twistedmonkey
twistedmonkey
About
- Username
- twistedmonkey
- Joined
- Visits
- 5,349
- Last Active
Comments
-
You know years ago people were against any sort of paid dlc, people were against subscription games like wow.
Guess what happened? Those who were against them didn't buy them but the market still introduced them and for dlc some made that much someone always wanted something.
Then you have the ftp model which on paper looks great but that mod makes even more money for some but that's probably due to the pareto principle that 20% of your customers make up 80% of your revenue.
In the end you can stamp your feet, post threads but it is happening like it or not, you have the choice to purchase it or not, that choice is yours to make alone.
No one is part of the problem of it happening as it WILL happen anyway, battlepasses are the new dlc scenario like it or not.
-
The 12th is double bloodpoints weekend, the 18th is the birthday event which is going to be a surprise.
Who knows Ghostface may be that surprise and will be free as a birthday gift as they said it's half of licensed half original as it's just the mask they got license too.
-
You don't know the time of the cool down yet, it may well be the same as quick and quiet.
I guess not_queen was right about the forums blowing up.
Sometimes I wish they would say nothing and just wait for the ptb to test things out, at least then the complaints would be Informed.
-
I also love the new release of the game, the speed of it is really fun and the controls feel fluid and when playing as scavenger when you can be instantly sacrificed it creates a lot more tension, the hunter feels powerful and designed so that you should fear them.
With that being said I do think it could do with a slight tweak to the timer mechanic as all five of you can stealth the whole game and at least three should escape, you gain a lot less points but it's still a bit of a troll mechanic that some may take advantage of just because they can.
-
I have no problem with it if it is just cosmetics like they said, skins are non essential and no big deal.
Some skins are already behind a pay wall.
If someone wishes to pay for it that is what they decide, dont blame a business for trying to get extra revenue when the choice is yours to make.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/499621#Comment_499621
If you are taking him at his word then all he confirmed is that swf was meant to be in the game from the start
Correction: If we are taking him at his exact words, what is confirmed is that SWF MODE was meant to be in the game from the start. You know, because that is literally what he said. Why are we going through this again? Why do you keep insinuating that he made a mistake when there's nothing that would even suggest that? Stop forcing a narrative by mischaracterizing the developer as if he had made some mistake.
You are still assuming that they always intended it to be a complete seperate mode with no proof what so ever
"The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes, before release." So when the KYF MODE was released, it came in a separate mode, correct? Now, reread what he says again. Why would you suddenly assume that when SWF Mode is released, it would NOT come in a separate mode, just as KYF mode did? What do you even think he meant when he kept mentioning 'mode' in those sentences?
How your movie analogy would work is, you went to with a friend to a movie theatre that you had visited numerous times but now upon turning up there was another group of three, there is only four spaces so they gave them to the group of three and you and your friend had to either see the movie seperately in different screens or try another theatre.
Again, in NMCKE's mode, you and your friends are still on the same team sharing the same experience, despite playing a different role. What is so difficult to understand about that concept?
It does not matter what you think about how to balance any game, the devs are balancing in a way they see fit and the game has been successful doing it their way, you may not agree with it but in the end it's not for you to say it's right or wrong, it is not your game to mould into how you want it.
Are you saying that I shouldn't express my opinion on how I think the game should be balanced by the developers?
Do you remember McLean being quoted for saying "who ever said the game was meant to be balanced"?
"Nobody said it was balanced," McLean referring to Marth88's SWF experiment. What does that have to do with anything? And please don't misquote people; it reflects badly on them, as well as you.
If you remove an aspect of the game where they no longer have 100% choice of what role they play from someone while others get to keep it simply because they play with friends that they have always done then yes it's a punishment in essense for doing so.
So all of these complaints about NMCKE's mode boils down to you needing to be able to always, always pick your preferred role. Gotcha.
You may like it but others may not, what makes your opinion more valid than theirs?
Who said it does?
I never used the word inferior, I've enliven stated its not a bad idea I just don't think it would work out that well.
Fair enough.
Well if you are taking him at his exact word you also have to take the context into consideration, he was answering your question on swf as it currently is in the game, there was no reference that is was meant to be anything different and no further discussion on that.
Also since It was delayed what we have is what was intended as if it was put in and simply rushed they would have had it from the get go or have stated it would be changed.
If you show me definite proof and get the devs to state otherwise then I will openly say you were right but I don't beleive it will end up how you wish It to.
Being on the same side is not the same as being on the same team, by working with a killer you cannot share you items or work together on a gen, heal your friend or save them from a hook or with flashlight etc, why can't you comprehend that some players like to do the above and t9 remove that option form only a portion is not fair play.
I never said that, you have a tendency to try and put words in peoples mouths, I said its not your game to decide if their vision is wrong, there is a fine line between giving an opinion and telling someone they are doing it wrong.
The devs have always stated their core vision for balance is a 2 die 2 escape scenario over the whole userbase, the stats reflect this in slight favour of the killers right now so maybe they are doing what they deem is correct but not ehat you want it to be.
You talked about how the game should be balanced and originally used a quote from McLean (which you also misquoted by changing the wording to mode may I add so here tour own words).
I said this to show you have to take the context it was said in and not just the what he said, after that many posters started saying the devs wanted survivors to be stronger and tried to use it as proof.
That is not what I have bern saying, if you care to read its about removing that option from a portion of the userbase and leaving it in for the rest.
Well when you talk about the idea you don't seem to care how it could affect others players enjoyment of the game and are fine with removing options from a portion of the userbase, people tend to think this way when it won't affect them directly but in the long run benefits them.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/498671#Comment_498671
Say both of those solo players are killer mains and have no interest in playing survivor, one gets picked as killer so the other has to play survivor or leave.
Well that's just bad luck on them, if they really wanted to play killer then they should had queue up as a killer in the regular mode.
You are also less in control of your own pip as its in part dependant on how well a possible random person playing as killer does.
The emblems do need fixed as the above is an issue right now to be fair.
This was always the case in Dead by Daylight, my mode wouldn't change that unfortunately. Wait a second... voice comms can help randoms communicate with their team, so maybe it does help that problem just a little.
Personally I think it creates more issues than it fixes, you may have the problem with the normal queue that the devs stated happened, players keep leaving until matched with friends like in the beta and when the game first launched pre the swf lobby.
Punish dodging, there will be a fair system that would detect if you're dodging just to dodge.
I dont think the idea of a new game mode is bad, it could be quite a nice change for some players but I also dont know if the userbase size would be able to sustain the split.
That's why we have cross platform capability so we can sustain the split. Also, with Dead by Daylight hitting a new peak of around ~70,000 players due to the game becoming free to play. Cross platform capability would likely group everyone into roughly 150,000 players. 10% of 150,000 players is 15,000... not accounting solo players, that should be enough to support the new game mode.
Overall, we both can't be sure about what will actually happen. My mode might work, or you might be right and it fails miserably. Our argument can't really be solved until it's tested on the PTB.
Then if no killers play it a group with only 4 man need a solo players, what if that solo player hates killer and just want to play a mode with comms, what if all the other 4 also hate playing killer?
That's the issue people will end up just leaving lobbies.
Sorry you didn't seem to get the point I was making, comms won't help some random person be more skilful at killer but with your stated idea you are versing other survivors along with the killer for a pip, so they need to do well versus that other team so they are part of your pip which is out of your control.
If you force people to play apart whom want to play together they will just end up not playing, why do you think the devs have never implemented a system like this before and have been against separating them and tried to buff solo?
DBD has always done well on free weekends but that number always drops, who know the new Deathgarden may also take some players away as it's a lot more fun now.
We have to use the norm of 25-30k players at peak times which can drop to around 13k off peak, cross play would help but I have my reservations about that also.
While a larger userbase is always good console v pc has never went down too well as a mouse and keyboard makes playing killer for one a lot easier, they could add mouse and keyboard support but then those who don't have one or can't use one are at a disadvantage, it's not easy to balance that.
I wouldn't be against them testing it on a ptb as its an interesting idea for a new mode as a choice but I honestly can't see them doing it, the amount of work needed for just a test doesn't seem like something they would do as anything on the ptb which is a major change is going into the game regardless and just needs tweaked.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/498279#Comment_498279
The devs constantly say the wrong words when referencing the game and situations, they are Canadian and some are very much from the french side and don't speak English that well
McLean has never seemed like he had difficulty speaking English, so why would you suddenly bring that up? You are choosing to dismiss what he has said because "they are Canadian and some are very much from the French side and don't speak English that well", despite the fact that there is nothing that substantiate that kind of claim. It just seems like you simply don't want to take him at his word.
Now if he had stated that swf was never meant to be mixed with solo that would be something but as I pointed out that could never work with a 3 man swf, the fact they included that says they intended to mix them with solos.
The SWF Mode that they had originally intended to put in the beginning (but never did) does not have to have excluded solos. It could have been a simple mode where a solo could have jumped in if the queue was high in the standard mode, being fully aware that they are going to most likely be paired with SWF players. Of course, all of this being in the initial planning phase, way before the developers realized that they would have had to re-balance the entire SWF mode for killers. Given how that would take more time than what the community was willing to give them, they scrapped the idea and just mashed it into the core mode. Just a speculation on my part, but the context fits, and seems more reasonable to me than claiming that McLean misspoke because he's Canadian.
Now you see my point that it would be forcing someone to play something they do not wish too, it's not about being grown up that's not entirely fair, it's about playing something you may not find fun.
The thing is, when you are with friends, you may sometimes do things that you yourself may not particularly find fun. You may sometimes end up playing a game with them that you may have already burnt out on. You may end up going to a restaurant or the bar with them, despite not particularly wanting to eat or drink (or spend the money for it). You may go see a two hour movie that you don't much care for, despite the fact that the movie you are actually looking forward to watching is playing right next door. You may do all of this because you simply want to socialize and hang out with your friends and want to take part in what they are excited for - that's what friends do for each other. You are simply putting your friends over your own enjoyment, and hopefully they are also willing to replicate that for you. That's part of life.
So someone making mountains out of molehills out of who plays what role in a videogame match which only lasts about 10 minutes seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Are they even really friends if they can't even work that out?
Because it's a game, the mistake people make is they think it's meant to be highly competative, it is competative but as the devs say they want it to be fun, this should be evident with them trying to remove strats which are a more competative nature like tunnelling and camping.
You should understand that games themselves are usually not designed for competitiveness or casualness. People can play the same games competitively or casually, but ultimately what makes a good game is its balance and mechanics, not how "fun" someone finds it to be. Chess, for example, may be viewed by many people to be competitive, but it can also be played casually between friends. Same with Scrabble, Poker, Magic the Gathering, etc. This holds true for most 'versus' games. And on the subject of "fun" - the fact of the matter is, "fun" is very subjective, differing from person to person, based more often on their own background and history. What one person finds fun may be woefully boring to another. That's why you often see vastly different opinions on videogames/boardgames reviews and recommendations. So yes, the developers should attempt to make the game fun, but not at the cost of its balance or their core vision of the game - because ultimately, some in the community may find that the change has instead made the game much less fun while destroying the balance of the game.
Our opinions do differ, as I said I used to be like yourself and thought that punishing swf was the way to go but then I realised they are just gamers playing a game with what the devs gave them.
Again, I don't see NMCKE's mode as a punishment to SWF because there's nothing inferior about the mode. In fact, it's a superior mode for SWF plays due to the fact that it's more team-oriented.
McLean is on of the better speakers but that doesn't mean he is infallible to mistakes, it's just a word he used and without him explaining it exactly it can be taken multiple ways, you chose to see it differently than myself.
If you are taking him at his word then all he confirmed is that swf was meant to be in the game from the start, not once did he say it was meant to be a complete seperate entity and not mixed in with the solo player base.
I don't know how you can get that idea from what he said as even KYF is the same game but the one thing different is a friend plays killer.
You are still assuming that they always intended it to be a complete seperate mode with no proof what so ever, they may well had had a discussion about swf but let me point another thing out, the devs did not think the game would be as successful as it was so why would they split the userbase?
What you wrote is pure speculation and in the end the fact is swf is mixed into the normal game so that fact says more than all your assumptions, I never said he misspoke, I said it may have been a mistake in the context that he was meaning.
He may not be aware of how it may be taken by some due to english not being his first language.
Again with the pointless analogies, each one of them is not comparable to this situation as you are still in the same place as your friend doing exactly the same thing, your are together and can share what you have with them.
How your movie analogy would work is, you went to with a friend to a movie theatre that you had visited numerous times but now upon turning up there was another group of three, there is only four spaces so they gave them to the group of three and you and your friend had to either see the movie seperately in different screens or try another theatre.
It does not matter what you think about how to balance any game, the devs are balancing in a way they see fit and the game has been successful doing it their way, you may not agree with it but in the end it's not for you to say it's right or wrong, it is not your game to mould into how you want it.
Do you remember McLean being quoted for saying "who ever said the game was meant to be balanced"?
If you remove an aspect of the game where they no longer have 100% choice of what role they play from someone while others get to keep it simply because they play with friends that they have always done then yes it's a punishment in essense for doing so.
You may like it but others may not, what makes your opinion more valid than theirs?
I never used the word inferior, I've enliven stated its not a bad idea I just don't think it would work out that well.
-
I am not biased to one side but I can come accross as biased depending on the topic of discussion.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/498268#Comment_498268
If a solo player joins, they can expect to be the killer because well, they are the only person who won't be separated by their friends. Even if it was a 3 man SWF with a 2 man SWF, you're still playing with your friends, since you're the team killer. You're still going to have a good time, and that's what matters, everyone is having a good time.
I don't mind :)
This is where we differ in opinion.
You are communicating with friends but as a killer You are not directly playing with them.
I will give another example, If solo is needed to join for a four man then what happens if its a 3 man and 2 solos join?
Say both of those solo players are killer mains and have no interest in playing survivor, one gets picked as killer so the other has to play survivor or leave.
I would say in that scenario most would leave, it has been tested and happened in the game that was dubbed the dbd killer.
Personally I think it creates more issues than it fixes, you may have the problem with the normal queue that the devs stated happened, players keep leaving until matched with friends like in the beta and when the game first launched pre the swf lobby.
You are also less in control of your own pip as its in part dependant on how well a possible random person playing as killer does.
The emblems do need fixed as the above is an issue right now to be fair.
It means killers have a choice to play the normal game versus solo's or with and against teams of players on comms so in theory It could cause really long queue times for killers in either game mode.
So incentives may be needed to entice users to play one.
To be honest anything you give to draw players away could then make the one game mode less attractive and in the end it's akin to adding in comms to the normal game without all the extra work.
I dont think the idea of a new game mode is bad, it could be quite a nice change for some players but I also dont know if the userbase size would be able to sustain the split.
I still dont think forcing it upon half the userbase only is a good idea.
-
@knell said:
You know when you have to result to belittling or trying to insult someone it generally means you are frustrated and have no real argument left, it's not how adults tend to conduct a discussion.
I have no intention of belittling you, especially if you are not doing it on purpose. Your run-on sentences makes it literally very difficult for me to understand what you are saying, and that's how these miscommunication keep occurring. Neither one of us wants that, correct? So can you please make an attempt to keep all of your sentences from being a run-on, and I will do the same? This last post of yours was a bit more comprehensible, so I appreciate that.
no where does he state it was ever meant to be a whole seperate game mode, it is why your whole argument on that is mute and rather silly, I will say my it again you are assuming with no proof to state otherwise.
So again, I ask you, "Why did he specifically mention 'mode'? What did he mean by "SWF Mode?"
I already gave example but just in case your having trouble with it, a 2 man and 3 man join the lobby, no one want to be killer so the only option is auto chose or it could be an indefinite wait (that's not hard to see happening since players sat for hour the hatch) the game choses and one person cannot play what they want or with thier friends, is that clearer for you?
In a case of 2-man and 3-man joining a lobby and no one wants to play killer, sure, someone would have to be the grown up and play the killer. Like I said earlier, most of us learn 'turn-taking' and 'compromises' when we are children, so hopefully it's not an issue for adults playing this game. But once one of them chooses killer, the rest are the same. In fact, the killer-player can share information about the opposing team with his/her survivor friends and vice versa. So to answer the question of whether they can or can't play together in this mode, the answer would be 'yes, they can play together.'
casual simple means people playing the game for fun and not taking it overly seriously as they arent that good
If the casual player is not taking the game seriously, and facing against an opponent who is taking it seriously and putting 100% of their effort in, why should the casual player have as much a chance of winning as that opponent?
If the casual player just isn't that good, facing against an opponent who is good, why should the casual player have as much a chance of winning as that opponent?
How exactly do you believe this game should be balanced?
You wrote that to peanits but the one thing you failed to realise is this is not your game, it is not up to you to decide that the devs vision is wrong
You're absolutely right; it's not my game. But developers have listened to us before on some topics, and will probably continue to listen. That's why we are all contributing by voicing our opinions and giving feedback, correct? My hope is that they will eventually do what I believe is the correct course of action in regards to the SWF problem (which obviously differs from yours).
players like yourself who seem to want it to be something it will never be and come to the forum screaming I want over and over like a toddler in an ice cream shop.
...soooo who is belittling whom?
Also, @NMCKE , if I am misrepresenting your mode (or you) in some way, please feel free to correct me and let me know. I also apologize for seemingly taking over your thread - if you prefer that I stop posting so that others may feel more comfortable jumping in, I don't mind doing that also.
How many streams have you watched? The devs constantly say the wrong words when referencing the game and situations, they are Canadian and some are very much from the french side and don't speak English that well, the words used don't have to mean something so specific, it's ll about the context it was used in and what he said afterwards.
Now if he had stated that swf was never meant to be mixed with solo that would be something but as I pointed out that could never work with a 3 man swf, the fact they included that says they intended to mix them with solos.
Now you see my point that it would be forcing someone to play something they do not wish too, it's not about being grown up that's not entirely fair, it's about playing something you may not find fun.
How many times have you read these forums and players from both sides state they don't enjoy playing the other?
Imagine if the devs decided to remove the option to chose sides and the killer was always chosen at random from the 5 players who joined, how would that make you feel?
If you enjoyed playing killer and hated survivor gameplay and now have a 1 in 5 chance, I couldn't see that going down well.
Because it's a game, the mistake people make is they think it's meant to be highly competative, it is competative but as the devs say they want it to be fun, this should be evident with them trying to remove strats which are a more competative nature like tunnelling and camping.
The whole emblem system as well promotes screwing around to rank up which also lends to the above.
Our opinions do differ, as I said I used to be like yourself and thought that punishing swf was the way to go but then I realised they are just gamers playing a game with what the devs gave them.
That is why oo force a new game mode onto people that differs from the original is not the way to go.
I wasn't belittling you directly I was making an analogy as to this forum and its users which can be like that at times.
There are a lot of people who simply come here as they want the game moulded to their vision and think the devs dont have a clue all the while trying to tell them how it should be done.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/498210#Comment_498210
If the regular game mode is fun, then the second mode will be fun as well since it's identical! You're literally doing the same thing by doing generators, getting unhooks, cleasing totems, etc etc etc... but just in a symmetric way. In no way my idea is perfect, but it does balance SWF perfectly.
"Now, what about adding built-in perks and mechanics to bring solo survivors up to SWF level?"
That can work, but having too much information can ruin the atmosphere of the game.
If voice comms are needed and you help a killer out while pitted against not only a killer but other survivors then it is a completely different game mode, fixing gens or being chased it's not just 4 friends playing dbd you are also playing with randoms which many don't like to do.
Now If you join as a 2 man and 3 man, even a 4 man and 1 solo then one person needs to be the killer, that means it removes a choice from someone which they have right now.
Do you think that is right? To remove that choice?
I dislike swf on comms but at the same time I disagree with removing and option they have right now for simply using what the devs allow.
As for bringing solo up I don't beleive it can be done, nothing can close that gap as with comms you can adapt 9n the fly and coordinate.
How do they fix it? I honestly don't see how they can at this point and probably why as of late they haven't done much about it.
-
@knell said:
First of all, please stop using commas in place of periods. Use capitalization when starting a new thought process. Have you never been taught these basic concepts? Or are you doing this purposely to obscure the discussion? Look at your very first sentence. Does it even make sense to you?
Just in case you are actually being sincere and they are honest mistakes, here's a link to learn more about run-on sentences. It should provide you with enough tools to help me decipher what you are trying to say.
https://grammarist.com/grammar/run-on-sentences/
Now, back to the topic.
So it seems you changed the wording to suit your narative as mode and lobby are entirely two different things, why not simply quote McLean and say lobby?
Because the actual word in McLean's quote was "Mode" and "Modes." It was never "Lobby." I inserted the word "lobby" in place of "mode" to show you how ridiculous it sounded. Because YOU stated, "mode in this instance could easily just be refering to how you join the game." Do you remember saying that? Ok, now, explain to me in short, concise sentences what you meant by that.
of course they bought it to play the hide and seek, the thrill of the chase etc etc but they also bought it to play with friends
Good news! Even with this new mode, they can still play with their friends! For some reason, you seem to keep thinking they can't. Provide me with a specific example of when you and your friend can't play with each other on this mode.
Did I ever say I had a better idea? You obviously dont understand that its not nitpicking to bring up a counter argument, you know this is what is used when someone doesn't agree with someone idea, many ideas have been stated over the years and all of them so far have had a counter argument as to why it wouldnt work or is not fair on the player
So you spend your time just attempting to poke holes in other people's ideas and solutions to problems, and yet don't contribute anything to the solution yourself. Gotcha. Moving on.
Again another silly argument, that analogy is not comparable to this situation and if you can't see why then I dont really know what to say.
Heeey, right back at ya!
it's simple, a really good coordinated SWF will always be better than solos but as peanits said that is not the majority of cases and why they don't want to nerf swf as casuals do play the game for fun and not to tryhard
Are you saying that because majority of the SWF players are casuals, the game should be balanced around them? Then let me quote you what I have said to Peanits in a previous conversation:
I hear this ("friends that are just having fun") argument often, and it never sits well with me. For any other game, if I am playing against an opponent of equal skill and he/she is trying their best to beat me with their focus 100% on the game, and I am on my phone casually talking with a friend about things that are completely unrelated to the game "for fun", my expectation would be for my opponent to beat me every time. If people are purposely playing in a way that distracts them from the core basis of the game, why should they have a chance of winning against opponents who are putting in their all? Why should any game be balanced for the players who don't appreciate the game mechanics enough to put all of their effort into their gameplay, but instead are making their "own fun?"
You know when you have to result to belittling or trying to insult someone it generally means you are frustrated and have no real argument left, it's not how adults tend to conduct a discussion.
Let me explain once again and I will see if it sinks in this time......I used the word mode in reference to the op's idea as I see it as a new game mode, when McLean is talking about it and referencing it as a mode you yet again are taking it way out of context, I can see why you are so invested as it was your question but he went on to explain that it is 2018 and they always wanted to let the players play with friends, no where does he state it was ever meant to be a whole seperate game mode, it is why your whole argument on that is mute and rather silly, I will say my it again you are assuming with no proof to state otherwise.
I already gave example but just in case your having trouble with it, a 2 man and 3 man join the lobby, no one want to be killer so the only option is auto chose or it could be an indefinite wait (that's not hard to see happening since players sat for hour the hatch) the game choses and one person cannot play what they want or with thier friends, is that clearer for you?
There are other examples but I'm not going to list them all for you, it's time to think outside the box and take off the jaded glasses.
All you stated here is you have no counter to my point, I have came up with ideas in the past like I stated, like this one I accepted they weren't in the best interest of the players who would be affected.
I never said anything of the sort but another assumption seems the norm from you, casual does not mean not screwing around that's a common misconception, casual simple means people playing the game for fun and not taking it overly seriously as they arent that good, it does not mean the dont try to do there best.
You will see these players at the end game chat saying GG even if they die first, are camped, don't get a kill etc, it's the competative ones who are generally who are toxic.
You wrote that to peanits but the one thing you failed to realise is this is not your game, it is not up to you to decide that the devs vision is wrong, the devs have stated many times they want the game to be fun, that is the most used word from them, not esports competative or balanced around the 1%, fun plain and simple, maybe the problem isn't with the game or the devs but the players like yourself who seem to want it to be something it will never be and come to the forum screaming I want over and over like a toddler in an ice cream shop.
-
Yes as like other things you took that out of context, to me if swf was meant to be a seperate game type that could never be joined by solo and balanced differently it would be a seperate mode not just a lobby, when I asked about who said it was meant to be you replied.
McLean:
"The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes, before release. And we chose Kill Your Friends
So it seems you changed the wording to suit your narative as mode and lobby are entirely two different things, why not simply quote McLean and say lobby?
Did you honestly wrote that thinking it was a solid argument? Seriously why would you even think they would buy it just to play one side and not for the ACTUAL gameplay, you are digging a hole with that argument as the it's a rather silly one, of course they bought it to play the hide and seek, the thrill of the chase etc etc but they also bought it to play with friends, that is their choice and how it is advertised as a co-op game, this idea removes that unless you have a full loadouts of players, if they wanted to verse them friends there is the KYF mode for that.
Did I ever say I had a better idea? You obviously dont understand that its not nitpicking to bring up a counter argument, you know this is what is used when someone doesn't agree with someone idea, many ideas have been stated over the years and all of them so far have had a counter argument as to why it wouldnt work or is not fair on the player, I wanted SWF to be nerfed for a long time and it was only after people making counter arguments as why it wasnt a good idea, I get it you like the idea but that doesn't mean it's a good one or fair.
Again another silly argument, that analogy is not comparable to this situation and if you can't see why then I dont really know what to say.
In any game personal skill comes into play, you could have a full team of players on comms in any fps and they lose to another set of players not on comms, that is due to them simply not being as good, how does that not make any sense to you? Are you doing it on purpose as you have no real counter to it? Not all set are good at the game it's simple, a really good coordinated SWF will always be better than solos but as peanits said that is not the majority of cases and why they don't want to nerf swf as casuals do play the game for fun and not to tryhard.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/497237#Comment_497237
Mode doesn't have to mean it was meant to be a whole seperate game type, mode in this instance could easily just be refering to how you join the game, there is no indication that swf was ever meant to be completely seperate by any one, its about the context it was said in, you are making an assumption there.
I'm making an assumption?
So let's look at the context. You are telling me that when McLean was talking about SWF and KYF Modes, he was in fact talking about joining lobbies associated to them. You are seriously equating "Modes" and "Lobbies." By your interpretation, when McLean had made that statement I quoted above, he was actually saying:
"The Kill Your Friends [Lobby] and Survive with Friends [Lobby] were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these [Lobbies], before release. And we chose Kill Your Friends." Does that make sense to you? You really believe that McLean was addressing this important topic of "lobbies" of SWF and KYF when he was talking about "modes?"
It seems like you are the one twisting the developers' words to fit your narrow narrative - hopefully it is not on purpose, otherwise it would be pretty disingenuous.
Yes it is on the devs to fix the issue they created but not by removing aspects of the game from some users while leaving it for the rest.
Again, what aspects of the game are SWF missing out on?
You didn't get my point regarding 2 and 3 man SWF, my point was if they join then who plays the killer out of them? What if no one wants to play killer? Do the devs then make it a random choice? That means friends wanting to play together can't and it removes the choice of playing what side you want to which is a main factor in DBD
Choosing which side to play is not "a main factor in DBD." It's not a core mechanic. It's not integral to the gameplay. It is simply a design choice made by the company - one that can easily be altered for a new mode. Nobody wants to play killer? Ok, understandable. But see, there's this thing called turn-taking and compromises. When children first learn to play hide-and-seek or tag (or even roleplaying 'heroes and villains'), they learn that sometimes they can't immediately get the role that they want, so may just have to wait for another time to do so. Hopefully, people who are old enough to play DBD had matured and learned these skills by this point in their lives.
And if I understand NMCKE's mode correctly, playing killer has absolutely nothing to do with not being able to play together. If you are a killer in Team A, then you are still playing with / communicating / coordinating with your survivor-friends in Team A. So what exactly is the problem?
The stats they collect should be a factor, a group of friends who constantly win, good at running the killer etc hould be matched with a killer of equal skill or the killer gains buffs against them, killer stats with the amount of 4ks etc also come into it for matchmaking, the whole matchmaking needs overhauled as it means a strong team can play a newer killer and vice versa, this is how I think changes should start to be made and not by removing or forcing players into something they don't want or may not enjoy.
The fact is a lot of complaints are from people not good enough to deal with them and may never be, I sit ing he middle of that bracket as I'm no where near the best but can do well enough, there are players who dont mind the challenge, so is that an issue with them or the game matching them together?
You apparently do not fully seem to understand why SWF is unbalanced. It's not because SWF is too strong or too "challenging." If that were the case, then killers simply need to be buffed until SWF are not. The problem is the fact that SWF is intrinsically different from Solos due to the amount of information they are able to acquire. Therefore when balancing killers, it is impossible to balance for both SWF and solos. That's why SWF is a problem - it has nothing to do with 'a group of friends who constantly win' or the individual skill level of players. No matter how much correction you make to the matchmaking (and I do agree with you that matchmaking does need an overhaul, but for other reasons), the killer will always be unbalanced due to the fact they would continue to waver between SWF and Solo in the current state of the game.
Yes I can say it is an assumption on your part as when this came about McLean was referencing the current game, no where did he say it would be a complete seperate lobby (you changed it from mode) which does not enter the normal game like KYF, I can also say that as using some common sense shows that no matter how much you want to beleive it the so called lobby you desperately want to believe it as a whole seperate game would not have worked with a 3 man SWF as that needs one solo player, the only way to make that work is to mix the userbase.
Do you know that when you solo queue you join into a lobby? When you play swf you simply join an invite lobby first before joining the game lobby, it's not rocket science.
Being able to chose your role IS a main factor of why some people bought the game, it being a core mechanic are just one in the same one in that context, you are still missing the whole point, yes some may take turns and enjoy it but forcing players who may not want to is not what should be done just because they want to play with friends, it's major change to what they bought the game to do, if you can't understand that after this time Its a lost cause trying to get you to see it.
Of course I understand what swf is not balanced, I have stated so many times in numerous posts since the forum appeared, what you ceant seem to get past and bring in irrelevant arguments is the fact I am not arguing something needs done, I am arguing against this idea as removing aspects of the game people purchased while others aren't is not how I beleive it should be done.
It does actually have a lot to do with skill, If you can't understand that a group of really good solo players can be better that a group of swf well that's on you and your knowledge of the game, information can make it alot easier but it does not mean those players can be good enough to give the othes the time to do gens, if a solo runs a killer for 3 mins while 4 members of an swf can't run them for longer than 30 seconds what set of players will do better?
-
This is exactly the reason why dcing needs a timed out policy rather than banning and also why the matchmaking and deranking needs fixed asap.
Why people can't just take a loss or play with what they are matched with? Anything in the game is fair but some like to try and pick what they want.
This is why some players never get better agaisnt some killers as they refuse to verse them, I understand your frustration and I have taken many breaks when the game gets to me in such ways.
Sometimes it's just time to play something else for a while, I recently reinstalled borderlands 2 for another play through as free weekends are good for the game sales but can be a nightmare when trying to get a good match.
-
@knell said:
The thing is the game yes was designed without having comms, they always planned to add SWF into the game so that lies on the devs having lack of insight that players would use comms when playing together.
Again, what they specifically said was that SWF Mode was intended. Instead SWF was forcefully integrated into the core game, causing DBD to have massive design balance issues. Regardless of whether you choose to believe the developer's words or not, the point is that SWF in itself is unneeded for the core gameplay mechanics in DBD. It's just an extra feature more suited as an expansion.
I dont have a problem with new modes but I don't agree with is forcing players to leave what they have enjoyed playing through no fault of their own due to again the devs lack of insight, no one should lose what they have played for three years due simply because they want to enjoy it with friends.
And the developers should take responsibility by fixing the game to what it was always meant to be. And if that means putting in a mode specifically tailored for balancing SWF, then so be it.
Ultimately though, SWF aren't "losing" anything, except for the advantage they have over their opponents. Survivors are still repairing generators and running from the killer. The killers are still trying to sacrifice 4 survivors. It's the same game that they've been playing for the last 3 years, except it is no longer asymmetrical and therefore they no longer have a massive advantage over the other side. I ask you again, why would they not want to play in this mode?
The new mode yes allows you to play with friends but you need a full loadout of 5 or you are still paired with random, how exactly would that work? How many solo would play that mode? There are also 3 man and 2 man SWF who can create just as much of a problem to the killer as a 4 man can, its down to the players skill lvl, the reason they have 2,3 and 4 is due to not everyone being able to fill 4 slots so you end up making them play with randoms which may not be enjoyable for them, if you don't include 2 and 3 man then it's not worth the idea since nothing changes as around 40% of the normal game is still on comms.
Yes, sometimes you are paired with a random - just like you are forced to right now in 2 SWF or 3 SWF (and you never see them complaining right now, do you?) But in the case of this new mode, so do your opponents - they are just as likely to have randoms as you do. By making the game symmetrical, it is pretty much like any other multiplayer team games with randoms - both sides will sometimes have it. The difference right now is that the killer players don't even have that option. That is the problem.
Mode doesn't have to mean it was meant to be a whole seperate game type, mode in this instance could easily just be refering to how you join the game, there is no indication that swf was ever meant to be completely seperate by any one, its about the context it was said in, you are making an assumption there.
Not to mention they had the time to do that if they wanted but didn't since it was already delayed to finish it which lends to the argument it wasn't meant to be seperate.
Yes it is on the devs to fix the issue they created but not by removing aspects of the game from some users while leaving it for the rest.
You didn't get my point regarding 2 and 3 man SWF, my point was if they join then who plays the killer out of them? What if no one wants to play killer? Do the devs then make it a random choice? That means friends wanting to play together can't and it removes the choice of playing what side you want to which is a main factor in DBD.
You are blaming the players and wanting them to lose what they enjoy for something the devs did, while I do want swf changed or balancing I beleive it needs to be done in other ways.
The stats they collect should be a factor, a group of friends who constantly win, good at running the killer etc hould be matched with a killer of equal skill or the killer gains buffs against them, killer stats with the amount of 4ks etc also come into it for matchmaking, the whole matchmaking needs overhauled as it means a strong team can play a newer killer and vice versa, this is how I think changes should start to be made and not by removing or forcing players into something they don't want or may not enjoy.
The fact is a lot of complaints are from people not good enough to deal with them and may never be, I sit ing he middle of that bracket as I'm no where near the best but can do well enough, there are players who dont mind the challenge, so is that an issue with them or the game matching them together?
-
@knell said:
SWF right now is essense a seperate mode as you join the game in another way than the solo queue, the fibtexr if what he meant matters and I took it as I wrote above.
First of all, can you take a deep breath and proofread what you write? I'm starting to have difficulty comprehending what you are writing.
What you have to think about is KYF is same game as the nomal one it's just with only friends and no ranking/BP, they waited to add swf to be so logically they would have added it how it was intended to be.
...what? If English is your second language, I apologize, but please edit what you are attempting to articulate.
They don't want to add voice chat not because it's unbalanced as that would infact balance the current game more, they don't want to add it as it was never intended to be used and many don't want it as the community is toxic enough.
Here are the reasons why they don't want to add voice communication to the game as it is right now:
McLean:
"That being said, however, this is a game where we tried to have this horror atmosphere, this sense of isolation, there's no spoken dialogue in the game, it's very lonely and quiet, except for the pounding of drums when you are about to die. And that's all intentional. It really builds up the feeling of the game."
and Mathieu:
"The magic of Dead by Daylight is that at its core it's about playing hide and seek, everybody can play hide and seek. But then we have so many layers with perks (which is a nightmare for us to test), it also means that every game you play there’s uncertainty. That was always at the core of the design, that’s the reason we did procedural map generations and that’s the reason why you don’t know what killer you're up against, why we don’t have communications in the game."
Essentially, the lack of voice com is due to 1. maintaining the atmosphere of the game and 2. hidden information reveals.
The thing is, when you make this new mode that is symmetrical, it would already have a different atmosphere (more action oriented and fast paced) and it will no longer have the "hide and seek" element of what the original should have. Basically, it is what SWF already is. That's why this mode is a perfect fit for them.
KyF isn't played as they want to play versus random people as a group and gain rewards, they already have everything unlocked on the chars they have but what they don't always have is enough people or someone who wants to be against them, most of the time playing with friends means you want to be on the same side with the same goal
Yeah, and in NMCKE's mode, your friends are not going to be on the enemy's team, so what's the problem? They want to be on the same side? Hey, they will!
Ok, I am on mobile and auto correct sometimes is crap on the samsung, i also couldn't get on to edit as the mobile site is currently down, I had to go on the desktop site as that is working.
The thing is the game yes was designed without having comms, they always planned to add SWF into the game so that lies on the devs having lack of insight that players would use comms when playing together.
It's as I said it causes imbalances which is due to the information you can have which is not what the game was designed to give.
I dont have a problem with new modes but what I don't agree with is forcing players to leave an option that they have enjoyed playing through no fault of their own due to the devs lack of insight, no one should lose what they have played for three years simply because they want to enjoy it with friends.
The new mode yes allows you to play with friends but you need a full loadout of 5 or you are still paired with random, how exactly would that work? How many solo would play that mode? There are also 3 man and 2 man SWF who can create just as much of a problem to the killer as a 4 man can, its down to the players skill lvl, the reason they have 2,3 and 4 is due to not everyone being able to fill 4 slots so you end up making them play with randoms which may not be enjoyable for them, if you don't include 2 and 3 man then it's not worth the idea since nothing changes as around 40% of the normal game is still on comms.
And that's not even getting into a 2 and 3 man being paired up, who then plays the killer if all of them want to play survivor with friends?
-
@knell said:
No where have they stated it was originally meant to have been a seperate mode, they said playing was friends was always intended to be part of the game.
McLean:
"The Kill Your Friends Mode and Survive with Friends Mode were always intended. It's just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes, before release. And we chose Kill Your Friends."
Why would he say "Mode"?
Yes it can work out that both sides woukd be on comms but honestly do you think anyone would risk that? So effwctively those who dont yse comms would be disadvataged in a mode the devs decided to put them in after 3 years of owning the game.
Sure, why not? Developers don't want to implement voice comms in the current standard mode because it's not balanced for that. Why would it be a risk for a mode that is built with voice comms and teamplay strictly in mind? What are you so afraid of?
There is already a mode balances for them, it's called KYF, the choice means they don't play there, so you effectively want to remove that choice and force them into a similar mode.
Again, why not? KYF doesn't get much play because 1. it doesn't grant bloodpoints and 2. people may be afraid of offending the opposite side. This new mode would get rid of both of those problems. Why wouldn't SWF want to play in a mode that is balanced for them and don't have the disadvantages of a KYF?
SWF right now is essense a seperate mode as you join the game in another way than the solo queue, the fibtexr if what he meant matters and I took it as I wrote above.
What you have to think about is KYF is same game as the nomal one it's just with only friends and no ranking/BP, they waited to add swf to be so logically they would have added it how it was intended to be.
They don't want to add voice chat not because it's unbalanced as that would infact balance the current game more, they don't want to add it as it was never intended to be used and many don't want it as the community is toxic enough.
KyF isn't played as they want to play versus random people as a group and gain rewards, they already have everything unlocked on the chars they have but what they don't always have is enough people or someone who wants to be against them, most of the time playing with friends means you want to be on the same side with the same goal, it has nothing to do with offending another person as it's a friend, being toxic towards a friend is actually a laugh as is just what friends do, I don't know anyone who would be offended when playing against friends and they tbagged for instance.
-
@knell said:
Swf was always intended, it was not crammedndown the players throats.
Actually SWF MODE was always intended. We just never got it, and instead SWF itself was crammed down into the core mode.
As for the game mode it is significantly different to the normal as you would have to be on comms to compete and work against other survivors and with a killer to get your goal.
No, given the more symmetrical nature of the NMCKE's mode, both sides would have a much a chance to be on voice comms as the other, as well as not be on voice comms. Most games are like that. The problem with voice comm in the current standard mode is that killers cannot do anything against it because they don't even have the option to take part in it given the asymmetrical nature of the game.
Edit:
I'm not saying swf isnt a problem but you also have to realise why locking someone out of something they bought the game for is not right due to lack of insight from the devs part.
And they can still take part in it. Just in a mode where it's balanced for them, instead of giving them overwhelming advantage. Why wouldn't they want to do that?
No where have they stated it was originally meant to have been a seperate mode, they said playing was friends was always intended to be part of the game.
Yes it can work out that both sides woukd be on comms but honestly do you think anyone would risk that? So effwctively those who dont yse comms would be disadvataged in a mode the devs decided to put them in after 3 years of owning the game.
There is already a mode balances for them, it's called KYF, the choice means they don't play there, so you effectively want to remove that choice and force them into a similar mode.
1 - That may happen but it's also an assumption all the friends are from the same country or speak the same language and use comms.
2 - so in effect kill your friends against others, there is a reason players play the normal game and not that mode, not just due to bloodpoints but also because they enjoy this mode more, you effectively want to remove that choice.
3 - Yes, but that is on the devs not the players, if those players don't like the new mode and want to play the original what them?
What about the most common swf 3 man and 2 man? You are also saying they must have 3 other friends online to play the game, if not then it doesn't solve any issue as a 3 man can be stronger then some 4 men swf it's down to the players not just the option and they could decide to only play in 2 or 3 man only to play normal.
You are not really doing the same thing as instead of working agaisnt one killer you are working against another team and a killer while working with a killer, if they wanted 5 friends to only play in a mode apart from the original KYF is already there they could have limited 4 man SWF to just that.
-
Swf was always intended, it was not crammedndown the players throats.
As for the game mode it is significantly different to the normal as you would have to be on comms to compete and work against other survivors and with a killer to get your goal.
I'm not saying swf isnt a problem but you also have to realise why locking someone out of something they bought the game for is not right due to lack of insight from the devs part.
1 - I dont know what say when you reference Europe as one country when it has around 35 or so countries in the European region all with different languages, it really shows a lack of understanding on how this system would affect them.
2 - 5k players seems a lot but how many killers would join it? What if those 10% of players only managed to pull in around 500 killers? Its a mode not everyone will want to play as you are reliant on info from other players while the normal one you are in complete control.
3 - well you have to take that up with the devs who have stated that swf was always intended to be part of the game, you want to remove and aspect from players due to their lack of insight?
Swf is unbalanced but you can't remove the mode from people who have spent a lot of money to play it that way, unless they did it for all they are effectively removing the game they bought to play due to a mode the devs put in.
-
@Okapi said:
@twistedmonkey Solos and killers were instalocked out of what they bought when SWF was forced into the main and only gamemode without taking balance into account. What about them?
That's a very silly statement, while swf is unbalanced it did not stop solo or killers from playing the game.
If you are going to try and present an argument at least be reasonable with it.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/496139#Comment_496139
It assumes for one all the players speak one language.
True, but this isn't a problem with dedicated servers because you'll be connected to your region. With some programming, BHVR can make it where only people from your region can join your team. Like I said, we will need cross platform capability because this requires a lot of players.
Secondly being able to mute is counter productive as without comms you will lose in thus mode as you have it seyip to be team play (DBD is by definition not a team game) and if one muted you can see them having abused hurled at them for joining.
This is the only flaw with this game mode, I'll admit that.
However, this is a problem with every game, and sadly, there is no way around it besides getting mature friends to play with you. If a random teammate is being toxic, mute them while reporting them in the corresponding category. It sucks, but not every game will be like what you mention, especially when the ACMs review reports like a boss.
Thirdly removing swf from the standard game can't happen, a lot of them bought the game to play as it is right now, by forcing them to only play another mode instead isn't right even if it is currently unbalanced you can't take away their game.
Yes we can, because it is the ONLY way to SOLVE the SWF gap. I understand that not everyone that plays survivor is a SWF, as well as them being commando unit, but it still doesn't make it right. Also, I know you didn't read it but... according to BHVR's EULA, it's their game and it's always subject to change.
Overall, you have a choice to fix Dead by Daylight by adding a new mode just for SWF. Yes not many people will like it, but it's a sacrifice for the better of DBD! With this change, developers can now individually focus on solo survivors without worrying about SWF breaking it apart.
1 - it is a huge problem as the Europe region includes multiple countries 😉
2 - then it's a swf mode only and randoms have no reason to play, it also means only full loaded swf may get the benefit so around 10% of the user base.
3 - you really can't, the game is what it is, if the devs allowed others to play a mode you no longer can't simply for playing with friends you enjoy more it would be wrong and I can guarantee you it would never be done by the devs.
I know about the eula and while yes anything is subject to change that doesn't mean thatlocking people out of what they bought while allowing others to continue playing it is a good idea and probably why it's not common practice unless it changes for everyone.
-
@knell said:
About your third point.
This game have changed drastically from the time it was first launched, and it will continue to change. Killers have changed. Perks have changed. Maps have changed. I'm sure there are many people who purchased the game (or the DLCs) for certain aspects of killer or perks that since then have completely changed. So changing some aspects of the standard mode is certainly possible (afterall, they had forcefully integrated SWF into the standard mode in the first place - and took away the game from people who enjoyed it as it was), and if it is to better balance the game, should be encouraged. Why shouldn't SWF be moved to a mode [that specifically targets teamplay and communication] from the standard mode [that specifically is balanced for no communication]? Why would SWF even want to play in a mode that breaks the balance of the game by their very presence instead of playing in a mode that is tailored just for them (unless they just want to take advantage of the non-communication aspect of the standard mode)? They want to "just play with their friend?" Sure, play with them in a mode that is balanced with that in mind.
There is quite a big different to changing aspects such as perks, layouts and rework of the maps for balance from locking players out of the original mode.
The new mode would have you pitted versus other survivors and a killer while also working with a killer and you could guarantee not everyone would like it.
It's a huge difference in gameplay and while some may embrace it it's still not right to deny the game mode they bought to play with friends while others get to keep it.
Now if they redone the whole game to this mode for everyone and it was the only option then it would be fair but i cant see it going down well with the userbase.
Players want to play what they want to play regardless of balance, what makes you think any of those players care if its unbalanced by definition? If they enjoy it and have fun that's all that matters to most players in reality.
-
There is a few problems with the game mode.
It assumes for one all the players speak one language.
Secondly being able to mute is counter productive as without comms you will lose in thus mode as you have it seyip to be team play (DBD is by definition not a team game) and if one muted you can see them having abused hurled at them for joining.
Thirdly removing swf from the standard game can't happen, a lot of them bought the game to play as it is right now, by forcing them to only play another mode instead isn't right even if it is currently unbalanced you can't take away their game.
The problem with swf is the info they have and I can't see it ever being fixed, it's unfortunate but solo will never be able to have the same info a swf do.
I think your idea would be a huge amount of work, it would create major backlash from players who are being stripped of the content they purchssed and also end up being a very niche mode which becomes hardly used, so in the end not worth the work it would take.
-
They tried that already on a ptb and it was abused, a survivor could just try and bait them away so they didn't leave standing just out the area so the timer took ages making all gens free and a lot easier to do.
The problem with facecamping isn't that there is no punishment for it, it's that survivors tend to not use what they have to pun8sh it or kill themselves on the hook, they reward the behaviour most of the time making the strat worth doing.
If they see someone being camped and run around trying to bait the killer more fool them, I will be the one on a gen close enough by them, trying to get out of dodge waiting for the flapping arms to tell me it's clear to save.
-
It's pretty simple to fix.
The lobby is 60 seconds long.
The timer starts once everyoje is in and the ping has stabilised.
You have 20 seconds to leave in that time due to ping, no names, chars or anything else is shown.
Once it hits 40 seconds survivors and killer are locked in and leaving means you get a longer wait to requeue, survivors are then shown with clothed and items.
No names or profiles are shown as that breeds toxicity, they are also removed from the end game lobby so people don't write on profile, yes there is another way but not everyone will use that, the point is not to make it so easy.
At 25s or when the survivors ready up they can no longer change loadouts and the killer has that time to setup to combat it.
Make the end game chat an option at the end to be shown, no auto chat no instant toxicity.
Ping is sorted and you have time to leave, survivors can use what they like and killers have time to setup without last second switching.
If someone is toxic by intentionally griefing in game they can be reported and dealt with that way, in the end dodging doesn't help stamp that out only by playing and recording can the devs do something about those players.
-
@Peanits said:
It's a bit trickier than it seems. Punishing disconnects is pretty safe to do since people had the opportunity to leave in the lobby if there's an issue. Punishing people for leaving a lobby gets messy because there's multiple reasons why you might decide to leave. For instance:
- Bad pings
- Racial slurs
- People being toxic in chat
- Negative past experiences with one or more people in the lobby
In simple terms, we wouldn't want to punish someone because they don't want to play a laggy match, or for avoiding a guy that started insulted everyone last time they played and so on. Something like that could only work if there was a robust system that could determine if someone is a problem player and allowed people to leave, but that's out of the question at the moment. For the time being we are just focusing on disconnects from a match in progress.
While I agree with what you said regarding racial slurs and general toxicity what about when playing survivor?
Survivors have no control over whom they face and they could just as easily have had these things done by a killer player, the ability to dodge toxic players who may have abused someone in the end game chat shouldn't be one sided.
There is also the fact that players can hide steam profile and change names deleting the others to stop most of that from being able to be seen which negates this information from needing to be seen in the lobby.
Survivor's had the option to see profiles removed as they could see the killer they may play which made sense but it also was in essense done so players did not avoid those who camped or were good while which can fall under your bad experience quote, a bad experience should not be an option if they are using in game mechanics built in by BHVR or things which aren't bannable.
Right now a killer can equip a mori against a survivor they may recognise and tunnel them to use it, is that considered a bad experience and if so why allow it?
Allowing one side to dodge for using in game mechanics shouldn't be allowed imo as it creates a legit way of cherry picking games for an easier time.
Where does it stop? why not then allow players to pick if they want to play versus a mori? Insta heals? Certain add-ons? where do you draw the line?
Ping and toxicity I agree with but you have to be consistent with toxicity for both sides and realise toxicity does go both ways, allowing one side to do dodge for it and not the other is akin to saying its ok for one side to be abused which isnt really ideal, you really should either allow both sides to see profiles or none of them in the lobby.
Personally all profiles should be hidden imo as it's just a way to create problems and can cause a bad experience for both sides.
There is of course the option to close chat or leave immediately if you see someone you had a bad experience with so you dont see the chat, maybe you should auto close chat and it should be an option to read instead of allowing players to dodge.
-
It depends on what they limit the battle pass too.
If you get double shards for instance you can then buy bloodpoints in the shrine which in turn helps you get more add-ons, offerings and level faster which then has a p2w aspect since anything which is monetized which can give an advantage in game is the definition of p2w.
The grind should be set the same for all users when it comes to bloodpoints as people have asked for this for a long time, if you can get more BP using shards it makes it unequal and they are monetizing the grind which is completely wrong, they also need to make sure the dlc stays the exactly same way and price and not make them a part of the pass as that would again be wrong as you would pay more even if you didn't want the cosmetics.
These are my concerns with a battle pass as long as it's just cosmetics or chars leaving in the current options it's ok in my eyes, if it gives you any advantage over the BP grind then it's very scummy.
-
70 hours is roughly the time the devs planned for.
They first stated it would be around 25-30 hours per character which you can achieve with the bonuses you get on shards if you do well in game.
I have no issue with this as 70 hours played to get both in 3 months is easily doable.
With am average of 90 days in 3 months that's less than 1 hour playtime a day or around 4/5 matches.
I think it's perfectly reasonable as it is as it's also only $7 a chapter if you want bto pay and don't have the time which equates to just under $0.08 per day.
-
Yeah its to do with the Legion change, MoM and EGC.
-
Probaby due to them being such a low increase/decrease it would be laughable the difference if we actually saw it in numbers.
-
Well the power bar seems like it may take Freddy himself into the dream world, possibly like the spirit Freddy may go into it and become invisible and while in have other affects, I say this as if you look at the shot just after seeing that Freddy seems to be picking up a survivor out of the dream world.
-
I like this idea, thumbs up from me.
I think the other sides skill should not be a factor in your pip.
If the killer can't catch anyone why should all the survivors not pip? Surely in terms of matchmaking they should be moved away from that player.
It works on both sides as well as a killer doing their job quickly due to lack of survivor skill should really pip if not double pip to be moved out that rank area.
-
Yeah dont worry about it, many players don't know that different killer animations can make them seem faster when they are not.
Many still think due to the animation the Trapper seems faster when they are standard 115% movement speed like the others.
-
Since being sick has no real downside to it making adrenaline remove it isn't warranted.
It's a huge no from me.
-
@Shad03 said:
@twistedmonkey It is highly doubtable that'd they give The Legion a new power. But if they do, I would hope it'd be similar to my overhaul idea.
The problem with this current Legion is not that you can't use DW to down, we all know that needed to go, it's that they ALSO gutted Feral Frenzy. I am kinda fine with the stun now, but they gave us no reason to want to use the power except for a 'free' hit.
There is no reason Feral Frenzy should have the downsides it does while DW can do nothing besides give the survivors another healthstate. That's all we're asking.
I don't either but I can hope.
That's the main issue with FF without it being able to down its never going to be good and when you can down with it it feels cheap.
FF is the overall problem as I see it, any power should have some counter play so making it faster would mean less and even more free hits so it can't ever be made powerful in essense.
If they increase its use and give it a larger downside to survivors when being hit then it become a very tedious mechanic to verse.
I don't see how they can make this power actually fun for both sides and why in the end they chose for a more mid tier viable solution.
The issue was the lack of insight in opening a can of worms such as this, not listening to the original ptb feedback and thinking it was fun for both sides when the concept was first thought of.
This is an example of something the userbase have asked for for a long time, a killer who could jump pallets, in part it shows not all ideas work out well as now we have the situation where a fun killer to play gets gutted as they were not fun to verse and they will have huge trouble making them fun again to play as the mechanic was a bad design choice.
That's just my opinion of course but I feel this scenario is another Freddy, an ill conceived thought which sounded good on paper which turned out to be the worst idea so far.
-
@Ihatelife said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/489942#Comment_489942
"It's unlikely they are significantly less fun to play"
Look at the reviews
https://store.steampowered.com/app/971790/Dead_by_Daylight__Darkness_Among_Us_Chapter/
Most of the players have no longer fun from playing as them ingame.
To be fair that is 123 reviews in just over two werks that make up that overwhelmingly negative, it is certainly a very small minority.
I think one of the main complaints with legion comes down to PC versus console as with PC you very rarely will miss a hit so the Cool down doesn't affect you as much.
Maybe they should do something about the hit mechanics on console to help balance that part out.
While legion was a bit gutted I can't think how they can keep counterplay with how their power works, the original concept was weak it just meant they would always to get someone down if they kept chasing, nothing you could do would change that fact.
Anything that grants a free hit nd can doen you doesn't work, no other killer gets a free hit without having to at least work for it, Legion was the only killer that did and why they were the most hated, they can still apply the first hit far easier than most other M1 killers though.
Personally I think Legion was a huge mistake and should be reworked with a new power as the deep wounds mechanic doesn't do anything worth having, giving borrowed time is not a fun mechanic as a power.
The problem is the other side, getting hit with no outplay was never fun, a killer which negated anything a survivor had to evade was also not fun, at least with the Nurse the player has to predict.
Now people are complaining they are not as fun to play, this is the case of course due to the changes but if you see above you are seeing what many other players have been going through for months.
Legion with their power imo can never be powerful due to how it was designed, if they get easy free hits and can down someone with that well it's more fun to play but not verse.and can never be a top tier killer as it would feel cheap.
Imagine if you were put into a lobby with Marths depip squad every single game, no one else just that squad, no matter what you did you would not come out enjoying that experience as that situation would be set against you from the start.
That is how the current survivor being chased by legion felt, there was nothing they could do about the situation and they would eventually go down, not due to skill but how the mechanics were.
-
They tried it with gens being done it didnt allow the plays they wanted.
If a survivor 99% a door just open it yourself and start the egc that's why you can open them, 99% is a tactic also used to try and avoid blood warden so slugging if you run it and opening the gates is your goto strat.
The egc was never intended to be one sided or hard for either side it was a way to stop trolls from prolonging the game.
It's fine how it, think about if you ran blood warden and rember me it would mean a possible 1m35s of time being added, regardless of how much time has gone by after the last gen was done, adding time to combat that would be silly and against the whole egc's purpose which is of course is to end the game quicker.
So again its why you have the option to open the door yourself and start the timer, which of course helps to end the game quicker.
-
Whats the point if you have to mute most players? Do you really think this toxic community would do well with being able to speak in game? Screaming save me #########, noob players, playing music etc.
The other thing is why should the players who have always played as the game was intended be disadvataged?
And that's not to mention regions like Europe where you can have 4 different languages in a match, there is also swf so what if 3 are Spanish and one is French? Two German one English and one swedish? And that's just some examples.
-
@FireHazard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/490836#Comment_490836
You can do that but, I can guarantee that 99% of people who want to de-rank will not go this route because of how long it would take.
That's why most Survivors just DC, but those same Survivors risk getting banned so.
Yep it's unfortunate some play enough that dcing to derank doesn't matter and will never see a ban.
Hopefully when dedicated servers come they will have no option but to do it a slower way or the game comes to a point where you don't want to anymore.
-
Dont hook any one and slug as killer.
Survivor find the killer and lose the chase making yourself seem bad, get hooked struggle and let yourself die.
Easy peasy and you still get some BP's.
-
It's probably a license cost for the likeness of the original versus the new one.
Robert Englunds Freddy is the most iconic and they would probably have to have his permission or give a huge payoff as he is Freddy, much like why Laurie doesn't look like Jamie Lee Curtis.
The new movie didnt do well so the rights to Jackie earl Haley will be a lot cheaper and he may not even need compensated depending on the contract, they are also still discussing another possible reboot so that 2010 movie may turn out to be like other horror franchises and be the one people love to hate.
-
@Well_Placed_HexTotem said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/488439#Comment_488439
Whether you’re SWF or not, you’re still on a team trying to do gens.
Its a common mistake to think that way.
As a team you are one entity and looking out for each other and it would mean you all win or you all lose as one.
DBD can use the word team when in SWF as they are set up like a squad all on comms, but when solo its a free for all.
When solo you are working for your own benefit by saving, each action is done for yourself and bloodpoints and making your chances to escape and also for keeping the chance someone else to get chased higher.
If someone dies and you escape it doesn't matter in the end as it's not your team member, it has no bearing on what you get, its just a random person who got sacrificed hence playing solo DBD is a 1v1v1v1v1 and why it states help others or don't.
-
While i dont like the protection hit change currently it's a pain to verse as it's a guaranteed activate on most killers so a change is certainly needed.
Maybe if they did it by means of tokens for saves and heals it may be better, even using self care could add half a token.
That way it takes players off gens who want to use it, doesn't mean you have to lose a health state or put yourself in harms way and also doesnt make SWF rush to block hooking making it frustrating for killers.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/488436#Comment_488436
Make some recolors, sell them for cells and shards. It's not asking much.
They might even make more money off of it if anything. For example, I would love a blood red cape for the Wraith's Valentine cosmetic, or something like that. Would probably even buy it with Auric Cells.
I bought all 3 hairstyles for Claudette's school outfit, even though they're mostly just recolors (one has glasses). I liked the hair style that much, and having the color options for different outfit styles to make some of them match a bit better is nice.
It could be done but it's not a necessity imo.
It's a cosmetic nothing else, I'd rather they had this revenue stream than charging for every single dlc and remove the option of buying original ones with shards.
-
Well legion was buffed before they were nerfed so there is that.
Nurse is fine though as the default 2 blink, she could do with some add-ons tweaked to be more useful and some to make her more balanced.
-
While totems could be better hidden you lost me when you said "with your team"
-
Why? Its not like those cosmetics are needed, some of the best looking ones may be pay only but not all, we have lots we can earn via playing.
It's like the devs aren't allowed to make any money from their work.
-
@DarkWo1f997 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/488206#Comment_488206
It’s not understandable, he’s spreading misinformation and ironically crying us the river the claims I am.
To be fair Legion needed a change, the nerfs are a bit overkill but its hard to balance them without a complete change in power as all the devs did was use the borrowed time mechanic for it, to me they were a wasted oppertunity killer.
It was like a lot of us said, they teetered on the edge of being OP and trash, tbh the devs have put them in a place which isnt as trash as people thought it would be, it just takes a lot of adapting and a complete change in how you played them, they are now more in line with the vision they wanted for them but it seems they will never be a top tier killer and will stay around mid tier for the forseeable future if not always, the problem with their vaulting is its hard to balance and have counter play as it should never be something that gives a guarantedd free hit just for picking to play as them.
The devs had lack of insight with Legion and by wanting to make something fun they didnt understand how to make such a concept work for both side so Legion was a very ill thought out killer as no matter what they do one side will have less fun, this concept is evident when they also brought out MoM, the design team seem to sometimes run with an idea and lack the understanding of how it will impact the game and make it more tedious, while I dont like the proposed change of rotection hits something needs done with the perk as it has no counter play against most killers, counter play is needed and its unfortunate they left borrowed time with the same mechanic as Legion as that got over buffed imo.
The other perks you mentioned Solidarity and Flip Flop well they are trash compared to others in the game.
The Pig well her change to end game was actually needed as it could mean easy free kills, it was a nerf to her end game and how some people liked to play as her, it is something they could do with looking at imo.
Personally I like the idea someone put forward of pausing the timer if trapped but I would add that when trapped the timer should not go below 1 min and if it does resets to that time for balance, there is no point putting the option back in if you get the trap off with 15-30 seconds left to go and the gate is on the other side of the map so there need to be time to evade and have a chance to get out while being hunted to add some counterplay.
Nothing is ever final and they do listen to feedback, the problem is not all feedback is good, the devs have to put up with so much crap from these and other forums I wouldnt be surprised if at some point they said screw it and stopped reading them as so many seem to think their idea is what needs to be implemented into the game, this is not our game, this is the devs game, love or hate it, if they decide to listen to feedback so be it but if they dont well it is what it is.
Nerfs have been happening on both sides but it seems more and more people only see what affects them directly, sometimes people cant see the forrest for the trees.
Most people on the forums are not survivor mains, there are more killers and those who play both equally, its very evident if you read posts, a survivor mains post is generally a lot more downvoted.
The only way balance can happen is to see the problem from both sides, mains on either saide are bad for the game imo, understanding why a change was made allows players to give feedback on changes they believe may be needed and do it in a more constructive manner.
Its like the Pig change, If someone cant understand why the Pig trap change was needed with the implementation of the egc how can they think of a logical way to add it back in and add some counter play to make it balanced?