Nor is body blocking fun for the survivor when they do it to a survivor and get a free instant down as a result.
The definition of fair play is when you use an ability and it's fun to be the user as well as having that ability used on you."
You then give examples of how its not worth playing if its unfair and not winnable so to reiterate, your point hangs on the fact that "you define fair as being tools that are fun for the opponent and define fun as being the ability to win" This isn't my definition this is the basis for the points you've made in your examples and why you feel they are unfair or unfun. So if you reject this premise I'm not sure what your point is then because your point kinda requires this to be the case for its coherency.
I don't really have an answer beyond that if you re-read what you've written it all falls apart if you reject the aforementioned statement. Its kinda hard to make a counter point to someone who's already countering their own point. So I'll leave that one.
As for MWO, its a little apple and oranges. A 100 ton Atlas crunching into a 20-35 ton scout mech will knock it down and its great, but the scout mech has a maneuverability that should make it really hard to get that knockdown. That's the trade off, its not fair to match an assault mech against a scout mech but the scout mech has tools to deal with that making it a very effective hunter of assault mechs.
In the right hands that scout mech mech can kill that Atlas via a death of 1000 cuts making this incredibly one sided and unfair match up on paper a much more interesting and varied experience in reality. The simple key is to move quick enough to not get knocked down which the scout mech can realistically do.
The differences in survivor/killer maneuvering in DBD aren't really equivalent to the differences in light/assault mech example. For the example to be valid it requires them to be equivalent that's why it doesn't work.
Its not hard to bump into a survivor even mid chase so the ability to knock a survivor down would need a big increase in survivor maneuverability to counter this very easy to achieve chase ending bump. What's interesting is you attribute a mechanic like that as fun but then dislike collision as unfun without any real basis for the distinction.
"You are also asking the wrong question. What game design elements make Blocking unfun/unfair?
I find it hilarious that the only time it's not ok to body block is when you hold someone hostage by pinning them in place."
I never said the only time its not ok is when pinning people in place, but its what makes the OP's example not ok and that's all they have given as basis for their question, that one example.
So lets, as you suggest, expand on the OP's narrow scenario beyond the singular example given where the problem is clearly map design not body blocking.
You claim there is no cost for body blocking, it costs a health state, as killer you have this big weapon in your hand which you can use to swing at body blocking survivors. If this scenario is stopping you from hooking people then you need to plan your hooks better. You don't need to bring anything more than that to counter body blocking.
There are perks to make it easier to counter but they aren't needed with a bit of game sense. Your basement stairs example, I wouldn't have picked up a survivor with a bunch of others around to block, and I probably wouldn't try for the basement with a crew of survivors that were lining up to block me. But I'd in close so that my chances of getting into the basement were better the next down and direct my gameplay toward the basement rather than away from it if that was my plan.
"To make a very long sidestory short (way to late for that but lets soldier on) - If touching a killer knocked you down and stopped all motion for 1 second that would be a stiff punishment. You could still prevent a hit possibly but it would come at a cost." Explain to me the mechanics of not getting hit if stuck on the ground for 1 second? This makes no sense whatsoever. How is this not more extreme than the body blocking we have now?
A more severe penalty might be : touching the killer or moving through his space makes you exposed for 10 seconds (note this is different than the killer touching you). This is even more extreme for something as simple as collision and is pretty unbalanced and unfair within the context of DBD.
You can't rail against things you think unfair but then offer up just as unbalanced mechanics as counters or alternatives.
See how long we needed to get to an example with no extremes? The extremes are a shortcut to make the point cleanly and quickly."
No they didn't because you are still proposing really lopsided mechanics as equivalent to body blocking. You could have proposed these prior to your first "extreme" example of nuking your opponents in an FPS, (which makes no sense and clearly is a terrible idea that doesn't serve any purpose for your point or mine but lets not go back to it).
Even after all this exchange it still appears that you point is... it seems your dislike of body blocking isn't about fairness its about annoyance that you can't counter it well and feel its unfair. I've said this before and haven't changed that opinion based on what you've countered with.
-
@DBDVulture said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3404532#Comment_3404532
-" Really? I sincerely doubt that there has been no consideration of killer's fun or how it feels to play killer when making survivor changes, this is another extreme that makes little point."
How long was Sprint Burst, Self Care, Sabotage meta?
Only Sabotage changed when M. Cote kept getting all his hooks broken and he "didn't like it".
When did flashlights change? It changed when M. Cote got floored in Korea while playing Hag.
For 4 years we heard the rhetoric from the devs : nah SWF doesn't give an advantage. Then suddenly next year we heard - oops SWF gives up to a 15% escape rate.... our bad. This is terrible when you consider Freddy's last nerf was due to a 4% "too high" kill rate. But SWF gets a 15% advantage? cool.
Where's that SWF nerf? It's not going to happen because people would not like it. This causes almost nobody to want to continually play killer (the stats are like 1 killer for every 10 survivors).
Dead Hard has been a meta perk for a very long time because it gives an obscene advantage in chase. Did it get obliterated to the point where nobody uses it like Eruption? No. Most people are still likely to just use good old SB (or Lithe).
I've said for a long time either killers need exhaustion perks or some kind of "punish" mechanic that gets stronger when there are more people who are exhausted.
The bottom line is that if you've been playing this game for 6 years you know that overall there has been a very different treatment between killers and survivors in terms of rule changes. A classic example is the Mori/BNP. The mori is now useless and is only there as a bandaid to SWF breakdown spam or to counter poor game mechanics where the killer is punished for killing a survivor (with a forever broken hook). Let's stop for a minute to remember when they had announced that hooks would regenerate after 2-3 minutes.
So obviously the BNP is now just as useless as the mori right? No - it offers very real progress on a generator. How many examples do you need where the game has softer/nicer rules for survivor and less advantages rules for killer?
It's not some "extreme little point". It's not Hyperbole either - the role of killer in DBD has been kept 1 step from miserable for a very long time. One of the advantages of moving this board away from the steam forum is that they can leave behind all the messy history this game had in the first two years.
Does anyone remember the killer strike? Once upon a time it took 15 minutes to get a game as survivor but that same wait period for teen killed the game VHS just a few months ago.
Oh man your bias is showing.
A lot of this is unsubstantiated opinion being touted as fact, that's a really bad way to make a point.
Yeah change has been slow but generally killer play has seen marked improvement, its lot easier to play killer than it has been previously.
To dismiss those improvements is just not accurate.
I'll say one point where our opinion does align is, I dislike the mori changes too, moris made the game fun and exciting. Even a mediocre killer with a mori was something to be feared. Its sad to see it go.
Lets take a more holistic view of the mori change though, if you queue for 10 mins to be eliminated in under 2 mins that's a problem. It did need some changing, just a shame to see it completely gutted the way they have. I thought the initial change of mori after first hook was fine, I can accept how mori on death hook is more balanced though so its also a good change anything further than that is just crap in my opinion.
"the role of killer in DBD has been kept 1 step from miserable for a very long time." This kinda is hyperbole, can't you see that this is just opinion and while it perfectly valid, it only applies to you because that's how opinion works. So the solution to this starts with you figuring out why killer is miserable for you and how you might improve to make it better.
There are many many players who don't find killer miserable to play and do pretty well with it, myself included.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3403432#Comment_3403432
I agree, I don't think OP should worry about it. There are enough other comments in the thread echoing that sentiment--don't really feel like I needed to preach to the choir. OP would likely decide that on their own, regardless.
It doesn't hurt to be aware of causality, tho.
Additionally, unless BHVR can remedy the problem, players are obligated to take responsibility for their own actions.
If someone is doing something blatantly unenjoyable to their opponent, they shouldn't be surprised when their opponent refuses to participate in normal play.
Sure it doesn't hurt to be aware of why people may quit but you can't apply causality to those assumptions. People quit even when you aren't engaging in play others might consider scummy. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Players are obligated to take responsibility for their own actions regardless of what BHVR do. But they don't have any obligations toward another player's fun because other players may not share their version of fun.
Define blatantly unenjoyable, It's just as likely the reason for players quitting is when their prospects of winning diminish, moreso than perceived unfun play. "Unfun play" usually gets used as a convenient excuse to justify quitting over loss and bolster the ego against having lost.
This goes doubly for people who just assume they'll be camped or tunneled because the killer doesn't immediately start leaving the hook.
Furthermore the term proxy camping is a such a ridiculous concept because making the hooked survivor part of your new gen patrol is a good idea, because if you don't find another survivor on a gen you're likely to find on near the hook, yet it also gets thrown into the "scummy play" excuse bag with the rest.
I'd go as far to say its just as valid a reason that people start to see more quitters simply because they get better at the game and start getting more downs which makes people quit more.
-
@DBDVulture said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3403542#Comment_3403542
-"The definition of fair play is equal respect for the rules from both sides."
I don't agree with your definition; I think the one I gave is a much better fit.
The definition of fair play is when you use an ability and it's fun to be the user as well as having that ability used on you.
Imagine a fps shooter where you get a crazy ability for making a kill streak that allows you to kill more people and get even better killstreaks and better rewards. Would it be fun in a Call of Duty match if someone got 30 kills in a row so they could deploy a tactial nuke that deleted anyone in a 50m circle of a painted target? The answer is no.
It needs to be fun to play as Nurse but it needs to be fun when you play against Nurse. Assuming you have a good understanding of DBD this is true for the most part. But for the majority of DBD's lifetime there has been great consideration about what is fun to play as survivor without any consideration for how it feels to the killer.
No killer main ever said : I sure to love how DH made the game less fun for the killer and made chases longer for no reason.
I saw a discussion recently about the game Among Us and what constitutes fair play. It is possible to prove your innocence by performing certain tasks to other crew members. If you do this with 3-4 crew members then you can be certain that those players are not the imposter. If those players always stick together it becomes impossible for them to lose.
This creates an unfun scenario where you have no chance to win as the imposter when crew members can without a doubt identify other players who have a 0% chance of being the imposter.
If everyone plays this game in this manner then it becomes a pointless endeavor to play the game at all. If you are the imposter then you will lose so the game is not even worth playing.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3403174#Comment_3403174
The problem with this is that new players would get really frustrated because they already suck in chase. Good players would have no issue with collision.
If touching the killer knocked you over and stopped you then it would 100% stop bodyblocking. The killer could knock you over and then swing at the injured player and then turn around to hit you as you stand up. it would be high risk/high reward to try and block a killer from hitting your friend.
I'm afraid your points are not as strong as you think and neither is your definition of fair play.
Fun doesn't mean fair and vice versa in fact most games a designed to be challenges that are stacked against the player. DBD is asymmetric which creates scenarios that can favor one side over the other this lopsided nature is part of the game design.
Asymmetric games often have lopsided or unfair elements that's what makes them asymmetric and that's actually part of the fun.
Play guaranteeing fun does not mean its fair, in fact the most fun scenarios are often when it falls in your favour rather than being the fair outcome, because fun is so subjective it often blurs what's truly fair.
"imagine a fps shooter where you get a crazy ability for making a kill streak that allows you to kill more people and get even better killstreaks and better rewards. Would it be fun in a Call of Duty match if someone got 30 kills in a row so they could deploy a tactial nuke that deleted anyone in a 50m circle of a painted target? The answer is no." _ Of course no, but you've crafted an example so extreme that the only logical conclusion could be no, this is called "appealing to extremes or reductio absurdum" and is a great fallacy people often commit when trying to legitimize their point if not done properly.
If you have to propose such an extreme example to make your point then your point doesn't stand on its own validity, this is a very common mistake people make when debating.
With that said lets delve into your wider point...
"It needs to be fun to play as Nurse but it needs to be fun when you play against Nurse. Assuming you have a good understanding of DBD this is true for the most part. But for the majority of DBD's lifetime there has been great consideration about what is fun to play as survivor without any consideration for how it feels to the killer." Really? I sincerely doubt that there has been no consideration of killer's fun or how it feels to play killer when making survivor changes, this is another extreme that makes little point.
The DH example is a good one and while changes took a long time, they have been made and DH is in a pretty good spot, its still over-represented though which is why more changes are coming. It doesn't make chases longer for no reason, that's what DH is for to extend chases, that's its purpose.
As for the among us example, coordination between the survivors of any asymmetric survival game always makes it harder for the killer, but it rarely makes it impossible. Among us has some flaws but they can be fixed by improving the subtlety of killing as the imposter. Overcoming coordinated teams in among us is really tough and requires some serious lateral thinking and deception, skills that honestly most people lack. A few extra tools I'd like to see in among us is the ability to force a teams to separate by being able to spread more chaos from greater distance.
"This creates an unfun scenario where you have no chance to win as the imposter when crew members can without a doubt identify other players who have a 0% chance of being the imposter.
"If everyone plays this game in this manner then it becomes a pointless endeavor to play the game at all. If you are the imposter then you will lose so the game is not even worth playing." We've now come full circle to my first point. Among us is still a fun game even when you get the more dull coordinated teams that make it harder to win and to ruin the game entirely it requires everyone to play like this which often isn't the case. Just as not every group of survivors is a coordinated SWF. Remember my point about extremes.
So if you define fair as being tools that are fun for the opponent and define fun as being the ability to win. Then any tool that limits your ability to win could be deemed as unfun and when used in a coordinated fashion deemed unfair. This is just blatantly untrue, and body blocking is a great example. (bringing it back on topic)
Having collision in game opens up all kinds of plays to use it as a tool, which is creative and fun. Both sides can use this tool which is fair, and scenarios where it can be exploited need to be identified and patched out, such as the OP's example of only one door to a hook which can be blocked.
So the OP's question "is body blocking a fair technique?" well not in the specific example they give, but they are asking the wrong question, its not body blocking that's the problem here its the bad map design that allows body blocking to become exploitable.
-
@DBDVulture said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3402429#Comment_3402429
As I said before it would be incredibly easy to make it so that if you touch the killer you are stopped and get knocked down and have to take time to pick yourself up before you can move. In fact this literally happens all the time in horror movies where some character runs into Jason and falls down (possibly in sheer terror). And then they get killed.
-"I don't get how its not fun to have to be mindful of your surroundings so you don't get blocked in"
Body blocking is not fun for the killer when the survivors do it to the killer. Nor is body blocking fun for the survivor when they do it to a survivor and get a free instant down as a result.
The definition of fair play is when you use an ability and it's fun to be the user as well as having that ability used on you.
"As I said before it would be incredibly easy to make it so that if you touch the killer you are stopped and get knocked down and have to take time to pick yourself up before you can move. In fact this literally happens all the time in horror movies where some character runs into Jason and falls down (possibly in sheer terror). And then they get killed." Yikes while simulating the realism of a horror movie what you a proposing here in game mechanics terms is more game breaking than body blocking. If all I had to do to stop a survivor was to ram them and knock them down with my hitbox that, while cool, it would be a bit much.
The second half of your reply really gets at the nut of the problem, and I hate to say it but it isn't body blocking, the nut of the problem is your perception that its not fun. Which is a valid feeling, but not valid enough to justify removing body blocking.
The definition of fair play is equal respect for the rules from both sides. In that both sides acknowledge the game rules and adhere to them and accept them graciously in both victory and defeat that is the literal definition of fair play.
Someone leveraging a legitimate tactic better than you do and winning as a result, you may not find fun but it is fair play. Collision mechanics like any can be utilized in a few different ways and players leveraging that to their advantage is good play. Both sides can leverage it making it rather fair.
That's doesn't mean there aren't scenarios where collision can be exploited, but that gets fixed by map design not removing body blocking. The example given by the OP where there is only a single point of access that can be body blocked is an example of bad map design.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3402571#Comment_3402571
It's not really a question of whether or not something is a part of gameplay, nor is it a question of whether or not it is a smart play.
People play video games because they are enjoyable. When the game stops becoming enjoyable, people stop playing.
It's really that simple.
I didn't comment looking to debate the ethics of rage quitters--there's no question they're detrimental to everyone else's experience.
OP was asking why people rage quit. If they're encountering it every game, there is a real possibility their in-game decisions are contributing to the frequency of rage quitters in their games.
Whether or not OP wants to change their in-game behavior to minimize the occurence is up to them. They're no more or less responsible for everyone else's enjoyment as the other players in their game. If you're going to make the argument that Killers are not responsible for the Survivors' fun, you should recognize that ragequitters hold the same exact opinion about the other players in their lobby. They'll continue to rage quit, because they need only care about whether or not they are enjoying the game.
There is a difference between not caring about other people's enjoyment and realizing that you aren't responsible for their enjoyment. I didn't say only killers shouldn't feel responsible I clearly said that goes both ways. Even so, no player is responsible for the enjoyment of another is the point. "its not the killer's job to satisfy the wants of the survivor player and vice versa." <- the original quote.
Because what you find fun in game, others may not and that's ok. What they find fun you may not and that's ok too, these differences are what makes online gaming a varied and interesting experience.
That's where we get back to why people rage quit... you gave the example of patience running out explaining why they quit and that patience runs out because they have built up resentment about negative game experience. This is because they didn't want to play a game they thought wasn't fun.
"There are a lot of reasons a Survivor will instantly give up, but most of them stem from a lack of patience.
Either they're always impatient, or they've already played out some games against scummy Killers, and their patience has run thin.
Do you typically roam close to hook looking for any nearby Survivors, or just outright proxy camp?"
This is a really lame reason to quit and not really an excuse, a mature person would understand that they are getting tilted or impatient and stop playing before queueing up for the next match... while an immature person gets angrier about not getting what they want from the game and rage quits halfway through.
The fault lies purely with the person engaging in the quitting
"OP was asking why people rage quit. If they're encountering it every game, there is a real possibility their in-game decisions are contributing to the frequency of rage quitters in their games." A possibility but the point I'm making is that, this shouldn't bother the OP, neither should the OP change up how they play if they find it fun, especially just to meet the demands of someone who rage quits because they didn't get what they wanted from the game.
The example you are using to make your point is that players don't like some game elements and if you utilize those game elements people will quit, which is probably true but your emphasis is on the OP realizing this and kinda suggests they should change how they play. (Given your example of what you defined as "scummy" play)
Whereas my point is just the opposite in which the OP shouldn't really worry about it and just play how they enjoy playing, quitters be damned.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
There are a lot of reasons a Survivor will instantly give up, but most of them stem from a lack of patience.
Either they're always impatient, or they've already played out some games against scummy Killers, and their patience has run thin.
Do you typically roam close to hook looking for any nearby Survivors, or just outright proxy camp?
No one loads up DBD to sit on hook for 2 minutes, or to be run down off hook before they have a chance to establish a safe loop. If you're slow to leave an area, a Survivor is going to assume you'll come right back to hook when they get saved.
And personally, I've come to feel as though hook trading is just as insufferable to deal with as tunneling--if not more. I'm seeing so many killers slap on Deadlock and Pain Res, then camp and/or tunnel. Not only is it no fun to be the Survivor who goes down without a chase, because the Killer wants a free trade, but it's boring af to be the Survivor who works on one gen for 3 minutes, because of Pain Res.
"No one loads up DBD to sit on hook for 2 minutes, or to be run down off hook before they have a chance to establish a safe loop."... Well they should because its part of the game and could happen, its not an excuse to quit just because they didn't get exactly what they wanted from a game, where the mechanics are well known and clearly defined.
If someone queues up for a game of DBD with the expectation that they won't potentially hang on hook for 2 mins or be caught again after being unhooked then... well, and I say this as un-apologetically as possible, they're a fool... these things are part of gameplay and have been for a very long time.
"If you're slow to leave an area, a Survivor is going to assume you'll come right back to hook when they get saved." Again its not the killer's job to satisfy the wants of the survivor player and vice versa. It can be a very smart play if you aren't occupied by something else to return to the hook after an unhook, there are 2x survivors nearby one of whom is injured.
Defining someone else as scummy because they don't play to an individual's personal game preference is a really bad mindset to have and doesn't excuse the quitting player's so called impatience.
Its just poor sportsmanship, rage quitters have a million excuses that always seem to absolve them of any wrong doing and justify their rage quitting. The inability to move on after a previously disappointing game is a big one.
The last point is about how mechanics interact and that's always open for discussion and refinement but again its still not an excuse to quit.
If a player is signing up to a game with the expectation that it'll play out the way they want it to and anything else is unfun or annoying then maybe its time for a break, if that scenario is wearing their patience thin, then its really time for a break.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Really? I’ve been playing for almost 2 years and I can count on my fingers how many killer DCs I’ve seen. Now when it comes to survivor DCs….
Yeah you could explain some of it away with numbers alone (as some have done already) 4x survivor means more chance to get a player who quits, but I don't think that fully accounts for the sheer number of DC's you get from the survivor side.
More commonly than DC's I see killers just go stare at a corner wall in the basement and go afk to wait the game out, again its pretty rare though. Most will tough even a bad game out and hook guard the one survivor they do get for some endgame camping. Which is completely valid.
Whereas in many games the first survivor downed will DC like it's a bodily function. The rest just suicide on hook the second you hook them, camping or not. Add to that the mori DC, the Myers tombstone DC, the bear trap dc, hatchet hit dc, the nurse screech dc, the carried halfway down the basement stairs dc, Its amazing how all these player's connections seem to fail right when something bad or something they don't want happens to them.
Obviously everyone's experience will differ but I'm not seeing the killer DC's that people are complaining about anywhere near the same rate you see survivors drop out. The one bonus of this is at least when your team mates quit you can still play out the game but when the killer quits that's it.
-
@DBDVulture said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/372001/is-body-blocking-a-fair-technique
It's an unpopular opinion but I don't think there should be any bodyblocking in DBD.
It's not fun when Survivors do it to the killer at the end of a game to deny pressure.
It's not fun when a Trapper blocks you and puts a trap at your feet or a LF revs a chainsaw while you cant move.
Remove body blocking and EVERYONE will have more "clean" fun.
I don't get how its not fun to have to be mindful of your surroundings so you don't get blocked in. Its a big part of the game, I'd liken it to friendly fire in shooting games, without it you can just spray bullets like a fool no thought needed.
Having collision on characters makes for all kinds of interesting plays and obstructions that can vary game outcome.
It also adds an element of realism to the physics of the game world and that realism makes up a large part of the game experience, it would be lacking without it.
-
@Bot_Salvo88 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3398490#Comment_3398490
There's one in RPD near the main exit gate. The killer can stand there and if survivors decide to go for that last second save they can't because by the time they realize they have to go around, the teammate is dead.
This isn't that situation where there's only one entrance but the killer can bodyblock certain doors to make survivors go around and waste a lot of time. This promotes camping on RPD
It could be argued that your example is just good tactical decision making by the killer when choosing to defend an advantageous hook in a good position.
-
Yeah this one is really bad advice.
Vote with your wallet is a valid way to affect positive change.
Consuming product for consumption sake really doesn't drive change.
I've bought the expansions I like and I've passed on the ones I don't like, I've sharded where available because, hey its free, but I'm probably not even going to spend shards on a bad chapter.
These numbers make up consumer data that help a company say, "hey what was popular and what wasn't and why". You can't answer those questions if everyone just blindly consumes product simply because its there.
There has been too much of that over the last few years and the quality of entertainment in all forms has really suffered as a result.
-
"I've ran into it quite a few times in the last week and almost all of them should have been a 4 man out." Sure if the team had bothered to cleanse totems, but they didn't so it wasn't a 4 player escape. Which is a legit game outcome.
"The killers had 2-3 hooks but end the game with 2-3 killers. Then I was thinking those matches are boosting kill rates." Are they really? Sounds to me like NOED worked as it should and the survivors didn't account for it, is that boosting kills or just again regular outcome.
"Those matches were noway balanced and I'm sure the killer wasn't having fun untell noed kicked in." Assumption about another player's fun never a good basis for game changes.
I've often baited players by going easy at game start to get the most out of an endgame build for a 4K. When this happens I've often been told that I'm crutching on NOED and/or bloodwarden, that the survivors deserved to escape and would have if not for NOED, and that I didn't deserve the kills. All of which are rather inaccurate assumptions making for poor opinions.
I'm not saying this is what happened in your example, I'm just sayin never assume.
NOED is in a pretty good spot, if your team is going down to NOED in the endgame then they dropped the ball something serious. The game isn't over until you escape or die and NOED is a part of that game.
Its never a good idea to expect to escape purely on the basis how the game is going so far (AKA 2-3 hooks), I've seen games snow ball in the opposite direction due to just a few mistakes with or without NOED in play.
-
@stvnhthr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3378384#Comment_3378384
I'm thinking of AFKs and dc's after first down. Right now maybe half the games I play have 4 survivors actively playing. The majority of games have someone dc before one gen is done. Half of my teammates who do play are not team players or they are just rubbish.
Yeah going AFK and DC'ing early would absolutely qualify as selfish play.
You queue up to play the game as is, so quitting just because you're not getting the game you want is really selfish way to play. I agree with you on that one.
With respect to players not being "team players" though I'm a lil more forgiving of that because this game throws up scenarios where you have to choose between team and self preservation and sometimes it pays to be selfish and save yourself.
It makes for interesting outcomes and isn't entirely a bad thing, although survivor is a team game and more rewards for a better team result would probably influence less "selfish" play.
My understanding is.. How DBD rewards game outcome is its heavily based on individual performance, emblems, rank, MMR, BP's, which is fine. But there should really be a bonus for improved team performance as survivor, to at least incentivize taking the risk for your team mates. Collective bonus for what is essentially "unselfish" play.
I hung on hook all game but my sacrifice allowed my team to escape and I got a bonus for that, at least would offset some of the poor reaction to the non-participation elements of the game.
-
@Remedicist said:
Before, if you didn't have a specific item, you couldn't really counter Hag's power without taking an excessively long time to crouch over it, in which the crouching speeds are very slow, or walking over it and hoping than the Hag doesn't teleport. That's not really engaging gameplay and doesn't leave the other side much of a choice. I think this change is great, the traps now won't instantly be disabled from an item, but can be interacted with if the survivor decides to spend some time doing so.
Also her main problem was that her hit and run style was negated easily from the fast healing speeds. With healing speeds nerfed overall, she should have a better time chaining hits.
Maybe but it only really works if the time to erase her trap is roughly equivalent to the time it would take to sneak over it anyway.
-
@rinnai said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376761#Comment_3376761
That is so bullshit, I've never come across a "bully SWF" in my entire time playing this game.
Yeah but you have to remember your solitary experience doesn't encompass the experience of all other players.
You are one data point in a sea of data points.
When we consider this, then using your sole personal experience is a really weak premise to base an argument on.
Just a lil thing to think of next time you want to refute someone's point.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3377070#Comment_3377070
But let's play devil's advocate a little here, you could at least appreciate the slasher film nature of a game like that.I mean its thematically on pointLet me play reverse devil's advocate on theme which I think is critically important to the game.
The thought of being chased by a knife wielding maniac is scary, so is the thought of getting cancer. The similarities end after scary. The first is fantastic and exciting, the latter realistic and depressing.
DbD and horror movies go for the first because they bring excitement and tension. Those are feelings people enjoy having. Part of the problem with the BM that killers can do is how much it kills theme. Facecamping isn't scary or tense, just boring - bleedouts aren't scary when the killer is standing over you, they are annoying.
One of the best pieces of advice I got early about enjoying DbD is be prepared to alt-tab/do something else if the opponent BMs. Left to bleed out, go get a sandwich, etc. While that improves the game from the player perspective, BHVR should be aghast at the concept. Horror games are supposed to have people on the edge of their seat, whenever there are elements where players are frequently like 'I got bored and did something else even though the game was still technically playing' is not a good sign.
It often fits the theme, a killer trying to murder me in the most brutal way kinda works because, for example I wouldn't expect leatherface as a character to be thinking of my feelings.Sure, but I'd like them to think/play like the killers of the movies. No horror movie would work if the killer got the first person, and then just sat there while the rest of the characters got away.
Whereas jerk survivor behaviour, it typically involves mob mentality which is usually unpleasant, it's generally out of character thematicallyIf we're just talking theme-wise I think this makes more sense. Frequently in horror movies the non-killers have their moment when they turn the tables / decide to take the fight to the killer. And while situations where they can do it infinitely should be stopped (and over time are much less common than they used to be), but a 'we're taking the fight to the killer' doesn't break the theme (as long as at least one survivor is getting gens done).
Yeah but a bad game of DBD is far from equivalent to a positive cancer diagnosis so lets leave that shall we.
If some of the game elements are creating that level of emotional response then not even BHVR can fix that, that is a player's personal emotional issue.
Yeah there are some dull moments but avoiding this is what makes the game so intense. Think how bland the game would be if you just died and respawned all the time. BHVR have largely already addressed this issue as these so called boring things have a timer. Is the timer too long I don't think so but others may disagree.
Yeah a camping game isn't the most interesting but it can be if people go for trades and saves but the ideal play is to smash out the gens and leave because why risk your personal MMR/Rank/BP's. The problem isn't camping its how the game records and rewards outcome. That's a BHVR problem.
Lastly on theme, that is a very good point.
A game where survivors are trying to flee from the killer is different from a game where experienced players are trying to distract the killer and waste their time.
There is nothing wrong with the latter, its still a legit game of DBD, but I just find it more underwhelming of an experience than the former.
But you do make a very good point its not out of character to "fight back" against the killer as it were.
-
@TheWheelOfCheese said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3378194#Comment_3378194
I understand the metaphor, but it doesn't work.
Punching someone unnecessarily is a bad thing to do. Trying to win a video game isn't.
The problem with the metaphor is that it conflates trying to win at a video game with something wrong (or, at the very least, anti-social). I disagree with the entire premise of the metaphor.
If you reframe the metaphor any way you choose such that the "bad thing" is approximately on the same moral level as "making someone feel bad by besting them in a game" then the attempt of the metaphor to make the person who is trying to win feel bad about trying to win falls flat. As it should.
^THIS^ Exactly ^THIS^👍️
A large amount of the complaints on this forum equate to, or are reliant on, an exaggeration of the impact of the game itself.
You can't expect logical input from that kind of illogical premise, nor does it typically lead to constructive suggestions, outcomes or discussions.
-
Basically you won, and to the sore losers of the world tunnelling and camping make great excuses for loss.
They'll see it everywhere, more so if they lose.
Don't let it ruin your night though, its not worth it.
"I felt good for having the game be fun for both sides," sadly you can only guarantee your own fun.
The fun of others is not really in your control, so rather than trying to make the game fun for both sides you're better off just playing how you want to play. If that's in a manner that you deem fair then hey keep playing for the fun, your fun.
-
@Chaos999 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3377750#Comment_3377750
Well, it's nice to see someone who shares my POV. It means I'm the only one crazy. I mean.
Honestly the dbd community has always struck me as strange.
I have played my fair share of online games that are somewhat infamous for their toxic community and taking the game too seriously, such as LOL and WOW, but dbd stands out.
It's not that there are toxic players, you can find those essentially in any online game, except lotro, and DBD doesn’t seem to me to have such a big toxicity problem.
Rather is the community's negativity. I mean even in other games people will just call others names or wish them harm or even be idiots in the match, but nobody gets their day ruined for it or suffers anxiety and calls out bullying. They just trash one another and move on. Like drivers honking at each other on the street. Sure you have your extreme cases, but not like this.
I don't know maybe the horror genre is more prone to attracting the antisocial and/or emotionally unstable given its generally more unsettling content and themes.
I don't think that really explains it though, because for such a brutal premise, the players who indulge in it can have paper thin skins.
Largely it shouldn't matter what happens in game providing everyone can GG and move on without any animosity afterwards, its only a game after all.
-
Because FOMO works.
Its very well studied that if people feel like they'll miss out on something they'll be less likely to critically assess the scenario and rush to buy it. Whether they want or need it or not.
Almost all advertising is built on the premise.
Limited time only! is a very powerful motivator.
It's also why people who did buy it, or earn it, when it was originally offered can get so angry if it gets offered again or eventually made easier to get.
Satisfying FOMO often creates a sense of achievement and status when you have something that others don't. So when others eventually get the chance to have it too, the original purchaser either suffers buyers remorse or a sense of loss of status both of which are rather negative.
If you can afford it and you want it by all means buy it, but like any FOMO scenario take a moment to think am I buying this because I actually want it
Or am I buying it purely because I'm afraid of missing out on it, which is actually different from really wanting it.
-
This is an odd topic because what you define as considerate play may be the opposite of what someone else considers considerate play.
Just because someone else plays in a manner that you don't enjoy doesn't make them inherently selfish.
Making sweeping generalizations about the player base based on the forums really can really skew your view too, this is where people come to complain so you have a disproportionate representation of the complainers here.
Defining what steps you take to make the game fun for others is a good start because you may find what's fun for you, may be quite bland or unfun for others.
Selfishly not caring about the experience of others is not the same thing as prioritizing you own game experience.
What could be defined as truly selfish is expecting other players to change how they play in order to fit your expectation of fun and being upset when they don't. Which is what I see a lot of on the forums.
-
@BenOfMilam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3377355#Comment_3377355
Really doesn't change what I am trying to say. Everyone agrees that camping is annoying, but I say it is largely ineffective and borderline a game throw.
The only reason camping works is because people just give up against it, or make every possible mistake. If people stop feeding kills to campers, you'll see less campers.
Yeah this is the part I agree with, there are pretty effective ways to win against camping, unless you're the one on the hook.
But its a team game your job as the person on hook is to hang there long enough for your team to progress the objective. But if someone doesn't like playing that role and they quit, then they are why camping seems much stronger than it actually is.
@feffrey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3377358#Comment_3377358
Listen to what you've just said and re-read it if you need to. I do not think you understand what you're trying to say so let me give you a thought process.
Survivor loads into a match with the thought they'll get to enjoy the match win or lose
Camping killer going into a match with the intention of losing and doesn't care that he is going to lose. He intentionally throws the match for everyone and ruins it cause he can. Nobody gains anything and wasted 30min trying to play.
Not everyone have time to play and it is limited to a few matches and if those matches are all tunneling campers it makes it easy to not wabt to play at all
ooh careful with what you are doing here.
"Survivor loads into match they thought they would enjoy" err... survivor loads into a game where non-participating is a genuine threat, if they aren't going to accept that then they are setting themselves up for no fun if it happens. You can't just crave the one aspect you like from a PVP experience and nor can you be upset if you don't get it.
"Camping killer goes into match intending to lose" hmm... Camping plays a role in a number of scenarios, just assuming that anyone who camps has the intention to lose... ugh never assume another player's motivation its a poor premise to base a point on.
People's time is limited but the design and variable outcomes from a PVP game like DBD are well known, so if you have limited time and are expecting to get the gameplay you want within that window, you may be disappointed because not everyone wants the same game experience as you do.
If you feel you only really get the game you want form say 1 game in 5, then I wouldn't play DBD unless I had enough time to play at least 5 games. Personal time management and expected outcomes are your responsibility not the game or opponents responsibility.
Also I tend to find players with a hyperfocus and heightened response to things they don't like (i.e camping, tunneling, SWF) tend to see it everywhere whether its present or not, and blame it for everything whether its present or not, these kinds of players ruin their own game experience long before the opponent has the chance to.
-
@Chaos999 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3377013#Comment_3377013
You just don't get it and that's OK.
I know. You're the heroic type, a lot of people like to be play being the noble hero. I like to as well, sometimes, but there is also those who like to play the villain. There is a reason why the villains are often among the most popular characters in fiction works, sometimes even more than the heroic protagonists.
Like I said, I do believe that, in the example you gave, that was quite a bit much and I have very little doubt that the killer player was indeed trying to be a toxic AH, personally I wouldn't have gone that far, but nevertheless I find the sanctimoniousity and self-righteousness often displayed in forum posts not entirely unlike this one laughable, and the whole "oh this guy just tortured a bunch of rookies in a game, he must be a psychopathic human detritus, completely devoid of satisfaction in R.L. And he drowns kittens in the river and steals candy from babies" argument completely nonsensical.
I believe the root issue is people has trouble separating real life social interactions from social video game interaction. Chill out. Enjoy the ride. Laugh at the killer tripping over and letting you escape. Laugh at you messing up and ending up in the killers cruel hands.
Anyway, I like DBD too so at the very least I can understand your point of view, even if I don't quite share it.
This raises a really good point and its often the point I'm trying to convey.
Another player isn't immediately a terrible person just because they really get into a game, even a PVP game.
Most of the posts bemoaning this are making pretty negative assumptions about the other player.
i.e. To play like this you must be...
- Angry
- out to ruin other peoples fun
- just out of a bad game and wanting revenge
- a bully
- a bad person
You don't know anything about your opponent so why assume.
To equate a bad game experience with real world bullying just does a disservice to people who've suffered from real world bullying.
-
Its entirely possible to use Billy's power on an indoor map, just takes some good timing and control.
You change up how you play it, I'm not going for long saw plays I'm going for short rev ups and flicks, trying to zone people to areas where you can saw more easily.
Bluff with your power more you'll scare people into pretty frequent M1 hits when they try to dodge the saw.
Most indoor maps aren't that bad except for RPD which is just a bad layout and design, midwitch aint that great either but still playable.
-
I agree with the OP's point to an extent... however.
It does ignore the opinion of the person hanging on hook.
Take the free 3v1 escape sure, except for the player on hook they just eat the camp for 3mins.
Now that's just part of the game and it happens so its nothing to be upset about but its also not the most interesting game for the player on hook. I can see why people don't like to be that player and complain about it.
I don't see the need to change it though as it represents a genuine threat to gameplay and a good motivator not to be found or caught.
Also some of the best games I've played have been played around the hook trying to get the exchange or around the shack trying to get out of the basement, it can be more fun than just playing gen jocky all game and sometimes not a bad thing even if it results in loss.
You just don't want to be the player hanging on the hook.
-
@Deathstroke said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376203#Comment_3376203
I can still play for win without tunneling. Sometimes just tunneling is not even the best option in that situation. And I have had matches getting first survivor out at 5 gens left and even when I chill out survivor just give up. I want proper match not very one sided. Agains't experienced survivors or swf you don't usually even get chance to tunnel 5 gens left as 2 gens will pop even if you're first chase is short. I only tunnel at 5 gens when I know they're gen rush squad actually multiple gens are going to pop soon or if survivors bring map offering.
I think the key point that gets missed is not whether or not someone needs to tunnel to win or whether or not a scenario calls for it as the best play.
The point everyone seems to miss is... is it ok to tunnel?... and the answer is yes it is.
Whom the killer chooses to target is entirely up to the killer and if eliminating someone early is the goal then that is a completely legitimate goal within the confines of the game rules.
Its up to the survivors to do their best to avoid it.
That is the game of DBD.
What is sad is how much players attack each other over it simply because they got eliminated early from a game.
It speaks volumes about the people who engage in attacking other players over game mechanics and I assure you even if tunnelling was eliminated in every form, this same crowd would find a new excuse to attack other players and absolve themselves of any responsibility for game outcome.
One could almost make the argument that tunnelling is essential to these players now as it creates the perfect excuse to hang all their blame and angst on when they get eliminated. Camping and gen rushing and several perks serve the same purpose.
I almost wonder how these people would react if they got what they wanted and every element of the game they didn't like was removed, what would they blame their shortcomings and losses on? Surely not themselves and their own shortcomings god forbid.
-
I don't condone it I mean its unnecessary to play like that and having a bad game previously isn't really an excuse for doing so.
But let's play devil's advocate a little here, you could at least appreciate the slasher film nature of a game like that.
I mean its thematically on point and finding even the positive in that kind of experience can often just improve your outlook on games in general.
People talk about bullying a lot in this game but I gotta admit when playing survivor I'm more forgiving of the killer being a jerk for a couple of reasons.
Most killer jerk moves have a timer, 4 mins bleed out, 3min hook state and you die, leave game and move on. The game still progresses albeit much slower than normal. Because there is a timer that ends these things that is mostly outside the killers control so while things stall they don't tend to stall much beyond the timers.
It often fits the theme, a killer trying to murder me in the most brutal way kinda works because, for example I wouldn't expect leatherface as a character to be thinking of my feelings.
So I'm happy to forgive a lil more jerk on the killer side just because as someone who likes this game for the theme it strikes me as a thematically appropriate way for the killer to play if they choose.
(Not everyone will agree with me on this and they don't have to... but before you accuse me of supporting bad behaviour just take a moment and think about your outlook on the game and how much a game like this ruins your fun, what I'm saying is only a perception to help reduce your own frustration if this sort of thing upsets you... so give the point of view a try before you call me the devil).
Whereas jerk survivor behaviour, it typically involves mob mentality which is usually unpleasant, it's generally out of character thematically, but its harmless for the most part because as pointed out by others bobbing up and down can't hurt you or impact the game so why let it.
But when coordinated teams really commit it tends to stall the game completely, you can group chain locker stun and blind the killer for 30mins of 0 game progression if you like and I've seen it and I've played teams who've tried it.
So the most egregious offences killers tend to employ typically have a timer that's largely out of their control so you can leave game and move on, the same isn't necessarily true for the most egregious survivor offences.
Fortunately games like this tend to be rare, buts it's more likely you'll come across a killer hell bent on playing like this than a full group of survivors out to stun lock you... still I think it's a lil more forgivable from the killer because well I don't expect to be murdered politely.
-
@Bartlaus said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376343#Comment_3376343
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376405#Comment_3376405
Wise words my friends, but honestly, arguing with such people is a waste of time. That's one of the reasons why I ignore a lot of the comments here.
I don't know why some people have to torpedo constructive threads like this one. Some just want to troll. Others are biased or don't get the point of the thread. I also sometimes wonder what the motivation behind certain comments is. There are definitely some reasons... attention seeking? Pushing comment count? Hoping for Vote Ups? Idk
Nonetheless, I'm happy to see that there are still people on the forums who aren't one-sided biased and who are actively trying to improve the game. Even if it's just a small change. That's why I continue to support your idea in the hope that the devs will take notice.
@Vhillain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376343#Comment_3376343
I've already identified this guy as a troll based on his weak responses, constant repetition even when the arguments were debunked or further information requested, refusal to directly acknowledge points and fall back on "well you guys said it's annoying and this is a horror game so that's the only points I'll talk about" and making things personal, yet pointing the finger at us for that aspect. I'm done engaging with him, in anything other than asking him to leave if this doesn't matter to him, lest this fall into an even further pointless circle.
Thank you for all of your reasonable (not just because we agree!) feedback on this thread and the attempts to shed light and reason on the topic. Regardless of what he said we are allowed to agree with each other without it being "mistaking your opinion for fact.", at the end of the day we can support each other in what we wish to happen in this game, regardless of the opinions of someone who seeks nothing more than a rise out of people.
"I don't find this a problem so neither should you", is an argument that could be made about literally anything, but is historically proven unhealthy, as this is a manipulative mentality and stance to have. Sure some people on this forum are ridiculous with their requests and are absolutely crybabies, but our request is genuinely reasonable and the solution already exists in the game. If we don't talk about what we find a problem, we all become sheep or a hivemind, and that is not a real humane community. We are allowed to disagree and that should never be challenged with a "I don't care though" if he didn't care, he would have been gone long ago. Him not caring does not mean we should not care too, his first comment on this thread ended with a "change your perspective" and his current last comment ended with a "I hope they don't change it because I think it's fine", as if he needed any more ways to say "My opinion is the only one that matters" That attitude needs to look itself in the mirror before telling others that they are mistaking opinion for fact.
Today BHVR announced the coming changes to the bloodweb people have asked for for ages, I guarantee this is something a small percentage of people "didn't see as an issue", but the majority definitely wanted the change, and this wasn't even something that actually impacts you inside the game at all. If nobody mentioned it, or those who did mention it were met with "well I don't care so neither should you" at every turn, this great change would not be coming soon. BHVR has been making great changes to this game over the last year that I've been playing.
He's arguing just for the sake of arguing, regardless of whether we agree with some of his points or not, and claims that to be a consistency issue. I don't think it's inconsistent at all to say, "Hey this is irritating to me when it absolutely changed the outcome of my game, but if there's times where the gen explodes and nothing comes out of it I really don't care that much about it in those moments", it's just admitting there is some of his claims I can agree with, even if we don't agree fully.
But I digress, it was made quite clear in his last reply to me what he seeks from us, and I'm done feeding the troll.
You do realize all I did was offer another perspective about why its not that bad and nothing to get annoyed by and they both reacted like I asked them to murder their grandmother.
If you read a lot of the replies too they really are just rambling and counter intuitive, but I guess when you point this out its just being trollish.
There are ways to play this game without getting annoyed at it even if you don't think a particular mechanic is very good. I think the player interaction in game would be a lot more pleasant if people just stopped being so angry over the game and accepted a few things aren't as bad as they seem.
But that's a different discussion from the topic at hand and the current discussion derailed long ago.
I have been nothing but consistent and logical in my point, even as the topic devolved and that hasn't changed here either.
The other point even if the topic devolves I don't harbor any real animosity toward anyone is this thread or any other thread because its only a game and not really that important.
Feel free to demonize me and my perspective as you see fit though, we are all just anonymous people on a gaming forum and it really isn't that important. If sensibilities are harmed due to this exchange then well... have a coke and a smoke and move on.
-
@Dogma_loki said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376207#Comment_3376207
Intentionally forcing someone out of a game for some perceived "statistical advantage" or whatever broke or lame reason killers mains and the devs love to throw around is absolutely grounds for being unhappy. If survivors were allowed to indiscriminately remove killers from the match for their own gain you guys would throw a massive fit. But nah, gotta love the double standards in this game.
But please, keep on with the mental gymnastics. Its amusing.
You do realize that the entire goal of the killer player is to indiscriminately remove a survivor player from the game.
Making avoiding this the main threat that survivors are trying to escape from.
That's not mental gymnastics that's just the game as designed. It is amusing that you don't understand this because its pretty obvious.
Any method within the confines of the rules to achieve those goals is legitimate play, no matter how much the player base wants to make excuses for game outcome and attack each other over perceived slights.
-
@09SHARKBOSS said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376207#Comment_3376207
if you camp on purpose you need to not play killer anymore
sorry but that's just a bad attitude and it makes for a bad gaming community.
-
@Vhillain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376118#Comment_3376118
"If a single one of these RNG events are enough to win or lose you the game then its was either snow balling for or against you to begin with." Situation last night - 2 gens left, teammate on death hook and injured, comes up to me for healing, i let go, generator explodes, killer is now alerted to our position and immediately comes (he wasn't that far away), happily taking their free kill, ignoring me attempting to bodyblock, and the game becoming a 3v1 which snowballed into a loss because of a 7%. We were in a winnable position until this happened. These kind of situations are a lot more common than you may think, they are definitely impactful.
"You and a lot of the posters giving examples that you have praised have placed far to much emphasis on the impact of these events." Because the event and it's impact is important to proving the point. These aren't feelings, these aren't hypotheticals, these are facts, but when I provide facts and examples it's "too much emphasis".
"There isn't a trip mechanic but if the chances were small enough it probably wouldn't be that game breaking to stall a chase from time to time. Just as its not that game breaking to whiff a hit due to aim dressing from time to time these are not extreme examples whereas yours is basically a mechanic that just undoes all benefits gained and why is here's why RNG is bad because of crazy beyond ridiculous example. Couldn't you tell the lack of logic here in you own point." Just because something doesn't completely break the game does not mean it isn't worth addressing and changing. Sometimes people don't get their Adept achievements due to a bug, this bug does not functionally change the game at all, but was addressed, because it was an issue. Issues get changed because people talk about them and make them known. The steam achievements didn't matter to me because I completed every achievement in the game when they were working on a fix, but I am happy they did fix it nonetheless. You know why? Because I support changes to the game that will make people happy and enjoy it more, even if it has no impact on my own game or that I don't care about. Is this perspective wrong?
"Almost all game have an RNG element even PVP ones that add some form on increase or decrease to outcome success. About the only fixed variable game out there is chess and game like it. A lot of these are as simple as variable spawn point, map or item iteration" Yes, but these examples you pointed out can be positive or negative and it's a gamble that even DBD has regardless of which side you choose, it's also ACCEPTABLE RNG. In most cases the RNG you provide as an example does not purely negatively impact the players as it gets balanced out by the positives: "I got The Game on GhostFace and hate my life" is then "I got Midwich on Sadako and life is good". There is never a situation where these random automatic fail skillchecks are positive, they only happen in situations where it will hinder your gameplay as a survivor. You only let go of interactions to do something else that is more important at the moment.
"You can get this challenging experience even if you aren't currently interacting with the killer making even the solo game interesting" It's not challenging though, it's an automatic fail that harms the gameplay experience, there's nothing "challenging" about letting go of an interaction.
"Still all this is for naught because at the very heart of this discussion is your rational for the removal of said mechanic which is... it annoys you... frankly that isn't enough of a reason to rework how the game works." The annoyance is a factor that comes from the core problem of being punished by a random chance that is not in the influence of either side by attempting to make the most optimal play for your team, but sure, keep saying it's ALL emotional and that this invalidates any argument I could make. Whatever makes you feel like you have the high ground. I'm not asking them to rework the game at all, I'm asking for a single mechanic to not auto fail, this is not too much to ask for, and still you argue as if your opinion is the only one that matters, that we are all just silly little guys who don't want to be scared in scary game.
"Now we've truly come full circle, your options are to be annoyed or not, reconsider what I've already said or remain annoyed it makes no difference to me, I'm not annoyed by it for the reasons outlined." This is a very narrow minded choice, there are more than two options. We can also come here and ask the developers directly to reconsider the mechanic. I'm not annoyed by this mechanic most of the time that it comes up, because you are right that it isn't impactful all of the time, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations where this mechanic does have an influence, and this influence does need to be addressed. Will it negatively impact your gameplay experience if they removed the auto skillcheck fail? Or will it genuinely not matter? If you aren't annoyed by it, I would hope you choose the latter and leave us alone, so it can be changed for the people that it actually does matter to.
You’ve countered your own points again.
try and keep some consistency. It’s hard to follow what you are saying anymore.
I am annoyed but I’m not annoyed ok sure.
This thing happened once and swung the game ignoring all the times it had no real effect. It’s 7% But I’m not overstating it’s importance. Uh ok.
I’m paranoid about stopping an action as it breaks the game but it’s not challenging to the gameplay. Ok it seems to challenge you.
I’m not emotional but easily and quickly get agitated making me a lil irrational and defensive. No that’s fine.
I’m not scared because it’s not a horror game but I’m paranoid about stopping an action because of this. The aversion and paranoia is a part of your fight or flight response which is born of fear so I’d wager you are more afraid of it than you admit to yourself.
I’ve got a lot of opinions and have collected the opinions of others but I agree with those opinions so they must be fact. Ooh the great fallacy of mistaking your opinion for fact.
All I offered was an alternative rationale for not being annoyed by this mechanic and you fought tooth and nail to deny that I may have a point.
I want this mechanic removed… why because it annoying.
I hope they don’t remove it because I think it’s fine and if it annoys people and tilts them into playing poorly to the point they lose entire games over it than more power to it. Does the RNG lose games or does your overreaction to it lose games. Because the impact of the RNG is minimal at best out side of some very specific examples that from a gameplay perspective seem just fine to me.
-
Sounds like you made some good calls at the end and walked away with a 3k, well played.
What to do better well for starters don’t listen to folks in endgame chat they don’t know any better than anyone else.
Play around with the visual settings and ask yourself win or lose are you having fun? If yes then keep doing what you’re doing.
-
Or just ignore all this and play how you want.
-
@Cassiopeiae said:
Blatant tunneling deserves every pinch of salt it gets and more.
Strategic tunneling is a valid strategy.
An example of non strategic, salt-worthy tunneling would be The Pig tunneling an active trap.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/AEPM7KZ8TWQM/screenshot-58.png
A strategic tunnel would be facing a weak link in a SWF and killing them early.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/WODENQ99HVY4/screenshot-59.png
No tunnelling justifies being salty. No matter how you dress it up.
Neither does camping or gen rushing.
Being a sore loser who gets upset about a game is never justified.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376018#Comment_3376018
The reality is if the mechanic makes sense functionally and thematically
This is the part that you don't get: This does not make any sense functionally or thematically.
Thematically, because DBD is not a horror game. And even if it were, this doesn't 'add tension'. When a gen blows up when I let go of it, I'm not feeling any kind of scary tension. I just get annoyed. Scary would be good, but this is just annoying. No one is getting scared over their gen blowing up on its own when they let it go.
And functionally, because this kind of game design is liked by probably less than 1% of the playerbase. Random chance to lose has always been a terrible element in any game that implements it, which is why no one does implement it. The only other instance I can think of was the tripping mechanic in Smash Bros Brawl, which people -loathed-, and it was removed in following instalments in the series.
Additionally, invasive RNG like that runs counter to the value of the game. Your example of a chance of fumbling a fast vault would directly reduce player agency. You can practice your looping and you can master a specific cell and know how to run it against every killer. But all that skill expression gets tossed out of the window when the game randomly dictates that you lose, through no fault of your own.
This component of the game is just plain awful and should be fixed.
"I just get annoyed" that's a you problem not a reason to change the game.
"liked by 1% of the player base" That's an assumption a very weak argument to make. People often over estimate opinions that agree with them and underestimate the reverse, there is a lot of good research on why and how we do this. Its worth reading.
I'm not saying all RNG is good but in this case the specific item being discussed isn't as impactful and game breaking and people like to bemoan and if it results in game loss then things were likely not going your way to begin with, so again a very weak premise you have here.
I still maintain that for an RNG element this one isn't that bad and it kinda makes sense in game terms so it's an acceptable thing. Which has been my point all along and what I clearly rationally explained.
"RNG runs counter to the value of the game, why because it represents a loss of player agency or license" Lets dissect this one objectively. Loss of license (or player agency) is one of the core mechanics in DBD, you spend time on the ground or hanging on a hook unable to engage in your objective, which is a complete loss of player agency.
One side's entire goal is to remove the agency of the opponent, so how does a minor mechanic that removes player agency run counter to the "value" of the game. Especially when the entire premise of the game is to impose, or avoid, loss of player agency.
By that logic the entire game's premise is flawed and needs to be fixed which begs the question why do you play it if you dislike it so much at its core?
This is what I mean when I say weak arguments, it's really poorly thought out and often hard to logically justify. I'm happy to entertain a differing opinion but make it a rational one. Take more time to think between posts if you need would be my advice.
In any case the point has been made on this one. I'd say its time to move on.
-
@Vhillain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3376018#Comment_3376018
"Extreme hyperbolic scenario"? Sorry I thought it was "spice of life that keeps things interesting" and "RNG keeps things exciting" , but I guess it can't work both ways can it? Suddenly another situation that is a similar scenario on the other side is a ridiculous comparison.
"One good example would be if you had a chance to trip when performing fast vaults that prevented you from getting the speed boost." So we can't give examples to fit our point, but you can? What makes this not an "extreme hyperbolic scenario"? You realize in my example the reason it is similar is because the killer could choose to cancel their objective and be punished for cancelling by random chance. It's a direct comparison to the core issue, your example is "people should always have a chance to miss out regardless of what they do" how is this a good argument? It completely misses the mark. It impacts the pvp experience. When you lose to RNG it feels #########, when you win because of someone else's bad RNG it feels dirty, or unrewarding/unshowing of your actual skill as a player, at least it does for me. I don't like being handed wins, personally.
"For your killer swing example, aim dressing does this to some extent" And guess what? People want to opt out of aim dressing too, it's another thing in this game that bothers me amongst many other players substantially. Losing due to factors that are out of your control.
"That way people wouldn't interpret it as an auto failing skill check and feel helpless when it happens, rather its just a thematic risk to stopping an action early. Which mixes up gameplay and is mechanically and thematically appropriate." Well unfortunately it IS an auto failing skillcheck, and no change in perspective can sway from the raw facts. You've mentioned arguing from emotions before, but I see a lot more "meh I don't care I like RNG" coming from you while I put down plenty of examples, references, as well as questions still left unanswered, see: "You did not provide examples from other games that you claim have RNG involved that can swing a win or loss, I'd ask you to back up this claim" or "Why does Overcharge and Merciless Storm which are actual killer perks not punish you for letting go, but random chance does?" (Paraphrased)
You also still have yet to mention how any of your points are beneficial to a pvp gameplay experience. You keep bringing up horror as if that's anything and everything this game is about. Something being "interesting" for your gameplay doesn't mean it is balanced for a pvp experience, if keeping things interesting was always the intention the Finishing Mori and Basekit Unbreakable would have already been passed through, but maybe things being interesting isn't all that it's about is it? This game has plenty of fun to be had without needing these random skillchecks to add supposed "flavor".
If a single one of these RNG events are enough to win or lose you the game then its was either snow balling for or against you to begin with.
You and a lot of the posters giving examples that you have praised have placed far to much emphasis on the impact of these events.
Lets just analyze one of your scenarios eh "if the killer chooses to drop the survivor to chase the friend the survivor has a 7% chance to instantly struggle free and recover from the dying state." That is pretty impactful beyond even the small ratio chance of it occurring and really is a bit of a silly example. So yeah making extreme examples to make you point seem more relevant without any real logical or rational point to it other than "imagine this then!" is a really weak way to argue a point.
There isn't a trip mechanic but if the chances were small enough it probably wouldn't be that game breaking to stall a chase from time to time. Just as its not that game breaking to whiff a hit due to aim dressing from time to time these are not extreme examples whereas yours is basically a mechanic that just undoes all benefits gained and why is here's why RNG is bad because of crazy beyond ridiculous example. Couldn't you tell the lack of logic here in you own point.
Almost all game have an RNG element even PVP ones that add some form on increase or decrease to outcome success. About the only fixed variable game out there is chess and game like it. A lot of these are as simple as variable spawn point, map or item iteration.
Because overcharge and merciless storm don't work like that read their perk descriptions.
"You also still have yet to mention how any of your points are beneficial to a pvp gameplay experience."
Here is my post on PVP and general game fun and how RNG element is beneficial even if the game is PVP.
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3374478#Comment_3374478
I still disagree, even from a pvp perspective. Not every element in a pvp game has to be due to player interaction.
If you never had any negative impact on your game outside of interaction with the killer then basically if not interacting with the killer you are guaranteed success in what you’re doing. That doesn’t sound very balanced or interesting does it?
There is an element of failure even when not interacting with the killer. Skill checks are going to pop up at random. Doesn’t matter if your goal is to finish the objective or 99 it, when you release you may get that bad outcome and that’s ok.
That lil bit of RNG keeps things exciting. You are making the right choice but still have to risk a bad outcome when doing so. Just because you make what you feel is the right choice doesn’t mean you should be guaranteed success.
In this case it’s even more appropriate given the theme of the game. I have considered your perspective and I’ve found it lacking in validity. By your own admission you described it as annoying, which is an emotional reaction.
So I say again it’s a good mechanic that keeps things exciting maybe lowering your expectation of always being rewarded when you feel you are right might make the game less annoying for you. It shouldn’t be annoying it should be fun and a bit of RNG unpredictability is part of the fun.
- You can get this challenging experience even if you aren't currently interacting with the killer making even the solo game interesting - first point applicable to PVP setting.
I think you hyperfocus on the concept that player has to be the sole input in a PVP setting. It usually isn't and when it is it often leads to very formulaic game design.
Still all this is for naught because at the very heart of this discussion is your rational for the removal of said mechanic which is... it annoys you... frankly that isn't enough of a reason to rework how the game works.
Furthermore what you've provided in all this highly verbose back and forth amounts to not much more than "hey it still annoys you" So I go back to my original point, which you were very quick to jump on,...
Perhaps a change of perspective is in order, here are some rational ways to change that perspective and not be annoyed by something that kinda works thematically and has minimal impact practically.
Now we've truly come full circle, your options are to be annoyed or not, reconsider what I've already said or remain annoyed it makes no difference to me, I'm not annoyed by it for the reasons outlined.
-
@Vhillain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3375707#Comment_3375707
"How would you feel if we applied this logic everywhere? Whenever the killer swings, there's a 4% chance they drop their weapon instead. Whenever you try to drop a pallet, there's a chance you accidentally down yourself. Whenever you pick a hex perk, there's a 5% chance it just fails to spawn."
Thank you, I was thinking of arguing something along these lines myself, very well said. If survivors can get punished for attempting to make the right play in their objectives, I guess we should just add a random punishment to everything because it's "exciting" and "horrifying". Imagine if killers were carrying someone to a hook, and the hook got sabotaged, even though they carried for 4 seconds and the base wiggle timer is 16 seconds, if the killer chooses to drop the survivor to chase the friend the survivor has a 7% chance to instantly struggle free and recover from the dying state. Imagine the outrage of killer players? Their objective would be set back, their character would be stunned, and all they attempted to do was make the right play given circumstance - cancel their objective temporarily to change targets in the meantime.
It certainly sounds quite ridiculous when we put the same kind of circumstances to different objectives.
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3375564#Comment_3375564
Why should you have perfect result when “not doing anything wrong” as you put it.
A 'perfect result' would be hitting the great skillcheck. We're talking about not getting punished for not failing something.
A little RNG keeps things exciting and adds risk to even good decisions. Taking that away makes the game more bland and predictable. Which is a bad thing.
How would you feel if we applied this logic everywhere? Whenever the killer swings, there's a 4% chance they drop their weapon instead. Whenever you try to drop a pallet, there's a chance you accidentally down yourself. Whenever you pick a hex perk, there's a 5% chance it just fails to spawn.
Furthermore the rationale for taking it away here is I don’t like missing the skill check when I choose to 99 something rather than finish it, get rid of it so I don’t t have to worry about it.
That's not at all what's being argued here! Practically no one 99s gens or heals. People 99 the exit gate, but guess what? That thing doesn't get skill checks!
As for it not being a horror game last time I checked Texas chainsaw massacre, Halloween and nightmare on elm street weren’t romantic comedies.
That's part of the 'horror setting, not horror game'.
”It had a horror setting but it’s not a horror game” I’m pretty sure a game where the goal is to not get slaughtered by a homicidal maniac could be called a horror game. Just because it’s devolved into a Scooby doo loopy chase farce over the years doesn’t mean it isn’t still in the horror genre. The only thing that makes dbd less of a horror game is the loss consequences for survivors when playing thus reducing game tension.
If that is all it takes to be a horror game, literally every MOBA is a horror game. Camazotz, Urgot, Pudge and Azmodan would make SMITE, LoL, DotA and HotS into horror games. Are they? Are they really?
Yes, it is in the horror genre. But it is not a horror game. The gameplay does not revolve around horror. Ask anyone who's played this for more than two hours how scary the game is and they'll rate it around a 3 out of 10.
The more tense the survivor experience the more interesting the game. The RNG adds to that tension and is a good thing.
RNG might, but not this. This just adds frustration and imbalance to a competitive PvP game.
But you know what? You can have what you want.
Just make an opt-in toggle for random events to screw you over, so you can get your RNG horror, and everyone else can just play the game.
Ah the ol how would you feel if they implemented this extreme hyperbolic scenario argument.
The reality is if the mechanic makes sense functionally and thematically almost any RNG can add a lil flavour to the game. One good example would be if you had a chance to trip when performing fast vaults that prevented you from getting the speed boost. Running full speed and jumping through a window is risky business and a small chance of failure would keep it interesting.
For your killer swing example, aim dressing does this to some extent, when you are amongst a bunch of trash or bushes there is a change your swing will autotune you to smack a barrel or a tree. This is appropriate as swinging around a weapon amongst a heap of obstacles should grant a chance of failure not present when swinging at someone in the open.
I don't need to rely on extreme examples to make my point just logical ones.
In the specific case being discussed here the 7% chance for an auto failing skill check when stopping a task. Maybe your objection stems from the fact that a skill check spawns. Perhaps just having a 7% chance of gen exploding or heal failing when stopping early representing the chances you fumble when stopping abruptly.
That way people wouldn't interpret it as an auto failing skill check and feel helpless when it happens, rather its just a thematic risk to stopping an action early. Which mixes up gameplay and is mechanically and thematically appropriate.
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3375564#Comment_3375564
Why should you have perfect result when “not doing anything wrong” as you put it.
A 'perfect result' would be hitting the great skillcheck. We're talking about not getting punished for not failing something.
A little RNG keeps things exciting and adds risk to even good decisions. Taking that away makes the game more bland and predictable. Which is a bad thing.
How would you feel if we applied this logic everywhere? Whenever the killer swings, there's a 4% chance they drop their weapon instead. Whenever you try to drop a pallet, there's a chance you accidentally down yourself. Whenever you pick a hex perk, there's a 5% chance it just fails to spawn.
Furthermore the rationale for taking it away here is I don’t like missing the skill check when I choose to 99 something rather than finish it, get rid of it so I don’t t have to worry about it.
That's not at all what's being argued here! Practically no one 99s gens or heals. People 99 the exit gate, but guess what? That thing doesn't get skill checks!
As for it not being a horror game last time I checked Texas chainsaw massacre, Halloween and nightmare on elm street weren’t romantic comedies.
That's part of the 'horror setting, not horror game'.
”It had a horror setting but it’s not a horror game” I’m pretty sure a game where the goal is to not get slaughtered by a homicidal maniac could be called a horror game. Just because it’s devolved into a Scooby doo loopy chase farce over the years doesn’t mean it isn’t still in the horror genre. The only thing that makes dbd less of a horror game is the loss consequences for survivors when playing thus reducing game tension.
If that is all it takes to be a horror game, literally every MOBA is a horror game. Camazotz, Urgot, Pudge and Azmodan would make SMITE, LoL, DotA and HotS into horror games. Are they? Are they really?
Yes, it is in the horror genre. But it is not a horror game. The gameplay does not revolve around horror. Ask anyone who's played this for more than two hours how scary the game is and they'll rate it around a 3 out of 10.
The more tense the survivor experience the more interesting the game. The RNG adds to that tension and is a good thing.
RNG might, but not this. This just adds frustration and imbalance to a competitive PvP game.
But you know what? You can have what you want.
Just make an opt-in toggle for random events to screw you over, so you can get your RNG horror, and everyone else can just play the game.
None of this really answers the points made. Re-read it please and try again or not I don't mind either way, basically you are going in circles and I've answered all the counter points you made already so unless you can offer further rational for them then there's not much point really.
-
@Vhillain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3375579#Comment_3375579
It's not exciting to let go of a generator to avoid pain resonance/DMS and the gen double explode to lose 26% progress. But we can agree to disagree. I'll say one final time, it's a skill check. "skill" being the key word. It's not "rewarding" to still have to hit a skill check, but it's not punishing automatically, which is the entire point, there are no situations where this random skillcheck you cannot react to is positive to gameplay, RNG is supposed to go either way, not be purely negative. If we cannot agree on this then I am done talking to you as this is going in circles and utterly pointless, you find my points lacking in validity, I find yours. Lets drop it.
So the tension and paranoia you described at having to worry about whether you'll get this skill check failure isn't exciting?
"this game has this constant state of paranoia that you don't WANT to let go because if you get one of those badly timed 7% chance skill checks you will automatically miss no matter what because the game said so, and then whatever plan you had is immediately backfired." From your OP.
One could make the argument in this setting that risk = excitement.
My point is that guaranteed success is less exciting than the RNG provided by the thrill of potential failure.
This RNG does go either way, you either get the skill check or you don't that's the RNG. When you don't get it you automatically succeed and when you do you fail but the latter is far less likely than the former (7%) making it relatively balanced.
If you re-read our exchanges we haven't really gone in circles I've addressed each point directly as you've brought it up. I accept where you are coming from but I don't think you've really thought it through.
To sum up
- A heightened state of tension is appropriate for the setting
- The RNG nature of the autofail skill check creates this tension
- It happens rarely enough to not be a common occurrence but is persistent enough of a threat to make it an ongoing concern/consideration helping maintain thematic game tension
- If it doesn't occur you auto succeed making auto success the more common outcome, this makes viable positive and negative outcomes for the RNG. The action in this case is choosing to stop an interaction
- Even if stopping an interaction is the right choice it ensures that all choices have some inherent risk making the game exciting and challenging
- You can get this challenging experience even if you aren't currently interacting with the killer making even the solo game interesting
All of these points seem positive to me and make for a better game.
-
New dead hard is really a shadow of its former self. It lost a lot.
Its still can be a bit of a get out of jail free card though so you are gonna see it run a lot and when used well it can extend a chase but that's what its for.
The problem lies in the broader issue that chasing on the whole often isn't worth it.
At base the time sink to chase is often not worth the return so dead hard still has a disproportionate feeling when it comes to getting a down and hook.
Its why 3 gen'ing and tunneling make the most sense in a lot of games. Chasing 4x people separately usually isn't that efficient even without deadhard, when you add 4x dead hard it becomes less efficient.
Its not that deadhard is OP its that sinking your time into multiple chases is rarely worth the payoff. At least not till you get it down to 3v1, at that point deadhard becomes largely irrelevant.
-
@LismJack said:
One time i was injured (can't heal )and do the gens with a Feng , we are doing the gens to 90% , then the killer is coming , I want to leave soon because I'm injured, so I let out the gen , it end up a skill check and boom .
Feng can't finish the gen by herself because of that stupid skill check , imagine if that gen is important like the last gen and that is the only chance you can repair it to 100% .
Although it is a rare situation , but when it happen , it is so damn Frustrating and I will just quit the game after the match .
Why is it so frustrating that it makes you quit? that’s completely ridiculous.
There is an old saying that if you rage at dice rolls you probably shouldn’t play games with dice.
Most games have a lil RNG involved and it can sometimes swing a win or a loss. That’s not a bad thing though. It stops every scenario being in your favour and makes for interesting and varied outcomes.
It also rare enough to only have an impact some of the time, thus it’s not really game breaking but always a considered risk. Making it a pretty good mechanic.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong if you feel frustrated by the game then its a good idea to walk away from it for a bit, but it just seems kinda silly to get frustrated over something so trivial in game terms.
-
@Vhillain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3374458#Comment_3374458
This is positive in a horror perspective yes, but negative in a player versus player experience. This game is not balanced around horror, it's balanced around PVP. These situations impact the PVP experience 100% negatively and should be addressed. Perhaps you should take another perspective before telling someone else to.
I still disagree, even from a pvp perspective. Not every element in a pvp game has to be due to player interaction.
If you never had any negative impact on your game outside of interaction with the killer then basically if not interacting with the killer you are guaranteed success in what you’re doing. That doesn’t sound very balanced or interesting does it?
There is an element of failure even when not interacting with the killer. Skill checks are going to pop up at random. Doesn’t matter if your goal is to finish the objective or 99 it, when you release you may get that bad outcome and that’s ok.
That lil bit of RNG keeps things exciting. You are making the right choice but still have to risk a bad outcome when doing so. Just because you make what you feel is the right choice doesn’t mean you should be guaranteed success.
In this case it’s even more appropriate given the theme of the game. I have considered your perspective and I’ve found it lacking in validity. By your own admission you described it as annoying, which is an emotional reaction.
So I say again it’s a good mechanic that keeps things exciting maybe lowering your expectation of always being rewarded when you feel you are right might make the game less annoying for you. It shouldn’t be annoying it should be fun and a bit of RNG unpredictability is part of the fun.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3374458#Comment_3374458
DBD is not a horror game. It uses horror for its setting, worldbuilding and aesthetics, but it's not a horror game.
"I want 0 chance of failure when I'm trying to do something."
That is not at all what's being argued. A better summary would be 'I want zero chance of failure when I'm not doing anything wrong'.
Why should you have perfect result when “not doing anything wrong” as you put it.
A little RNG keeps things exciting and adds risk to even good decisions. Taking that away makes the game more bland and predictable. Which is a bad thing.
Furthermore the rationale for taking it away here is I don’t like missing the skill check when I choose to 99 something rather than finish it, get rid of it so I don’t t have to worry about it.
As for it not being a horror game last time I checked Texas chainsaw massacre, Halloween and nightmare on elm street weren’t romantic comedies.
”It had a horror setting but it’s not a horror game” I’m pretty sure a game where the goal is to not get slaughtered by a homicidal maniac could be called a horror game. Just because it’s devolved into a Scooby doo loopy chase farce over the years doesn’t mean it isn’t still in the horror genre. The only thing that makes dbd less of a horror game is the loss consequences for survivors when playing thus reducing game tension.
The more tense the survivor experience the more interesting the game. The RNG adds to that tension and is a good thing.
-
I think its time to remove the killer all together.
4 people fixing gens and then leaving now that's a game.
I like my horror experience with the least amount of threats, unknowns and risks possible.
If they can't remove the killer then I, at the very least, want every piece of information I need at all times to make sure I'm always making the best decision possible and have constant affirmation of that.
Basically I want a game experience where I never have to guess about what might be happening, I want to feel safe that even in this nightmare realm populated by homicidal monsters I've always got a safety net and am never really under any threat whatsoever.
-
Chase them out the door and move on. Done.
-
I hope not.
I hope they scrap the idea.
Moris were great because they let the game play out like a horror movie, sometimes you'd get slaughtered. That variability was interesting.
Removing them will further cut back on game variation.
Lets make this already kinda repetitive game experience even more predictable and repetitive by taking away alternative ways to die.
They are improving the game experience by making sure there is less in it, which is just nuts.
The mori has gone from a threatening game mechanic that cap stoned a chase with a rewarding pay off to an endgame cut scene that will eventually just get skipped over to hurry up to the next game.
Why not just set it to the wah wah wah waaaah sound effect to highlight what a joke its become.
I miss the days when DBD was an actual horror game.
-
@Vhillain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3372619#Comment_3372619
"Horrifying" is not the word I would use to describe it at all, there's nothing scary about it. The "paranoia" is not an actual fear, it's not wanting to get screwed over by something out of your control.
By asking for this to be changed due to it being *unhealthy game design* is not because we don't want to be scared, it's because we don't want to get cucked by a mechanic in situations where this is absolutely nothing we can do about it. I don't want to assume you are a killer main just based on your profile picture and how you are talking about this frustrating mechanic being intended to be "scary", but you talk as if you have never experienced this. Cancelling an interaction to benefit your team should not have an invisible risk attached to it. I'm not "scared" when i try to 99 my teammate's heal and the game makes me miss a skillcheck the exact frame that I let go, I'm just plain annoyed and frustrated that we now have to waste further time for trying to make the optimal play.
Stop defending this mechanic as if it's something positive, it is not.
Lets look at the elements that make this an uncomfortable outcome.
I happens at random - fear the unknown.
I has consequences you can't avoid - Fear the reprisal
There are no positives about it - Fear the consequences.
Nothing in this setting comes without risk making it a great survival horror experience.
"Cancelling an interaction for the benefit of your team should not have an invisible risk attached to it"... Seriously I mean just re-read this in the context of what you are asking for. I want to do stuff risk free in a horror survival setting.
Actions contain risk and that risk is healthy for the game given the theme.
If you want a risk free happy experience then a horror environment might not be the setting for it.
Its like going to see a scary movie with lots of gore and being upset that you felt uncomfortable when you were paranoid about being scared and seeing lots of gore.
Its a perfectly positive mechanic in the context of this game's setting and induces the very emotions that a horror setting is meant to induce.
Stop asking for the horror experienced to be watered down because you don't like the risk involved.
"I'm not scared when I'm trying to 99 a team mates heal" ok great you aren't scared... but you are trying to 99 a mechanic and want to be able to do that without any form of risk or repercussion,
"I want 0 chance of failure when I'm trying to do something." Doesn't sound like a good change to me. The game doesn't have to adapt to your inability to handle failure. And yes being annoyed at what happens (as you describe yourself) is a you problem not a game problem.