pseudechis
pseudechis
About
- Username
- pseudechis
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617547#Comment_3617547
I'm sure there are players who are here only for the competitive PVP aspect regardless of the setting but do we have to cater for only them?
You lose nothing of the theme if the game is balanced better. Conversely, if you intentionally imbalance the game, you do fully alienate the competitive players.
If you think the horror theme isn't important to DBD then you have completely missed the point of DBD. If you don't like or appreciate the horror element... why not find a non-horror game to play?
In case you hadn't noticed: DBD has -no- competition. The closest thing is TCM, which does the horror element far better. So why aren't you moving there if you think the horror element is so important?
Fall guys is great - I play it because it's a laugh. I don't need them to change fall guys into a bloodbath with graphic depictions of violence and blood because I play it for the funny jelly bean fun. That's its theme and it important.
MWO is big mechs bashing on each other, based in a sci fi world. The weapons, gameplay, maps and setting are all appropriate to the theme.
It's a rather phenomenal leap to assume that DBD becomes rainbows and lollipops over the game not being balanced in the killer's favour. It's also a leap to assume there's no way to make the theme work with a balanced game-set.
All in all, it just sounds like more begging for killer buffs.
We don’t need to buff killer. There is a 60-40 split on game outcome that favours killer. Killer is in a sweet spot right now.
If you think I’m saying buff killer then you missed the point again. Nice cheap shot but way off, try harder.
You don’t have to alienate competitive players in order to keep to theme. That’s another just as weak a shot.
DBD clearly has a healthy base of competitive players. A good chunk of the whining on these forums is about how people playing to win ruins other people’s fun. People are playing to win aka competitive.
My point hasn’t changed. The killer bias in outcome isn’t a bad thing and suites the game well. I’d say thematically it’s pretty well balanced and the gameplay is generally good as a result. It’s thrilling to play survivor as a result and that’s fitting for gameplay and theme.
I don’t need to play another horror game I like dbd.
If balance means watering down the threat to survival and making the game more generically mechanical rather than thematically thrilling, then yeah people are trying to make it sunshine and lollipops in the name of balance.
One of the silliest things I’ve ever read on these forums was someone saying. “They need to balance the game because currently they never feel safe as survivor”.
You’re not supposed to feel safe as survivor that’s the point of survivor. I’m yet to see a discussion on balance that wasn’t just either dumbing it down to make it simpler or undermining the horror aspects.
So I’ll give some ground and say we don’t NEED a killer bias, but the game is that much better for it.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617506#Comment_3617506
That is a complete oversimplification and hints at a lack of understanding the point being discussed.
No, you are the one losing track of the point here.
Your original argument is that enjoyment stems from tension, which you then subsequently argued stems from, specifically, the horror element. I pointed out that this is not true.
But even if you were to disregard the litany of gameplay problems that prove time and again that people play to win, you'd still be incorrect. People do not play this game for the horror element. It may draw them to it, but the ones that stick are the ones that ultimately gel with the mechanical aspects, not the set dressing. They're attracted to either the party game nature of a custom game among friends, or the competitive nature of the game.
Horror thrill is not one of the pillars of DBD. It's a marketing point, but not part of the actual gameplay, otherwise the gameplay would look dramatically different from how it looks right now. The closest thing we have to a true horror killer is the Dredge, and even he will be of much more interest mechanically than thematically, in the long run as novelty wears off.
I play it for the horror element and so do my SWF friends.
I play it because I'm a fan of the horror films included in its content as I'm sure many players do.
I'm sure there are players who are here only for the competitive PVP aspect regardless of the setting but do we have to cater for only them?
Which is basically what you are saying here because people ONLY play for that reason according to your reply. People play to win within the setting and the setting is still important even if playing to win.
If you think the horror theme isn't important to DBD then you have completely missed the point of DBD. If you don't like or appreciate the horror element... why not find a non-horror game to play? Rather than try and turn DBD into a mechanical non-horror experience.
Fall guys is great - I play it because it's a laugh. I don't need them to change fall guys into a bloodbath with graphic depictions of violence and blood because I play it for the funny jelly bean fun. That's its theme and it important.
MWO is big mechs bashing on each other, based in a sci fi world. The weapons, gameplay, maps and setting are all appropriate to the theme.
Theme is incredibly important to games and stories not just as an advertisement.
-
I think you are getting way too deep into it.
It shouldn't really be that stressful in anyway to play a game.
Tense sure, exciting sure, maybe even a lil annoying but stressful to the point of feeling physically miserable no.
Not to be harsh but even with a depressive or anxiety condition its neither BHVR's job or your opponent's to "soften" the play just to account for your sensibilities.
The only solution to this is to take a break and work on yourself. If you want to play DBD but can't muster the resilience to deal with an online environment then kill the bots offline for a bit.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3617429#Comment_3617429
I mean the concept of DBD is survivors try to escape from big scary monster.
That's the packaging, not the core. The underlying game is far more complicated and it shows in the way these gamestyles develop. Including, unsurprisingly, playstyles that very much avoid doing chases. The idea that people come to DBD just because it says on the tin that a killer chases survivors contradicts how the game is actually played and ignores the core gameplay of DBD to focus on the superficial presentation of it.
It's like someone being given the choice between a red 1995 Fiat and a blue 2020 Porsche and then saying they only chose the Porsche because it was blue.
That is a complete oversimplification and hints at a lack of understanding the point being discussed.
DBD is a survival horror, its the theme, its the design, its the way its packaged and promoted and the gameplay is built around that premise.
Doesn't matter if people camp, tunnel, gen rush or any of the other terms that apply to gameplay, the premises remains the same. Can you survive long enough to escape vs can you catch and kill everyone before they get away.
In that environment a threatening antagonist is not a bad thing and a killer bias in outcome is not detrimental to the overall theme. Providing that bias does not completely remove the ability to escape and it doesn't. It really doesn't, no matter how much the "It's not fair!" balance babies want to make people believe it does.
If the best counter point that people can come up with is "the top 1% of players have really big killer win streaks!" Well then yeah its not rocket science to show that, as it'd be expected of those players being in the top 1%. It says virtually nothing about general game balance on the whole.
If the goal is to make a case for survivors being stronger on the premise that the outcome is biased or unfair, then this is a weak way to do it.
I also disagree with it because the killer having a bias is appropriate for the game. The real question is how much bias is required to make killer feel adequately "monstrous or scary" and survivor feel adequately "tense or exciting". Those two things are important for the game.
-
@OrangeBear said:
You want them to disable DC penalty so you can rage quit faster.
lol beat me to it.
This is why there is a DC penalty because of players like these.
-
@Firellius said:
But you can't deny that the main draw for both sides to DBD is - survivors fleeing from big scary killer.
Well, actually, I can.
It's been demonstrated over the years that that's really not the main draw for either side. Killers have been shown to avoid it as much as possible, essentially, and survivors will also take every exploit they can to limit this experience.
Camping has been a thing from the game's inception and that involves no survivors fleeing from anyone. Chess Merchant became a thing, someone showed how effectively you can win by not chasing anyone at all and people started copying that. Recent flashlight bug had plenty of players boogie their way into lockers so the killer literally cannot hurt them.
People, overwhelmingly, play for the win. How they get there is a secondary concern.
Remember when mind gaming played a major role in chase outcome, there was guesswork, random variance and some unpredictability.
If you're referring to Spirit, the coin flip gameplay was incredibly frustrating as it removed all agency and thus killed all the tension.
I don't mean chases or mechanics specifically. I mean the concept of DBD is survivors try to escape from big scary monster. That is the game concept, the specifics of how they try to escape or how the killer chooses to kill them is not really the point.
Higher concept than just simple examples of in game mechanics. Why do people play DBD? What draws them to it?
Think bigger than the simple mechanics of a single specific gameplay or killer.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615050#Comment_3615050
What do people mean with ballance? There are many forms of ballancing and one cruicial form you brought on the table yourself. Ballance is when there is tension without being oppessive. And that is why Nurse is never ballance, in no regard, because almost no tension exists. Sure, against a mediocre or bad Nurse, it can be. Against a good one, holy moly of course not. I would even say that a god nurse is not even opressive anymore because she suprassed that stage. She is just... pointless.
Does it feel good to outplay a good nurse? Yeah... Why do you think that is? Think about it.
You always seem to draw conclusions from yourself to others. No, I am not having fun playing against the nurse. ^
What does this paragraph actually say? Its a lil disjointed.
"... but mark my words the "imbalance" is what makes DBD playable." "If we are leaning into the theme of the game and the excitement of playing survivor then that imbalance has to favour the killer somewhat, otherwise we have Scooby Doo not DBD."
So, in 2019 we had then this Scooby Doo scenario, at least more Scooby as we have now, right? Somehow, nobody had a problem with that. And those numbers prove my point. And no, the game is not "stable", the game lost a good 3rd of the playerbase. I am not saying that this is only the reason (please quote me on that, since you are accusing me) why there were so many more players. BUT and thats the thing, you argue that if the game would be like that, it would be not playable. Time already has disproven the argument. It was very very much playable and had more people attracted to it. Unless we find out those numbers are all fake, there is nothing to discuss really.
"Remember people arent really asking for balance they are asking for simplicity, which is bad"
Where did anyone asked for simplicity? You got some source or is this your interpretation?
So basically even if you beat a good nurse you don't feel good about it. There is something kinda sad about that. I think you need to find another game it seems you draw little to no enjoyment from some of this game's best aspects.
Numbers don't prove your point here don't misuse the word prove. Basically you not agreeing with my point of view doesn't invalidate my point of view. No matter how hard you want it to. You raised a valid point why are killer win streaks big compared to survivor win streaks and asked for opinion, I gave my opinion.
The game's not balanced... its that simple. But as you yourself pointed out the game has never really been balanced.
If you had to choose between the outcome biasing the killer vs biasing the survivor team which you you prefer? I'd prefer killer because it validates the theme and provides and exciting game experience for the survivor team. So killer win streaks being bigger than survivor win streaks, not a big problem in my book.
I get the sense that your topic was more loaded than you let on... and its real goal wasn't about balance but more a "killer is OP" complaint wrapped up in a discussion about balance, could that be the case?
As for your ill-fated steam chart rant...
1/3rd of the player base you say...
Long term overall numbers look pretty stable to me 35-42k at game start, spikes around 60, some inflated pandemic numbers around the 100k, currently oscillating around 50-60, ~10-20k+ more than game start. That just a very basic steam chart looking at total players online at a given time point.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614977#Comment_3614977
We aren't talking about fear we are talking about tension. What makes a chase so intense in a game of DBD? The consequences, and the consequences can be high if you fail to do well and that creates Tension also known as excitement.
Let me add in a bit of a counterpoint here: Tension requires investment from the players, and there's a lot of ways in which this investment can be undermined. Frustration is a very big threat to investment, and probably the main reason why camping/tunnelling/slugging are such problems to the survivor playerbase. I know the game loses all tension to me if the killer engages with one of those.
But similarly, someone slapping on Blight with busted add-ons makes me lose interest as well. I already know the outcome of the game, roughly, so it's not worth getting invested into anymore.
You need good balance to keep the tension alive and prevent it from getting swallowed up by frustration.
Yep and that is a very good counterpoint.
One would hope that mechanics lead to, even for difficult scenarios, players still enjoying the experience rather than repeatedly being frustrated by it. I'm not unsympathetic to the fact that a player may get frustrated with the outcome.
That's why "how much of a killer bias is adequate to maintain the theme while not undermining the game experience?" is a better question than "why isn't the game balanced?"
In an asymmetric environment true balance is a bit of a pipe dream, so if the outcomes lurch from killer to survivor bias with each update which one is more appropriate for the setting? A killer bias is the more appropriate one given the horror theme and that's what we see from the game results.
Is it too much of a killer bias? well people can debate that based on how much people find it fun vs frustrating. But you can't deny that the main draw for both sides to DBD is - survivors fleeing from big scary killer. If the killer is rendered not threatening in anyway and it comes down solely to who can game the mechanics better, then the game loses something.
That something is a major drawcard for a lot of players and the basis upon which survivor play feels rewarding in the first place.
For your example of camping and tunneling, overt reliance on these strategies is actually an artifact of what I'm talking about. The greater the so called "balance" the less value comes from initiating chases over just eliminating players. So killers game the mechanics to get the easiest outcome, while survivors do the same by just trying to smash out gens and run in the most generic of patterns ignoring all other aspects of the game.
Remember when mind gaming played a major role in chase outcome, there was guesswork, random variance and some unpredictability. A lot of that is gone in the name of "balance" and we have a less fun more frustrating mechanical experience as a result.
-
@CorvusCorax86 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614939#Comment_3614939
I was wondering about the same but big respect to Wraith for enduring 2 TTVs.
eh people place a kind of mythic element onto TTV's but really I find they are often the same if not worse than most other players.
-
If you're finding the game more annoying than fun then yeah its time to do something else for a bit.
I don't tend to play during a lot of events either, not because they annoy me, but the whole Christmas thing is a bit immersion breaking and I play DBD for the horror/slasher theme.
So I'm filling my game time with Age of Wonders 4 and evil genius and the occasional round of fall guys/MWO. I'll return to the fog when its back to its usual self.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614977#Comment_3614977
Tension: Call it horror, call it tension - or maybe a mix between both. A god nurse is according to your argument supposed to be high tension then? Much higher then Trapper for example? Somehow its the opposite. Your argument, powerful killer create tension is not valid at all. But they cause a lot of frustration, thats for sure. If frustration is important for the game might actually be a decent topic tho.
Steam chart: Please dont twist my words for the sake of your argument. You said i may mark your words, that ballanced gameplay is overall bad for the game. I disagree because we had a time where it was more ballanced and at that time the playerbase was at an all time high. So clearly no, people would not run away or get bored by the game if it would be more ballanced, the opposite is the case.
No a game against Trapper can be just as intense as a game against Nurse, this is an over simplification of the point but to validate my so called invalid point, to your nurse example...
Strong nurse is one of the most difficult and exciting things to play against. She can't be looped in the same way as most other killers, requires guesswork and prediction for when to juke her blinks. Best of all... the most bland of plays, AKA loop around the same rock 4 times doesn't work well against her, neither does hold W to a great extent.
If players don't enjoy loop simulator and hold W, which according to these forums many don't, then Nurse is one of the best designed killers in the game because she counters both.
As I've said when people say "balance" they usually struggle to define what they mean. Often what they are asking for is simplification. "I want it to be easier to do the same thing against all killers"..." er that doesn't sound like balance to me. The rationale for this "its annoying if I can't". None of this invalidates my point about game tension. Your, or rather "their", annoyance is part of that tension.
Does it feel good to outplay a good nurse? Yeah... Why do you think that is? Think about it.
As for twisting your words on steam charts, lets quote them instead...
"Then why not go back to 2019, 2020 or 2021 where survivors had more the upper hand but the game was at least more ballanced then it is now? We also had crazy stuff for both sides, so there was always some strange inballanced of gameplay. I can back up that argument relativly easy by just pointing to Steam Charts. Compare playerbase then and now. Even tho we just had the most popular license DBD ever had (Alien), it does not look like the players are super happy with the game overall. Isnt it likely that ballance experience is more important for fun then unballanced horror fantasy? The numbers would match with that."
What does this paragraph actually say? Its a lil disjointed.
You point to steam charts as a back up to a point about the old game style being unbalanced and new killer's being un-liked? Compare the player base now and then? Sure the numbers a pretty stable with peaks and troughs around new content releases as you'd expect.
You tie this point together by assuming that players are only leaving due to lack of balance? A complete assumption that just happens to conveniently fit your own opinion. I love it when imagined facts just magically align with our opinions don't you?
If we are talking invalid points then its hard validate a claim of "twisting someone's words" when said person isn't making a clear point in the first place. Twist your words... you don't need any help from me sir you are doing just fine on your own.
Oh and don't twist my words... I never said "ballanced gameplay is overall bad for the game.", remember people aren't really asking for "balance" they are asking for simplicity, which is bad. My point with respect to balance is still as its always been... that a killer bias in outcome is anticipated and not entirely unacceptable given the game's horror survival theme.
Remember the topic is killer win streaks and why?
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614483#Comment_3614483
I do not assume your prefered role, but the statement stays. It is what killer mains use to justify numbers these days, because its the only thing left. The game shifted towards killer, and it is hard to debate for killer mains outside the killer fantasy argument.
I am always for ballanced experience, said by someone who is, believe it or not, playing more killer then survivor. Especially now, i would even call myself more a killer main then a 50/50 as i used to be. So that we have this out of the way as you did aswell, lets get back on track for a moment.
The horror is gone for most people, thats the nature of how we work. Watching a horror movie as a child is a completly different experience then rewathing it the 5th time or so as an adult. If you call them "those" people, this is your point of few. In my years of playing, survivors only complained about oppressive killer. And they quit because of that, not because it was to boring or to less horror. Most survivors, from my experience, dont give a poop about anything else then gameplay. And on the other side, i also dont know any killer beside like a handful of people that even care about being scary, or getting the next big license. In fact for example Cucky became the main of a friend recently, and horror is the last thing that comes to mind why the person plays that character.
EDIT: I want to add another thing to your horror argument. The Dredge: Dredge is without a doubt the most horror we ever hadin this game. The nightphase is scary (?) as hell, jumping out of lockers the ultimate jumpscare next to Mirror Myers, the appearence of this killer could be right out of a nightmare. Overall, the ultimate horror formular. And still, where does The Dredge stand? Not played much, not liked by survivors. Reason? Gamelay.
Now to the most important part of your post: The imbalance makes DBD playable.
Then why not go back to 2019, 2020 or 2021 where survivors had more the upper hand but the game was at least more ballanced then it is now? We also had crazy stuff for both sides, so there was always some strange inballanced of gameplay. I can back up that argument relativly easy by just pointing to Steam Charts. Compare playerbase then and now. Even tho we just had the most popular license DBD ever had (Alien), it does not look like the players are super happy with the game overall. Isnt it likely that ballance experience is more important for fun then unballanced horror fantasy? The numbers would match with that.
Trying to refute my point by associating it with "biased killer mains" doesn't address the point it just tries to undermine it associating it with potentially biased players. That's called a strawman and its a weak position to have. (I know the phrase strawman gets used a lot as a I win buzzword but here we have a great example of one so I feel its warranted). It only holds true if I am a killer main and I'm not as I said don't assume my playstyle and I won't assume anything about you, that includes maintaining an argument that needs to assume it to have basis, which is what you've done.
Now for the topic at hand. I never said fear you don't have to be scared of the game in fact most people aren't. We aren't talking about fear we are talking about tension. What makes a chase so intense in a game of DBD? The consequences, and the consequences can be high if you fail to do well and that creates Tension also known as excitement. When the horror is gone the excitement is what remains.
What you are proposing is to dumb down the excitement in the name of mechanical balance. My counterpoint is that's a crap idea because mechanically DBD is pretty bland and I really don't want DBD to become a bland mechanical experience that lacks tension. There are enough games out there like that.
There is a lot of stuff from old DBD that I would like to see back again not all change is good change. Its generally improved but its definitely lost some of its more threatening and exciting mechanics. Old Moris for instance. I understand why they were changed but I miss the atmosphere they used to create and the threat they used to represent, I hope they never dumb them down further and actually bring in that proposed special mori ending that would be really crap.
Steam charts are actually pretty stable across the long term charts and making assumptions about why players quit is just as bad as making assumptions about why players play or have the opinions they do. Circle back to the first point about assuming things.
I'm not refuting that killer wins more than survivor you would expect that given the need for teamwork on the survivor side, the point I've always made is that's not necessarily a bad thing when you consider the theme of the game. (Before any schmuck quips back with "people won't want to play a game where they always lose," I'm not saying they should but a killer bias is to be expected and its what we see in outcome and its completely appropriate if people want a thrilling game as survivor).
-
@DemonDaddy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614468#Comment_3614468
I agree that the killer has that responsibility to spread the pressure. This is also where I think many complaints of killer tactics stim from; as some survivor would prefer the killer take that gamble of hunting the fresh and unseen teammate.
Heres my suvivor take to that point; I have some influence in how that gamble results for the killer. I think its on me the survivors to limit the killer by using stealth and breaking chase quickly. If successful, the killer sinks time to kick and search before returning to patrol thus halting momentum . Any mistakes on my part and the killer continues to gain the advantage of pressuring us. Engauging in chase while not always avoidable is my last case option for wasting the killer's time, I treat them as if every killer knows what they're doing until proven otherwise.
When I account for how the killer is occupying time, my line of thought is they are always using the fastest method for downing and eliminating teammates. Im sure they are not the top tier but they definitely arent twiddling their thumbs.
Fair enough. It only really holds true if the killer is doing as you say and pressuring at the upmost of their ability. If they are then really no more than 1 player should have a lot of time on gens.
Yeah players would prefer if killer hunted for fresh survivor every time but often that isn't a good way to pressure survivors unless they are being very overt in their actions making them easy to find and down in succession.
(edit for syntax I was typing like Yoda)
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614455#Comment_3614455
That is the regular argument from killers i hear nowadays. Its okay killer is dominiating because they are the "power role". I dont think that is a good thing at all, when i see people leave the game because of that killer fantasy fullfillment.
Its also not about horror. During the first 20-50 hours of ingame time, survivor experience the antagonist horror. After that, this is gone forever and no OP killer, no matter how OP it is will change that. What is in front of the road should be a game that has great gameplay and good ballancing. And not some (your quote) "its not ment to be fair" nonsense that 4 out of 5 players should have to burden with.
Don't assume my game role just because I may not agree with your point and I promise not to make any assumptions about how you might play, all that does is cloud judgment and undermine objectivity.
For clarity I happen to enjoy survivor most when the killer is a tangible threat I need to flee from rather than a weakling that I can run circles around. Gen and loop simulator gets very dull very quick. What makes survivor engaging to play? the threat of elimination. Without it its just gen and loop simulator, chases and escaping become meaningless.
The horror is only gone forever for players that don't appreciate the tangible threat that the killer represents. The mechanics of DBD are incredibly dull outside of fleeing for your life from the monster.
The threat of it is a necessity for DBD to be playable in the first place. Its that threat that the whole game premise is built on and what the game is promoted as. People often say "they need to balance the game" but what do they mean by that, its becoming another buzz term that no one can really define but in the most general of ways.
We can both have different takes on what we want from the game that's fine, its to be expected... but mark my words the "imbalance" is what makes DBD playable. Its not about whether that imbalance should exist or not, but rather how much of that imbalance is too much?
If we are leaning into the theme of the game and the excitement of playing survivor then that imbalance has to favour the killer somewhat, otherwise we have Scooby Doo not DBD.
Now I love Scooby Doo, its a cornerstone of my childhood, but I don't play DBD for a Scooby Doo experience, I play Scooby Doo betrayal at mystery mansion for that. I play DBD for the survival horror experience and the more brutal that is the more engaging and thrilling it is.
I'll do what I can to see attempts to water that horror experience down in the name of ill-defined balance are minimal and hopefully change a few game perspectives along the way.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614446#Comment_3614446
I really wouldn't bother engaging with them.
If you have something to contribute then by all means you are welcome to contribute, its a discussion forum after all.
This isn't the first time you've posted something like this to one of my conversations with someone else, but the snide targeting of another poster for whatever reason is just on the nose. Have a think about it.
-
@DemonDaddy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614390#Comment_3614390
I dont know where this idea that I was left alone to do gens comes from. I find it very rare to have little or no interaction with the killer.
Im also not denying the killer won, any percentage of gens when we all die is not a win in my book. What Im pointing at is how much one player can progress the objective while the killer is technically doing well.
My op conclusion comes from solo gen progress yes, but this is in addition to escaping chases, avoiding the killer, and prolonging teammates that continue to make mistakes and be caught. Im looking at how competent a single player can be and then applying the rational that this can stack with each survivor.
It comes from the fact that if you are on gens then you aren't interacting with the killer. I didn't say the killer never interacted with you. But if you are good at avoiding/escaping chases then you have more time interacting with gens.
To that end yeah competency stacks with survivors that's to be expected. Its why SWF teams out perform solo teams, they tend to coordinate their downtime better among other things.
Just because its possible for a single player to contribute a lot to the objective doesn't mean that survivor is essentially OP.
"Absent of a complete failure, I'm seeing this as way to much objective control for someone that only considers themself simi-decent as a survivor." This line is kind of the source. Its the killer's job to limit your capacity to contribute to the objective.
Its up to the killer to create that pressure and if they do so to 2-3 survivors it can be enough to render the efforts of the last 1-2 survivors mute, contributing or not.
What you have here is a measure of your own contribution and a speculation on what stacking that contribution could look like in game outcome but it fails to take into account the pressure applied by the killer which is also dictating how much time you have as a player to contribute to the objective.
You can't consider one without the other its only half of the story.
Some posters have already indirectly hinted at this by asking "what was the killer doing during this time?"
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614437#Comment_3614437
I know because of records. The world record in "modern DBD time" is at slightly above 200, done by Oracle if i am not mistaken. And their restriction were not nealy as harsh as the killer restrictions (for example it as okay if one survivor died per round in their streak).
Ok great so when you pit the upper echelons of DBD against each other there is a killer bias in outcome. Which is good because for survivor play to be even the remotely bit interesting the team has to face off against a tangible antagonist.
Weak antagonists make bad horror. When looking at the very tip of the (assumed) bell curve for "player skill" we get an expected bias that's appropriate for the theme.
But we are still only looking at the very tip of the bell curve which is a poor representation for basic game balance.
For the second time - "You can't use the extremes as a comparable example to the baseline." Why would you go to that as your counter point?"
In fact I'm sure if you took a large enough sample of games you probably wouldn't get a bell curve you'd get humps and dips at the points where people place up and down in MMR skewing their outcome.
If the point being made is look at the top tier player win streaks on killer - I say yeah I'd expect top tear players to be able to pull off win streaks compared to the average gamer and a lot of those games are against teams of average gamers.
The you say well compare it to the win streaks for the top tiered survivor teams and yeah they do well, really well. But there is enough of a thematically appropriate killer bias that even a top tier team can struggle with team dynamics and create an interesting and exciting survivor experience.
What's the issue here? "It's not fair" ? well boo hoo its not meant to be fair and that's a good thing, its why there are 4 survivors and 1 killer that's not fair either but the killer is threatening enough to create an engaging game for the survivors as it should be.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614384#Comment_3614384
These are all good points.
I'm happy to read that :)
I think you bring an interesting point of killers having that intimidating and dangerous presence, though it is difficult to manage that while you also have to take the game's balance into consideration. It is far more likely for a player to be intimidated by an ultra-powerful character, but then how do you win against said character?
If I may add another matter to the discussion, there is also the fact of each killer's design and the way they approach survivors. This is influenced by the game around them, of course, but it also varies depending on the killer.
For instance, I doubt anyone was ever scared of Trickster or Legion. And that doesn't mean they should be removed from the game or anything like that, it just means they are missing a very important aspect of a horror game.
On the other hand, we have stuff like Myers stalking you from a distance, Freddy (in the past) being invisible to awake survivors, Doctor being a proper horror character, and so on. I think every killer should have a little bit of what they have. You know, make you feel that you're fighting against a monster that is hunting you on an eerie place.
DBD had that, and it shouldn't have abandoned it.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614409#Comment_3614409
DBD should have been like Cuphead.
Cuphead, a very good game btw, doesn't have modernized graphics because it is meant to look like an old cartoon. It is that game's style and it was highly praised for it. DBD had its unique style, many people miss it, and it shouldn't have gotten rid of it.
Or, at the very least, there should be an option for us to select what we want: reworked maps or the older ones. DBD supports people playing on the same map with different lighting, modders have proved that, so there was no reason not to add such a feature.
A classic pack, if you will. I sincerely hope they do it.
Well "good" is subjective, I just happen to agree largely with what you pointed out.
Yeah there is an aesthetic to maintain also both in appearance and mechanics, and I've always loathed Trickster, spamming those lil sparkle knives is just on the nose from a horror perspective. The singularity is also a lil too comic book looking as well. Both are laughable rather than intimidating in their current forms, something is missing.
The the original point though. Do you think it's the PvP aspect that is to blame somewhat? Do you think people would focus so hard on balance if the killer was a really hard to beat AI?
Imagine if DBD was more like GTFO, or 4 player Co-Op left for dead. Players would probably welcome the threat of a really hard to beat AI that played in the most brutal way possible. The moment the opponent is another person though player ego gets involved and the hyperfocus on balance eventually undermines the horror.
I've always said its not a bad thing to have a killer bias in outcome because that is the very source of the threat that makes survivor play so engaging. Many would disagree with me on that point though.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613995#Comment_3613995
There is one big flaw with your argument. Top teams that all have the same goal and very high skill also go for survivor win streaks. But they wont reach those insane numbers like killer mains, by a long shot.
They won't, how do you know? If your whole premise is based on that being fact then it better be fact.
Even so, I already stated that "You can't use the extremes as a comparable example to the baseline." Why would you go to that as your counter point?
-
@DemonDaddy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614296#Comment_3614296
My point is that one person can complete so much of the objective alone. Im not shifting the goal post, just pointing out how influence one player has on a team objective.
The fact the killer won in my opinion doesnt change how little was left for 3 other players to contribute.
This only really works if gen completion is the only metric of success.
But while you were doing that mechanical objective you were left free to do it by your team mates whom were, intentionally or unintentionally, distracting the killer.
I mean kudos to you for focusing on the gens during your "downtime" between interactions with the killer. You were only permitted with that opportunity though because the killer didn't interact with you. So yes while it may feel like as a solo player you can contribute to too much of the objective that's only achievable at the expense of your team mates.
As a result the team still doesn't escape or has a 3-4k outcome because losing 3 team mates for 4 gens means things aren't going that well for the survivor group, when you factor in these other aspects of being left free to do gens at the cost of team mates then on that basis, solo survivor definitely isn't OP.
-
@GeneralV said:
Yeah, the horror factor of DBD has suffered greatly.
The main problem, at least in my opinion, are the map reworks. Even if you disregard the fact that no one asked for those changes, they've completely removed the horror atmosphere and eerie factor the maps used to have. Just look at Coldwind Farm, that one is a perfect example.
Oh, and the fog. There needs to be more fog, just like it used to be. How can they say their famous line of "see you in the fog" if most maps don't have the actual fog?
Sure, some people will use that same argument of "after a long time playing this game, it is no longer scary". And as repetitive as it is to see this exact same argument every time this kind of discussion pops up, they are right.
That, however, doesn't change the fact that there is a very clear difference between having a scary atmosphere and having nothing at all. At least the game is making an effort, you know?
Judging by the proposed "Disgustingly Scary" mode, the developers seem to be aware of this issue; If they will do something about it remains to be seen.
These are all good points.
Part of the problem is a truly scary experience is often very high threat, which means a likely low chance of survival. But because its an online game players often don't find that scary, or don't appreciate that as scary, and they just qualify it as annoying.
So to broaden the appeal, the game eventually gets more tame in the interest of balance. This is to appeal to those who don't want a threatening or scary environment because they think its unfair. This is not entirely a bad thing because we don't want the game to be too unbalanced but it does inevitably water down the horror factor.
So have they swung too far away from the horror in an effort to make the game more player friendly, a lil bit yeah.
-
@Pulsar said:
This is completely a vent.
I have had seven matches today. I have been either camped like with Trickster or turbo-tunneled. What the ######### do I do? I can't even play the ######### game on one side. It's a completely miserable experience and it's ######### bullshit.
There's nothing wrong with my build. There's nothing wrong with my name. I don't run any charms. What the ######### am I doing wrong. Why can't I have a SINGLE decent ######### experience.
I didn't see that trickster camp.
I saw him chasing other survivors whom made bad chase and unhook decisions and then the killer capitalized on that.
If you are gonna cry camping then it helps to have an example of actual camping.
This is the problem people can cry camping in almost any scenario when in fact its really nothing to do with camping. But it makes great excuse so that you can rationalize your anger about the game.
Lets face it, you seem burnt out and are really projecting that onto the community... take a break already.
If you aren't having fun then take a break. I didn't see anything wrong with that video other than some poor decision making by a team mate.
-
This has more to do with player than the game itself and if balancing around people whom basically make a living playing games then that's not a great idea.
You can't use the extremes as a comparable example to the baseline.
The average gamer isn't doing 30 win streak videos. (also its an online world I can claim a 30 win streak too I just don't record the losses). (Grain of salt all round for a lot of this).
For the record yes it will be easier to get a win streak as killer than as survivor, not because its unbalanced but rather success as survivor relies on the most variable factor known to online gaming... OTHER PEOPLE. (add dramatic reverb for effect!).
These other people all have varying levels of the following important traits that can factor directly into team and personal survival:
- motivation to play
- expectations from the game
- skill levels - I know MMR is supposed to account for this but does it really?
- levels of altruism and selfishness
- emotional state and resilience - influencing likelihood to keep playing or rage quit, gaming attitude and spitefulness
- levels of intoxication
- A myriad of other outside game things that BHVR has no real fix for because they are innate aspects of human behaviour and interaction rather than game mechanics
Killer relies on themselves and can take advantage of any of these particular human traits that might undermine a survivor team. So its not a revelation to say win streaks are easier on killer. Because even if perfectly balanced that would still be true.
-
@Hunkulese said:
It's very straightforward. It's a video game. You're rewarded by having a good time. If you're not having a good time, stop playing the video game.
There are no rewards from any games unless you're a MLG pro gamer.
Exactly this.
When did we forget about the fun and just focus on what extras do you get for playing?
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613128#Comment_3613128
What is your view on the way chase vs hiding has evolved over the lifespan of the game? Are you satisfied with both aspects as they exist today?
Yes and no, but neither has evolved very much. Aside from looping most things affecting chase/hiding have been external to the actual chase mechanics, map layout/size, killer power, more aura reading etc.
Looping was inevitable as player's squeezed every ounce out of the mechanics. But playing around a structure like an L-T wall is very different from circling around the same rock with a pallet 4 times. The latter is more common unfortunately and far more uninteresting.
Some things I think would improve atmosphere and gameplay
- More LOS blockers to play around, mind games mean less and less lately as you can see over most stuff. Especially the killer shack with all the holes in it. Walls should actually block red stain. When you can see red stain through the wall mind gaming, the most fun part of chases, is rendered mute.
- Heavier fog that actually had a silhouette effect at long distance
- More dynamic shading, flickering lights, fog lamp effect, map palettes can be a lil flat either overly dark or bright, perhaps maps that start in twilight and get progressively darker.
The game should be an intense game of cat and mouse, where avoiding the killer is just as big a part of the game as getting into chases. Greater emphasis of awarding Pips and BP's for successful stealthy play not just escapes from chases.
Killer should be immediately threatening in chase before you even take player "skill" into consideration, thus making avoiding the killer paramount and chases high stakes and meaningful.
A lot of the guesswork has been removed in the name of balance but that took a lot of the thrill out of the game.
For example... I remember trying to play around Spirit's unknown phasing mind game. Is she using her power or isn't she??? You had to guess and sometimes you guessed wrong and that was thrilling. But the "it has no counter play!" whiners got her and now there is a big flag telegraphing if she's using her power that takes all guesswork and prediction out of the equation. Meaning like everything else the go to is run around the same rock 4 times.
Like I said simplification the death of true game intensity. The game has evolved somewhat but in a direction that tends to make it blander rather than more thrilling.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610237#Comment_3610237
This game is balanced around lack of information for both sides. And SWF breaks that significantly.I know I'm bumping back a couple of posts in the discussion, but I wanted to add on to this.
When we look at some of the innovative changes that have happened in the past (i.e. Nurse) people generally didn't like them.
People like the gameplay loop. Changes to that are met with hostility. Look at the proposed auto-pickup mechanic.
That's why I think they are spending their time on smaller scale changes, like the anti-face camp mechanic (which I think they did an excellent job with). If people like the general gameplay, don't radically change it, just try and address the issues that exist within that loop without breaking it.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610339#Comment_3610339
Knowing perk load out for one, the elitist nature of online gaming would have people denigrating each other and lobby dodging over loadouts long before it lead to any QOL improvements and the new UI is already ugly and cluttered. So I don't blame them for being non-committal and dragging their feet on that one.So that's a really good point and one I hadn't thought of for why not to display perk loadouts. I could see people dodging adepts, new players, meme loadouts, etc.
The one possible exception, is that it doesn't just have to be a hypothetical discussion. It already exists in DbD mobile - what happens in that game and is there any reason to think people would treat the core game differently (maybe they are different, I don't play any type of mobile game but I could see an argument that its a different player base in how they act).
Maybe, in addition to the aforementioned concern, I just enjoy some of the unknown elements of this game.
You aren't a coordinated team with combat training, you are a bunch of random victims in a nightmare world. The survivor play experience should reflect that and it still kinda does even with some folk's ongoing effort to undermine that premise in the name of competitive balance.
Again often when people say balance they mean simplification.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610241#Comment_3610241
DBD’s simplicity is inherently why it has been so successful.
Conceptually, it is very easy to grasp. Mechanically, it has a low barrier for entry.
In that respect, there is absolutely nothing wrong with DBD’s simplicity.
I think I’ve seen you mention chess on here once before. It is curious to note chess’ popularity, given it’s age, it’s simplicity, and it’s “lack of innovation.”
It seems there is something to be said about games as a service, and the expectations that follow.
“Innovation” and “Simplicity” don’t need to be mutually exclusive. A good design can be both.
….and now I’ve lost my train of thought. Sorry, lol, I don’t know what happened but my mind has gone completely blank while writing this. I’m certain I was building towards a coherent thought, so I’ll send this through.
I do apologize if this reply turns out to be nonsensical jargon. 😅😭
I got the gist.
I don't mean to imply that innovation and simplicity are mutually exclusive, just that players seem to really despise anything truly different in this game and while bemoaning that they also call for innovation. When you look at what they are asking for its, easier tutorials, more information, less dynamic play and similar game structure and outcomes.
Its very clear that innovation is not the community desire but simplification is. The irony of complaining that BHVR is "failing to innovate" while at the same time repeatedly bemoaning anything that is different, interesting or deviating from the most pedestrian DBD experiences is palpable.
Just makes me chuckle is all.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610263#Comment_3610263
DBD's schedule being slow means that Killers that could have good reworks and could stop being boring to play as (Freddy, Twins, Myers etc etc) apparently never get their reworks. Freddy's Dream World has a whole PLETHORA of things that could be unique and boundary pushing. You could pull gens into the Dream World, the Dream World could change the lay-out of the map, DW could affect the real world etc etc.
There's really no excuse for things to take as long as they do. It was fine when we had 12 Killers, but we've got well over 30 now.
You might also say, "Well, you can't expect quality if you rush it." That's true, except most of BHVR's true reworks have been bad. Especially recently. Trickster isn't really much better and that change took years. Sadako is getting ANOTHER rework because hers failed so badly. If you're going to make consistently bad changes, do it quickly so that we can get to a winning rework faster.
I do, evidently and so do others. Nobody gets it right all the time, I thought Hyperfocus was going to be a huge issue, but it hasn't been. However, I'm sure certain people take great pleasure in being right about MFT. Heck, the Trickster changes or Boil Over. Almost everybody immediately pointed out how horrible those changes were and yet BHVR still dedicated, what, months to them? Solo Q and new player experience? Pshh, maybe someday? What kind of answer is that??? I think everyone and their mother understands that both of those experiences are uniquely bad and I highly doubt you'll argue that.
It's less DBD's lifespan and more it's success, although they've certainly contributed to each other; I highly doubt DBD would be around today if it hadn't have been a successful game. There's no competing games, no challengers and it seems to be making an extraordinary amount of money, so why change anything? Why innovate? I get it. But that breeds stagnation and lazy design, which like I said, leads to a slow death.
Innovation's definition, I believe, depends greatly on you ask. For me, it's about inspired design. Sometimes that means being faithful to the source material, sometimes that means expanding on it. It means taking risks, maybe they don't work or maybe they do. It means exploring new gameplay features and mechanics. Always keeping a mind out for how the game can be improved. Always striving to be better and to push the limits of what your playerbase thought possible.
I remember the feeling of seeing the Endgame Collapse being revealed. We were all so excited, it was a brand-new feature after three years. It addressed a need and it added a new and intense feature to the game. We couldn't wait to see what they were planning next! Maybe the maps would change during the match? Maybe there would be an Early-Game Collapse? Who knew!
In the end, maybe I should've been more (or less) confrontational. Stick to one, you know? I don't ever really plan out my posts, I write off the cuff, so to speak. Ultimately, I felt it important and I really didn't want anyone at BHVR to take it personally, but I still felt it needed to be said.
Now this is a discussion.
You make a very good point about Freddy and that would definitely be a big shake up for some interesting changes, but you are talking big rework there that has to also interact with the plethora of perks. Not that I wouldn't want to see it. I think more realistic changes would be kinda like Myers, where there are a few different versions of him depending on what addons are being run rather than big mechanics overhauls these days. I wish more killers worked that way.
I think its more likely that 30 killers and 240 something perks will only slow the timetable down. It was far more reasonable to expect rapid change with 12 killers but at this point a killer's power has to interact with all 240+ perks. I'm not making excuses for BHVR's slow timetable, just willing to accept its probably not gonna move at the extent I want it to either.
I'm always cautious with ideas like "boring" etc as reasons for change, because its so subjective to quantify whether something is boring. That's what player satisfaction surveys are for. But if the majority are doing as I hypothesize, which is just bemoan anything that differs to far from the mould, all we are going to get is what fits in the mould and that kills innovation more so than prolonged lifespan.
I get what you mean about MFT etc but conceptually MFT and perks like it are a simple change to attenuate the mechanic, bolstering solo que with more information has much wider impact on the game and I'm sure how to do it properly is a much more blue sky debate with differing opinions.
I wouldn't argue with you about the answers being lackluster for future roadmaps but they were really only lackluster with respect to higher concept changes like "how do we improve solo player experience". That really isn't directly comparable to the more simple "is MFT haste too fast?" I personally don't think a lot of the proposals for solo queue are very good, in fact I can see a lot more negatives associated with them than positives usually.
Knowing perk load out for one, the elitist nature of online gaming would have people denigrating each other and lobby dodging over loadouts long before it lead to any QOL improvements and the new UI is already ugly and cluttered. So I don't blame them for being non-committal and dragging their feet on that one.
I agree that DBD risks becoming a victim of its own success, in fact it has already to some extent, given the rather "samey" nature of more recent releases. Although chucky is a lot of fun so its not all bad and I don't think its the doom herald just yet.
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610263#Comment_3610263
I'll respond when I have access to a real keyboard but I threw in that last line to prevent the post from being taken down.
Sometimes, people take things too personal when it isn't mean to be.
Well its a forum so the best way to ensure even disparaging assessments aren't taken down is to be constructive at the very least.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610246#Comment_3610246
I see.
Interesting points here, mate. I'll see what I can respond.
How do you change things if the player base lament change while at the same time call for innovation.
You don't, thats the thing. Just because something can be changed, doesn't mean it should. I have a really long list of things I think shouldn't have changed in DBD. The demands for innovation can be answered by the newer content, because they are the root of the problem. Killer design getting less creative, as I've said.
You could say that DBD doesn't really need any big shakeups as its a pretty tried and true formula. Though that does lead to designs that need to fit into the tried and true formula. Because when it doesn't, its often remarkably unpopular or at least one group really enjoy it and the other endlessly complain about it.
I'd say DBD had a tried and true formula, an excellent one, but it was treated poorly.
There should be chase killers, stealth killers, gen defense killers, hook defense killers and BHVR try but the community response is always everything sucks but chases... make chases! Well you get what you ask for.
Here I'll demand bragging rights for being someone who doesn't complain about everything except chases. I like killer variety, I really do. And it is there, but again, you see it more with older content than the new one.
Chase killer - Hillbilly
Stealth killer - Myers
Gen defense - Old Doctor
Hook defense - Leatherface
But then you get to the new additions: Chucky, Skull Merchant, Xenomorph, Artist... endless cycle of pre-dropping pallets and holding W. Sadako is a rare exception, which explains how happy people were when she released without an anti-loop power. But, as you've pointed out, there are complaints.
How do you get an innovatively different thing that works exactly the same as the thing that came before it? Because that's what being asked for and its nonsense.
You try to please as many players as you can. You keep the chasing killers viable, while also keeping that variety in. It isn't easy, but it can be done.
- Couldn't agree more, just because it can be changed doesn't mean it should be. I wasn't saying it needed changing just the OP was about the failure of BHVR to be innovative but do they really need to be to make good changes? or do some things even need to change, for a lot no they don't. I've liked a lot of the new DLC but there is a bit of a "samey" feel to the killers when it comes to how they interact with survivors, but then everyone hated 3-gen SM so what can you do?
- Yeah there are definitely some things that I'm not a fan of and just plain don't understand but I wouldn't say the game is treated poorly. I mean there are still new DLC and ongoing updates even after all this time so BHVR are committed to the game.
- Brag away - there is more to this game than chases
- Sometimes it best not to try and please everybody because typically when you try to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody.
I do think there is an over focus on chase mechanics, but every other style of play is (to some extent unnecessarily so) lamented about. Inevitably the player base gets what it asked for... the same chases over and over.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610216#Comment_3610216
You keep giving me examples of maps and Killer that came out in a previous decade.
I think that says everything people need to know.
Oh please, I gave examples of designs that are the same as what you gave. You want more examples of stuff we already have and you want it on a shorter time line and that's fine but it has nothing to do with innovation.
You posted a rant and when someone asked you define what you meant by innovation you couldn't provide an answer.
Look at the 3 key points from your OP.
- "One is BHVR's glacial change schedule." I want stuff faster too and DBD is slow to change but what does that have to do with lacking innovation as you put it? Its clear you don't like the changes but again the innovation part is just a buzz term to frame your personal frustration.
- "Two is BHVR's apparent lack of understanding of their own game." Oh the hubris, I guess you know better than the developers what they want from their own game.
- The last point is the only one even mildly related to your rationale for the topic, the lifespan of DBD like all things that have been around a long time can lead to some stagnation in design. I addressed this because if integrating dynamic changes results in unpopular or even exploitable mechanics then keeping to a tighter more standard design is the inevitable outcome.
So its likely that DBD isn't going to change a whole heap given the rigid and simplistic play experience that players seem to want from it. Its a bummer but hey its still a good game overall.
So yeah you're disappointed sure, but the last bit really sums up the lack of focus in the whole point. "That's not a shot at BHVR, just an opinion." I'll criticize it but then I'll back peddle and try not to be a bad guy by saying "I'm not having a go its just an opinion," talk about a disingenuous conclusion.
If you can't answer the question that's fine. But I have some conclusions of my own - I think you're not here for an answer, or a discussion, but simply to complain and have people commiserate with you.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610216#Comment_3610216
"What exactly do you, and additionally a lot of folks who have replied with the same "they refuse to innovate" comment, want from the game that would be in your view an "innovative" change?"
My point in the thread was a bit different than everyone else's, because my primary concern is the way content was handled, instead of asking for more innovations.
Does that fit your line of questioning?
Perfectly.
You gave a good example of this in your point about killer design.
"Killer design is getting less and less creative, usually a repetition of anti-loop killers that you can only counter by holding W and pre-dropping pallets, while the older killers suffer with unnecessary changes."
How do you change things if the player base lament change while at the same time call for innovation.
You could say that DBD doesn't really need any big shakeups as its a pretty tried and true formula. Though that does lead to designs that need to fit into the tried and true formula. Because when it doesn't, its often remarkably unpopular or at least one group really enjoy it and the other endlessly complain about it.
There should be chase killers, stealth killers, gen defense killers, hook defense killers and BHVR try but the community response is always everything sucks but chases... make chases! Well you get what you ask for.
How do you get an innovatively different thing that works exactly the same as the thing that came before it? Because that's what being asked for and its nonsense.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610111#Comment_3610111
When people say “innovation,” they are most likely looking for designs which have noticeably drawn inspiration from sources outside Dead By Daylight’s existing formula.
Successful implementation of said innovation would be when players can look at those designs, recognize that it’s unlike anything they’ve experienced in DBD, but also feel like it belongs in the world/game.
As it stands, BHVR has been iterating on it’s existing designs for several years.
I won’t say that they haven’t been innovating, as that would be fundamentally untrue, but the overwhelming majority of updates are iterations, rather than innovations, which leads the game to feel stale.
Personally, their map designs are uninspired and are in dire need of innovation. Every map is fundamentally the same.
You raise a good point here. I mean mechanically DBD is pretty simple.
At most you are going to get different environments, themes or layouts or tweaks of current design. There is not a lot else to be done.
When they bring in changes that stray to far from the mould they tend to result in unfamiliar components that people complain about.
A lot of DBD is doing the same thing with very slight variations, when something appears that breaks the rules people tend to complain that the same thing doesn't work rather than try and switch things up.
Its all good to call for innovation but really what people are asking for is simplification.
If people want to have the same kinds of chase mechanics be reflected by every killer and survivor interaction, how then can you really have anything truly groundbreaking or innovative?
Its the double edged sword of trying to introduce new things into the strict ruleset you've applied to your setting. If there is a strong belief that there is only one right way to play DBD, which there really is for a lot of players, then how can anything be a new experience yet still feel like it fits?
DBD has been around so long now that its probably less likely to get big change ups, rather incremental tweaks to existing design.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610111#Comment_3610111
You seem to be equating innovation with overpowered. They aren't the same thing.
Also, Nurse came out 7 years ago lol
Chucky has been the most innovative Killer in the past few years simply because he's small.
Things that would be innovative:
More vertacality. Underground or lower elevation spots on the map. Dynamically changing maps. Different times of day. More creativity with Killer powers. Graphics that don't look like a PS3 game. Consistently updating old Killers and perks.
Whether a change is overpowered can be completely independent of whether or not its innovative, I didn't equate them I gave an example of innovative design and you answered in the exact manner I stated the community does in my example, with a complaint about it being overpowered.
A lot for the complaints about killers who switch up mechanics are typically that they have no "counterplay" and when you read between the lines "counterplay" means "can't be looped like other killers." So whether or not something is overpowered is independent of whether its innovative. Don't confuse the point.
Nurse was an example of innovative design and how poorly it can be received by this community, and your immediate "overpowered" reply demonstrates my point perfectly. I'm well aware of her age and it doesn't change the nature of her design. With respect to that I ask again... "do you want innovation or simplification?"
As for your examples of "innovative changes"
- We have one daytime map, we have multi-level maps, I'm always up for more variety but neither of these suggestion are innovative they are just asking for more currently existing stuff.
- We have some dynamically changing maps, the Game and Hawkins get more accessible as completed generators open doors, more things like this would be good. Again no specifics provided with what you mean by innovative dynamic changes.
- Creativity with killer powers - The Nurse example leads to people calling them overpowered and hence forth is a great example of wanting simplification not innovation so I don't think you are genuinely calling for innovative powers if you immediately go to "overpowered" as the counter point for an example of innovative design... but I've already covered this above.
- Better graphics is hardly innovative, its just an update, but there has already been graphics and animation updates.
- Consistently updating killer perks is a request for timeline changes not really innovative change, its more of a scheduling suggestion.
So again, innovation makes for a great buzzword, but if your examples of innovation are actually supplicative and your response to a genuine example of innovative design is "well that's overpowered", then the original question still stands unanswered.
"What exactly do you, and additionally a lot of folks who have replied with the same "they refuse to innovate" comment, want from the game that would be in your view an "innovative" change?"
-
I think innovation is a great buzz word with little substance because what does it actually mean when people say it?
What exactly do you, and additionally a lot of folks who have replied with the same "they refuse to innovate" comment want from the game that would be in your view an "innovative" change?
The basic premise of DBD is still essentially unchanged as a core game and its still very popular. Its the longest running asymmetrical horror survival that I can think of, so why vastly change a good thing? Just because its been around a long time? That's not a good enough reason.
Most changes these days are simply tweaks and reworks because that's largely what things need when the base premise is still highly successful.
If they were to completely rework the game mechanics it would likely be better to launch DBD 2 than drastically rebuild the game from the ground up, but what would that even look like? Because the base premise of the game would be the same... survivors have some task to complete to escape while killer is tasked with eliminating them before that happens.
Given the sort of things people complain about on this forum, I'd say people don't want innovation. Because innovation leads to mechanics that can bend the game rules and force people to think differently and play differently. Its very clear people don't want to have to think or play differently they want the same things to work over and over for everything, they call this "balance" usually.
For example - The Nurse an "innovative" killer whom breaks a lot of the rules for "normal" chase, requires a bit of time to get good with and can be hard to play against. What's the result? One of the most complained about characters on the roster... why? Because you can't do the exactly same thing against her that you can for other killers. That's what innovation looks like.
Do you want innovation or just simplification?
-
@SirXenomorph said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3608424#Comment_3608424
Even if they did have that in mind, it just did not work, since Killers just camp just in a distance where you can not unhook yourself at all. So what is the point you make when the killers who camp exactly knows how to avoid the unhook? Maybe it is you who kinda not see the forest out of all the trees?
And yea maybe the MMR is a thing to consider here I sure will have struggle too when my MMR is high, but for me it just is no reason to do that stuff and that is it. You all can play as you want, but still I think it is very much when you can not play a single round anymore without any killers do that stuff. It just destroyed the game and is way no fun. If you all have to win so badly that you use that stuff just do it, I never said you have to stop cause I am annoyed by it. I just ranted over it. And not only does the killers who obviously play like that come out to defend it with any reason they come in mind, no it just showed me, that no one at least a bit reconsider to think about it. No one who does it will stop it that is what you guys showed me now. And that is fine I will just do not try to say anything about it anymore since it is pointless.
I just try to play on even I think it will not be any fun anymore I will see if it someday will change, but till then have fun guys, do as you please but do not wonder, when no one grants you any GGs anymore okay? Cause it is no GG to do it all the time and it never will be.
It did work, again you miss the point. It doesn't exist to prevent camping it exists to prevent your game experience as survivor being 1 chase and hang on hook.
Now there is a mechanic that lets you get back into the game on your own and have another chase and a new opportunity to escape from the killer. The onus is still on you the survivor to escape from the killer during that second chase.
Is it a perfect solution?.. no but it is an improvement because it affords the opportunity for more gameplay to the person camped on first hook. That's it purpose.
The rest of what you have here is rather irrelevant to the topic at hand and it is as you point out very much "a rant", which is why its lacking in any real merit.
Frankly like any game... if you're not having fun then its time to take a break or play something else, simple as that.
-
@drsoontm said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3608056#Comment_3608056
If instead of kills, it was about hooks then tunneling would matter less.
e.g. you only kill a survivor after N hooks (total, all survivors included)
But if they do that of course, killer will be even less satisfactory because getting a kill will be insanely difficult for all but the most experienced ones.
But surviving would matter less also, in fact the entire premise of the game would matter less from chases to outcome.
What you are proposing is that survivors are basically safe until N number of hooks.
The whole point of survivor is that it's supposed to be dangerous to get in the killers face and interacting with the killer is supposed to be threatening. Player skill aside, the role being played is one of facing off against a tangible threat and trying to survive.
Remove that threat and you essentially neuter everything that makes DBD exciting to play in the first place.
People think chase is the most fun mechanic of DBD but ask yourself why is that? It's because chases are also the most threatening part of the game and therefore the most exhilarating part to play, what happens to the gameplay when that's no longer the case?
-
A reason... you don't need one, even a tiny one.
Its only a game and if someone is eliminated early then they are still alive in real life and able to queue up for another game if they want.
That's the singular pragmatic truth of it.
People make all kinds of varying arguments against being eliminated early, most are just accusatory arguments about people being scummy or unfair which is BS, but really a chase is the same if it happens over the course of the game or right at the start of a game. The only real difference is the stakes are higher in the latter.
I appreciate those higher stakes because lets face it without the ever present threat of elimination playing survivor is really rather dull, its that very threat that makes the game interesting and whether it comes early or late is just part of the game.
Look at all the posts saying "we need to punish tunneling" as if being eliminated early is some kind of terrible aberrant game mechanic. Its a lil nuts.
-
@SirXenomorph said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3607355#Comment_3607355
There is a reason why camping on a hooked lead to an update to prevent that. So if you say oh yea so we just camp in another way now, cause it is more effective means, you will give enough reason to the devs to maybe someday do much more updates to prevent killers from these kind of behaviour. So it is just downright a bad thing. And sure you can do it. Feel free too. But that show me, that you are just rely on that cause it is not possible for you to play without it.
I do know that killers which are good at loop breaking are in an advantage, but I also play killers which are not good at it and do manage to get it done without that. SO NO IT IS NOT EFFECTIVE. It is just an excuse you made. Sry to say that and sure you can have that opinion. That is what a free will give you. But I do not agree with your opinion on that, cause I have first hand prove that it is nowhere effective.
Cause think it just through yeah just imagine 3 Gens are already gone and you gonna sweat cause you did not get one sacrificed or even on the hook. So you decide to slug and camp or hook and camp a survivor. All the others see that you camp. And only the really altruistic survivors will come help. So effectively you as a camper change the playstyle of the survivors to just do not care about the one that is hooked, cause you camp there. Not yet but it will be like that if all of these camper killers do not stop that already. The survivors just decide to let him hang till they have done the other Gens. You are not effective you are the exact opposite. Cause all the time you waste for camping is a lost hunt a lost hit a lost survivor you might could get. And not only that the 2 Gens left would been rushed too. That is not effective in my eyes.
Your view on the anti-camp mechanic is a lil off.
The anti-camp mechanic wasn't introduced to "prevent camping" it was created so that if camped you could unhook yourself and have a chance at greater gameplay.
"Camping" wasn't what was being changed, what was being changed is a survivor play experience that was get found, have one chase and hang on hook for 2mins of game time then game over. <- That's the specific scenario that was changed.
This was explained by the devs on multiple occasions. Camping is still possible but now as survivor you have a self reliant way to rejoin the game if face camped in the most egregious way.
A lot of players can't see the forest for the trees though and think just because there is a mechanic that offers a counter to the play experience of being "face camped" that somehow means defending a hook in invalid play and shouldn't be allowed at all. Which frankly isn't the case.
-
Killers will learn to pressure gens effectively and survivors to evade the killer and escape effectively.
Like they did before those perks even existed.
Oh wait learning is hard can BHVR just make mechanics so I don’t have to learn? My personal improvement is the responsibility of others didn’t you know.
Maybe they can just get their parents to do it for them, like everything else in life? Mummy!!! The other kids aren’t letting me win!!!
-
I think we need to stop mislabelling farming as playing “nice”.
It’s perfectly fine to play to win there is nothing inherently “un-nice” about that.
There are just people on both sides who can't accept loss and equate losing with the opponent not being nice.
It’s a sick way to view gaming and results in people really upsetting themselves over the game and engaging in a lot of toxicity as a result.
-
A lot of this is just subjective and not really highlighting any kind of mechanical insight that might impact actual balance.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3604628#Comment_3604628
We were talking about our experience and only said a majority. We wouldn't consider that exaggerated.
That aside, while it is unproductive, if people are mostly exposed to one thing about a killer then that's what they're going to attribute to that killer and be the only thing they really know about that killer. For our experience, being generous we get maybe 1 outs 13 merchants (we can remember 2 merchants between the two of us here) who don't try to camp a 3 gen. We wouldn't have much experience with her other mechanics because what we mostly see is that from her. We COULD be specific and say it's because she can hold gens well, but so can the likes of hag and trapper, and the last few hags ATE us without even kicking a gen.
Exposed to one thing or fixate on one thing?
camping and tunnelling make convenient excuses to pad the ego against loss. I see the terms used for that purpose far more than to describe actual gameplay.
Grain of salt all round.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3603768#Comment_3603768
Not entirely sure its exaggerated when a majority do as claimed. Everyone may have different experiences, but at least in ours it genuinely is as advertised and has cause us to project that hate to the killer. We will, play it out and see what the player does but we will be rolling our eyes until they show themselves different.
But it's absolutely exaggerated. It requires exaggeration to be valid when someone says "every X does this".
If the reason for disliking a killer is that they always tunnel, what that says is "I don't like players who tunnel" That is different from the actual killer played.
Some killers have mechanics that lend themselves to particular playstyles over others and you could say "I don't like X because the mechanics lend itself to camping/tunneling, so players tend to do that" that's objective and a reasonable point to make.
Because it separates the mechanics from the player and makes for discussion about whether the Killer as a concept is any good.
"I don't like X because they always play in a way I don't like" is just exaggerated BS.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3603081#Comment_3603081
In our defence atleast, we're generally fine with any killer (barring 7 repeats in a row or something) as we like how everyones different so we can only realy "hate" the play style we face.
Yeah but "hating" on a playstyle is very different from "hating" on a killer because most "hated" play styles can be universal and completely irrelevant to what killer. Some killer's mechanics may make them better for using a particular playstyle but often its just
"I hate X killer because they always camp", which isn't comment on the killer being used at all, but rather a hyperbolic expression of perceived gameplay.
-
Its a good idea on paper, sadly in practice I think it would just lead to more lobby dodging.
A lot of players have a very narrow view of how the game should be played and wildly varying opinions on perks and why/who run them.
I'd also hate to see the UI become even more cluttered and intrusive. The original UI was very minimalist and I kinda miss it, I still think the new one is ugly and the portraits aren't great.
-
How many times had you disconnected/quit before this event?
Its a cumulative penalty.
1st one is 2 mins.
-
You notice some replies have nothing to do with the killer, but rather assumptions about the player? Just an interesting observation.
- Trickster - Silly design from the aesthetic to the gameplay, not a fan of any of it.
- Skull Merchant for the same reason
- Twins, because mechanically I'm not sure what it is they do. They don't really seem to do anything.
The rest of the roster are generally fine and mostly fun to face.
-
Its kind of the nature of things.
Running many RPG games and groups I find that players tend to gravitate toward one major viewpoint which can be loosely cut down the middle of thematic gamers and power gamers. Its not completely black and white but generally.
Thematic gamers tend to appreciate the theme over the mechanics while power gamers like to game the mechanics to the upmost regardless of the theme.
You can usually see which mindset people gravitate toward in their opinions about how the game should work and what they appreciate about the game. I also find that online PvP environments tend to favor the power gamer more than the thematic gamer, as the competitive nature tends to turn a lot of thematic gamers off.
I should say that both groups are capable of getting way to seriously into their roles, thematic gamers who go over the top tend to be incredibly tedious being very difficult to work around things that are broken in order to reach a good balance. While power gamers who go over the top tend to be rather arrogant poor winners and sore losers demanding purely mechanical fixes even when completely immersion breaking.
A balance between the two is what's necessary.
I think streamers make up a special case, as some are very good but many are just regular people trying to monetize their hobby. There was a day when to have viewers you had to be talented or capable to some extent. Now days all you need is a camera, which means there are a lot of people in front of cameras who just shouldn't be there and their terrible personalities and attitudes toward gaming and life in general are on show for all.
-
This is the new breed of modern human.
The instant gratification of the internet has resulted in a people who can't wait 5 mins for a game.
-
I think its deliberately vague, its not a detailed announcement. As Mandy put it, it refers to small changes rather then full overhauls.
Also the terms buff and nerf are ones that lead to a lot of subjective argument, you notice none of the notes say buff or nerf yet people are already reacting and speculating.
There is already a whole thread thanking BHVR for buffing DS that pre-dates any details about the changes. Talk about jumping the gun.
If I was a BHVR press release person I'd be very cagey about using the terms buff and nerf pre-emptively because its gonna get a thoughtless reactionary response from a lot of players.