keepingitril
keepingitril
About
- Username
- keepingitril
- Joined
- Visits
- 552
- Last Active
Comments
-
No.
"BBQ and WGLF's BP bonuses provided an incentive to play in a fairer healthier way."
Uh huh. Sure. If BBQ is such a fair and healthy perk, then there should still be a close to similar number running it ater the new update, right?? Let me know. Nothing to do with the large number of bonus BP for every match, particularly killer? LOL. Ok. Also, there's nothing fair or healthy about running WGLF.
"So, there seems to be a clear solution here. Introduce new BP score events that replicate the effects of the BBQ/WGLF BP bonuses."
Nothing clear about it. The idea is that the BP are going and not being shuffled around. This topic has been covered multiple times. The bonus BP are going because it's bad game design and there is zero necessity that the equivalent points be found somewhere else.
You shouldn't conflate the two issues here - if there are issues with points scoring in any particular category, that's seperate. Personally, I don't see why activities that get points need bonus points. Sounds like you are just trying to inflate the giving out of points because of some feeling of loss, rather than making a sound design decision. It's also bad because it introduces the concept of giving out random bonuses for regular gameplay and it's only a matter of time before people start demanding bonues for everything.
A simpler solution to your proposed non-problem, would just be to slightly raise the point values already given to actions undertaken in the two categories. SImpler and without the fluff perk stuff.
-
This thread reminds me of one of the strangest 3 vs 1 interactions that I've ever had.
As we all know when a survivor disconnects pretty early, it's basically the killer who guides how the game is going to play out. It's always nice when killers go a bit more gently on survivors but often doesn't happen, etc. etc.
I had a survivor game a while ago (maybe Artist? on Macmillian Estate - doesn't even matter) and someone disconnected pretty early on. Maybe 1 gen was done. The killer then became super sweaty and the game turned noticeably unpleasant - a continual rotation of hitting, slugging, downing, hooking and it just kept on going until we were all dead. Maybe 2-3 gens got done but the game wasn't short - it was a real effort to get that far.
I've died in plenty of 3 vs 1 games - I get it but this game really stood out as it's very rare to see killers really very noticeably pushing at an early survivor disconnect.
But what was particularly unexpected was the post game chat.
The killer says... "I'm sorry about the game. I saw someone disconnect early on, so to finish the game quickly, I had to kill you all as quickly as I could."
-
"I'm not replying to any further comments under this thread because I truly don't think that most of you took the time to read why I DCed. Some people seem to get it and I'm not a fan of matches where someone DC's but context does matter."
Nah.
I've looked at all the comments, people are being more than kind to you trying to justify it.
It's irrelevant why you left the game early. No context needed.
If you leave early, you get a penalty. The end.
That's the way the game is designed and programmed. If you choose to keep playing, you play under those circumstances. If you don't like them, you can go and play another game.
I'd actually like to see penalties for people intentionally leaving the game early to be increased.
-
What do you do if you don't want a large chunk of what the web offers almost every time but you are forced to spend because you have to?
That's rhetorical.
I'd love a complete overhaul of the entire web / things to spend BP on - it's very much needed.
Here is someone's pretty interesting concept / ideas - https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/318949/offering-and-bloodweb-rework-intended-to-lighten-the-grind-and-concept-more-helpful-offerings
-
This poster shows the correct way prestige should be illustrated in the end game.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3011621
I think there's a far better way of presenting the end game info as a completely refreshed, single screen with the most relevant info but hey, there you go. My initial sort of thought is in that thread.
-
This is a smart sort of concept and should absolutely be considered for the game. Such ideas are healthly for ongoing (and growth) development of the game. We'll probably never see it though.
I suggested something not dissimilar.
@keepingitril said:
Though it was perhaps not originally envisaged this way, it's not really such a great design, that essentially you are always playing as just "the survivor" with a random looks and a few random tweaks.
Right now. I can have 10 perks at purple and have 10 survivors with identical builds. Doesn't mean anything.
And yes, I know the game is about grinding and bloodwebs and more perks, but... how pointless. There's no genuine character differentiation in the gameplay - clothes and cosmetics are essentially just a paste over. More so, I can play survivor well with few or so-so perks equipped and just ok with the best perks on.
Right now, once I have a lot of perks done, the entire character loading should be different. Perks first, then character and whatever other filler.
This game does lore, narrative and cosmetic things well, but it translates poorly with never ending cycles of fidgeting around with perks.
By way of background.
***
Individual Survivors actually being Individual Characters
In summary, incorporate elements of their lore (as currently seen through perks) into the character themselves.
Firstly, you get a list of ALL the game variants, eg. generators, running, healing, crawling, healing, lockers, etc etc etc and you allocate different variables to each character.
Then you apply a selection of the most appropriate elements to each survivors in different ways. Two positive and one negative - realistic.
There are many possibilities. Focus is on adaptable and variable amounts - base mechanics. The idea is that each character has an actually distinct focus. Some examples with example numbers.
Dwight
- + 4% increase to generator speed
- + 3% increase to helping others
- - 5% speed increase of hook timer
Meg
- + 3% running speed
- + 75% noise reduction vaulting windows and pallets
- - 75% increase in difficult skill checks
Claudette
- + 25% increase in speed of healing others
- + 15% slower dying speed while on hook
- - 5% reduction to gen repair speed
Jake
- + 50% noise reduction when injured
- + 25% increase in speed of unhooking others
- - 15% increase to time taken to heal
Nea
- + 80% reduction to delays after falling
- + 10% increase to walking speed
- - 15% reduced item consumption
Perks
Now that we've essentially given each character their own basekit, what then for perks?
Consider seperating perks from survivors all together.
Perks essentially become a litttle something extra but do not adapt the base mechanics. Do a massive overhaul and cull, so they turn into non-character specific bonuses that can be of assistance. Should be of the nature - when X happens, then Y. Doesn't have to be a set total number. Each survivor gets one or two perk slots. Option to randomise.
Examples:
- See auras when close.
- See injured auras.
- Heal one health state when....
- Sabotage hooks.
- Influence birds.
You'd have to balance them so that the "best" skills were very small gains but that's fine. If you can't catch Meg because she can run 0.5% faster, then perhaps you weren't going to catch her anyway.
Ultimately, having "fashion dress up simulator" makes an interesting "dressing up to show off in the lobby" game but if I run every single one of my survivors on a near identical series of perk builds, who cares which person I bring in. I just get BP and keep cycling them into whoever - may as well just give me a "Make My Own Dress Up Survivor" DLC.
-
The removal of BP in the two main offending perks is one of, if not he most important outcome of this forthcoming release.
It's poor perk design and poor game design.
It should have already happened long ago.
If you are feeling upset that you are not earning enough pretend currency in a video game, then there are plenty of other avenues the devs can handle this - in a perk should not be one of them.
-
Solid idea.
Kudos to you for putting a lot of effort into this.
I might suggest using the Emblem system as categories (4 for each side) and then placing each perk into the slot that most aligns with the type of gameplay it promotes. You can just put the 4 icons across where you have your titles now.
-
So many entitlted people on so many of these threads.
You all have a rough idea of when it's coming out, just be patient and it will be out when it's ready to be out. Moaning about it isn't going to get it out quicker or to a particular schedule that may or may not suit you.
Do you all have a brain surgery to go and urgently conduct or something?
When it's released you can play it, if it's not released you wait. Gees.
-
On the plus side, at least the OP has put some effort into the post and has thought of an idea past the usual one line of moaning.
But, still no.
BP's attached to perks is poor design. It's poor perk design and it's poor game design. Perks should be items that adapt the gameplay in particular ways, not the scoring of said gameplay. No BP in perks, no basekit whatever, no nothing.
The forthcoming change should have been made long ago - better late than never. That (particularly) BBQ has been left unchanged for SO long has done the long term health of the game no favours.
Hopefully the other 5 perks with BP's attached will be refreshed in a future update.
-
How many threads do we need on this? Like DH? One for each person to have a whine.
BP's attached to perks is bad design. It's bad perk design. It's bad game design. Perks should be elements that adapt the gameplay, not the scoring of said game. It's been a crutch for (mostly) killers and SO boring to go against almost every game. And enough with the basekit nonsense, that just shuffles the issue sideways.
This change should have happened already long ago. Thank goodness at least it's soon.
If there is an issue with grind / currency allocations, there are multiple other avenues to address it - perks is not one of them.
Sheesh.
-
56k is high even with a white glyph - you likely played well too and had many flans to eat.
Well done to you.
Ignore the trolls, you're good.
-
"I dont know if cuz of devs languaje not being English they explain themselves too bad or they just think we are plain stupid."
Your language, your tone and your attitude really lost me at your first sentence and you really shouldn't be lecturing anyone else on language usage.
The language of the change was very clear.
If you do or don't agree with the actual content you should say that not imply something else.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3019698#Comment_3019698
It's not a reward, it's a consolidation prize for people who already P3'd
Maybe the devs interpretation of a reward is similar to my definition of a "reward", which is strangely similar to your definition.
I understand there was likely to be a very (maybe very very) limited range of things it could realistically be and many suggestions were never going to make it (why people kept suggesting most currencies, I just don't know) - my expectations were not significant, but an icon giving recongition that I've used BP's in a certain way is just....
I dunno...
There was also another thread recently with a much better post game screenshot proposal than the current one, that adapted slightly would maybe make this reward / "reward" slightly more reasonable. Slightly.
-
"They removed the bo from bbq and that other perk for no reason."
They removed it because it's poor game and perk design. Perks are adaptations to game mechanics, not the scoring of said game mechanics.
It's the single best thing this update brings for the overall health of the game and should have happened long ago.
-
An end game icon is the P3 reward?
Really?
An icon that I don't care about, that makes no difference to anything, that has decent merit not existing in its' proposed place to begin with?
Um.
That's what I've been really putting in some hours to bring up my chosen characters? A variation of an image on an end game menu?
Really?
-
Another thread on this. Weren't there enough already?
So, I'll say it again.
BP attached to perks is poor design. Perks should be items that adapt gameplay, not the awarding of points relating to said gameplay.
Killers have been running one perk to get a BP crutch, so it should be that way forever?? And none of this "basekit" nonsense - that's not a solution, nor a design.
This change is an improvement to the overall health of the game and should have happened a long time ago.
At least, it's finally happening now. Thank goodness.
If you somehow feel you aren't getting enough game currency after the change goes live, there are plenty of other avenues to explore. Perks should never have been one of them.
-
Another thread moaning about this theme?
BP's attached to perks are poor design.
They should have been taken out months ago.
They should not be basekit.
They are a crutch, grind or not.
This is the single best outcome of this entire overhaul.
Thank goodness.
There are many ways of helping new players - justifying keeping BBQ the same is poor reasoning to keep it.
Perhaps the other perks that have BP's attached to them will be changed in time, but these two perks are really the main offenders.
-
Solid work @CupertinoEffect .
Much improved on the original.
I particularly like your minimising of the prestige level.
Would be interesting to see if the character icons could be coloured / designed post game to represent something, eg. most altrusitic, best chaser, most gens. Or maybe they can replace the status icon - default black lived, red died. Just thinking aloud.
Another variant could be a 2x2 square with the 4 survivors and all the info.
Each square has the survivor image with a small icon in one the lower right corner if they brought an item or offering. No need to show addons. Or whatever variant of placement. Prestige level in another corner. Underneath show perks, score, an indictaor of the emblem / score they did best in and the status outcome.
-
One step forward, two steps back.
Because each survivor is essentially interchangeable, my understanding is that this new prestige number only represents how many times I've clicked through the bloodweb. It's doesn't tell me anything about my ability, skill or otherwise, just time spent and/or allocations of points - something largely of interest to ones self.
If I am just on a random game with whatever similar perks, not doing a challenge, helping my team, it essentially makes no difference if I run my Level 18 Dwight or Level 4 Nea.
What if I am running my Level 5 Claudette on a game and everyone else, is running their Level 14 Kate, Level 12 Jonah and Level 15 Feng. We're all the same MMR and we all play ok. If the game goes bad and someone is upset, guess whose going to cop it.
If my characters were individually designed in terms of skills and abilities, then maybe there would be a legit difference between my Level 4 Dwight and my Level 18 Dwight. But this is not that game. Even then, there might be a case for not showing it post game. Maybe.
Chat still there.
UNLESS this new prestige number is some sort of reflection of my skill and/or ability, then you're solving nothing. Devs, this is a summary page with a competitive ranking game type information, the prestige number is not that. If that new number represents something else, that directly ties into the game that just happened, then that's another story.
Right now, this is just a slightly cosmetic retweaking of what we have now, with a reversal in one respect.
Levels... grades... ranks... devotion... it's too messy.
-
@CashelP14 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3001359#Comment_3001359
I'll be honest this challenge compared to some of the other ones.
You have just under 3 weeks to complete this levels challenges so you probably will get it done.
Just returning to my earlier comment, as I've been playing fairly consistently (and mostly decently) in recent times - mostly survivor.
To cut a long story short, I stand by my original claim that this should move down to Gold. This is still a solid challenge and more in line with the other offerings.
It might be more achievable as Killer but I think it's the wrong combo to have as a duel option; if it were any of the other 3 sets of emblems, then ok.
-
It's not bugged, I've been getting them and you can take as many matches as you need.
It is a fidgety, pretty circumstantial challenge though.
- You have to be vaulting a pallet or window; and
- You have to be healthy and then be injured at some point during this process; and
- You have to be in a chase.
- All of the above have to happen at the same time. It's super easy to perhaps miss one element by a moment or two.
Just keep trying and take plenty of things to recover with, it can take some attempts to trigger.
-
Hi @MandyTalk,
Any chance the 3 Iri Evader / Chaser challenge could be changed to 3 Gold, for
6.0.1? 6.0.2.This feels somewhat more achievable in a reasonable timeframe while still requiring that a pretty decent effort be made.
Thanks.
-
All I see is "Hey look, I earn way more as a killer because I run one particular perk like every other killer, therefore survivors should have the same."
I'm really hoping said perk (and the 6 other BP perks) lose their BP connections at the rework - it's terrible gameplay design and should have been taken out long ago. Then all players can earn a similar sort of amount. If there aren't enough BP's in the game, that's a seperate issue.
To the question - "Why is it so much harder to earn bps on survivor?"
The answer - Because killers use BBQ+C as an inflated BP crutch. Your question avoids the obvious disparity that one perk plays.
-
One other small idea @MandyTalk
Maybe each of the P3 characters could be rewarded with one each of every (or most) old items, addons and offerings. Just at the back of the options, sort of "archived".
I sometimes see an earlier event medkit, toolbox, flashlight or fancy cake and I think to myself, I'd like to have just one, even just to look at. Would be a nice touch.
I kinda want to say about the lightning clothing (old anniversary, I think) I rarely see but suspect that may be unlikely. Or even just for the games base group of 7-10-12 characters, whatever small number. Even for everyone? Maybe.
Thanks for reading.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2986343#Comment_2986343
I definitely confirmed it was not a cosmetic item.
Hi @MandyTalk ,
Have seen your posts on this topic, so know the deal.
I was wondering if in addition to said reward changes happening, perhaps some / selection / many / all (older) charms could be unlocked for each rewarded character. Like as a "side reward", not the major component.
Thanks!
-
I think it goes on just a touch too long. Maybe 45 seconds.
-
How can the same thing come up again and again.
Having BP attached to Perks is poor game design and should have been done away with long ago. A perk should be a modest change that affects your gameplay in some particular way, not the scoring of said gameplay.
There are 7 perks with BP elements attached and hopefully they are all in the 40 group to be updated.
That so many killers run it as a pseudo-crutch for more BP is a different issue.
-
" 4. I feel like I won this match"
No, really, what even is this?
There are SO many variables as to how you might possibly respond to this.
Just ridiculous.
-
I'm working my way through challenges.
I'm looking at "kill the obsession X times" now.
The most efficient way of doing this challenge is simply find the person and tunnel and camp them and done. This is a TERRIBLE experience for a survivor. Yes yes, play normally and eventually you'll get it, I know; I want the challenge done in a reasonable timeframe, not hoping that the person you do kill might or might not be the right one many more times in a row.
I'd be ok if X was made a very low number to keep this to a minimum.
I know I'm talking to myself. It won't be. "Escape through the hatch using the key twice" and "Use Dark Sense 4 times", "Stun the killer 12 times" still exist, so... yeah.
Less focus on cosmetics, more focus on QoL improvements.
-
Couple more notes to self.
Alternatively, she is a young mother figure, but stuck in eternal time.
Two alternate power scenarios:
There are range of "mini perks" that Mother can equip each time. Just steal from the game - block windows, explode gens, get stuck on ground (made that up), etc. etc. Say there is a range of 10-12? and the killer can pick around... 5-6 each time. It should be an impactful set of factors but not quite OP.
Similarly and as part of the power set or maybe this is the entire power, Mother gets to use abilities of other Killers. Given them by the Entity. Simplified versions or an easy to execute special attack that causes the effects to occur. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe this is basis for the "new mechanic" concept above.
-
Context matters.
"gg" can mean two things. it's primary meaning is - this was a good game, thanks for playing with me. It has somewhat also taken on the meaning of an acknowledgement. And "ggwp" also, as we know.
Context.
Etiquette.
If you as killer have just absolutely stomped all over me and my team, it was obviously not a good game for me and my team, it was only well played by one of us and I am not requiring your tokenistic acknowledgement because I am busy licking my wounds and you come across as slightly arrogant and condescending, even if you don't mean it that way. It's wildly obvious what's just occured - I don't need to be reminded.
Saying "gg" as killer in this scenario is not technically bad manners but as the terminology goes, it's perhaps not "best practice" and is a little disrespectful towards someone who is not you. It's just about taking those extra few moments of thought.
Context.
Etiquette.
If you are a killer who has demolished a team of survivors, the best thing to do is just say nothing. Or perhaps you can take the extra few moments for a sentence that is slightly respectful or acknowledging. Or say nothing.
But on a personal note, I really dislike when in a game where my team has been absolutely demolished, you as a killer then come out with "gg" or worse "ggwp" and I've even had "gg wp :)". Don't. If you must type, don't be thought of as a bit of a douche bag.
Also, chat should probably go, but that's not this topic.
-
She should be a older woman - shorter but fast and spritely. Like a cross between Legion and Sadako in physicality.
She is perhaps (one of) the fastest characters and should be able to get around the map at some speed to hit and activate / adjust her traps.
To balance the speed, perhaps her basic attack is a little bit weaker, like when you are infected by the Plague and it just takes a little bit of time to get to the actual damaged state.
If I go one step further, I think there's a new mechanic in here but I can't quite work it out. The idea is that the survivors are always partly damaged, so that the traps are more effective. Maybe it's something totally new and survivors are continually "pseudo-injured" - like "a state" that Freddy has but more normal looking or Clown's gas but more subtle.
Maybe it's something more out there like.... Mother has no basic attack but the survivors are permanently in a random negative status so that the many trapping opportunities might damage them. You probably need a basic attack, I suspect. Maybe Mother "basic attacks" the traps to power them and they keep hitting the survivors causing the damage. Hmm. I dunno. Close... but Mother probably needs a basic hit of her own, even if it's not super strong or survivors will just camp in areas not near anything.
I'm really trying to get across the idea that anything in the environment could potentially and will hurt you at almost any time. The idea is that there should often be one or two people injured, not unlike Legion. The environment comes to life - controlled by the Entity, with Mother doing the bidding. And it's going to get you.
-
@Milo said:
My answer to this will always be "no", just because of how the game has been operating for the last 6 years.
If it was done from the beginning like in Identity V then I wouldn't mind it.
Doing something like this at this time would require a lot of effort and way more balancing than current perk system.
I see where you are coming from though respectfully disagree for the most part.
This game is hardly bringing in sustainable growing new audiences, as we can see by some user stats shared on another thread. There are really only SO many costumes people need time and time again. Maybe the devs should do a costume spin off, rather than a dating one.
Just because something has been operating for X period of time doesn't mean it should always and always be so. Games (or anything) that can continually innovate and refresh while keeping the overall goal in sight will continue to refresh and find new audiences. In this case, the goal is complete the gens, open the gate and leave. That's it. Almost anything within that overarching thing should be thought about. Even if my change goes through, you can still largely play as you currently do, but depending on who you pick, you get a medium boost and a small kick.
They are apparently a sizeable team of devs and it would be no different to the effort of what they've talked about coming up. And goodness, there are loads of independent teams of developers who push out updates to things far more continuously and frequently than here.
Do disagree that it would take more balancing than the current perk system. 28+ basekits that once done should stay pretty stable. A roster of 30-40? "booster perks" that can just be taken from current perks and should be decent enough to not need constant balancing passes, as the items should relate more to constants and niche things, than whole of character performance. If someone wants to give me a bunch of $, I'll do a whole draft model myself.
Character releases are far easier, as you just need to pick a series of stats that aren't well covered so far and then make a story around them.
The whole thing will take some time to do once and then much easier into the long term, rather than let's go over "28x3 plus another 20? perks" and then rebalance as a new meta comes out every time.
In the future, you can even have a paid addon, where you can build your own characters with a bunch of given options. That would be interesting.
This is a progression from the current system for survivors - remember, they are functionally identical, the devs have said. What a waste. I can bring my top fav dressed characters with similar builds every time over and over. Wow.
Not everyone has to love change but if you bring the people along, then it can be managed.
My idea is something that could be beneficial for the game into the future. It's just an idea. If it never gets taken up, then so be it.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
No.
This would just create a Meta for Survivors. And would lower the variety of Survivors used even more. Some Survivors are used A LOT, while you dont see others at all. If those would have bad base statistics, they would be even more rare to see.
And what about players who play a certain Survivor a lot and got a lot of cosmetics on them? If this Survivor gets base statistics which are not that good, you have to decide if you still want to play them or play a better Survivor.
Let alone that some things you mentioned are just their Perks put into the Basekit. Which is easy for the first few Survivors, but will become really hard for the newer Survivors.
Some good points.
All the survivors would be as best balanced as possible so that each had a distinct but moderate advantage. There is no reason any particular survivor should have a bad base. The overall idea is that you'd have a generally decent spread of used survivors. Some survivors are a little more generalist and some are a little more specialist - that's ok. You can have a go-to team you prefer and maybe try a new survivor. There will always be some used more than others, but the idea is that there is some level of balance.
The survivor should have a base that gives them a slight advantage related to their lore. Not crazy strong, nor terribly weak. Just solidly decent without being outstanding. How it should theoretically be now for every survivor. Think of it like that survivors have "abilities", similar to how killers have them.
Maybe some survivors have 3 smaller bonuses compared to 2 moderate ones. The above is not exact, just the sort of direction. Another example might be you can have different levels. One character does gens 2% faster, one character 3% and Dwight 5%.
I do though take your point that say you have a lot of looks that you like on Yui but now her character has a set of variables that does focus somewhat explicitly on blood trails, dropped pallets and helpless survivors; while you prefer to run Dead Hard, Spine Chill, Borrowed Time... then sure, maybe it's not absolutely ideal. You can still pick a couple of "new" perks that would assist in the way you like.
I would still suggest that cosmetics should take second place to a consideration of improved overall, long term game experience. Stepping back - if I pick to play Yui, it really should be because she has a focus on blood trails, dropped pallets and helpless survivors and I play to leaning to that strength. That she does or doesn't have cosmetics should be a secondary issue. I think the cosmetics are fun, but they aren't the gameplay.
-
If you leave the game for any reason before its natural conclusion, then you lose your BP and get a time out. The game doesn't care if it's in the first minute or the last 10 seconds.
The ban system doesn't need fixing because of your scenario and you didn't lose them for "no reason".
Next time just wait the extra small number of seconds for the game to naturally end. A 15 minute ban also suggests this might not have been your first time of a similar action.
Lesson hopefully learned.
-
I won't start a new thread for my idea because it's loosely on the same topic, but I'd like to see a randomise charm button.
Keep it fresh and charming every single game (or as often as you do or don't want) but done in one click.
-
I've suggested this elsewhere. Assuming the devs are instistent on this new quicker game endings and animations...
You down the last person and killer gets presented with 3 options.
- Animation that kills player.
- Animation of killer carrying body to open gate, killer acts menacingly and person crawls out. [Setting aside the entire hatch mechanic for a moment, which we can dispense with for this scenario as it's simply unnecessary.]
- Entity decides - random one of the above.
-
This concept essentially just makes them perks which you can sort of turn on and off and as a survivor, my main issue is gens and what I need to do to get them done, not a whole system of do totems have charges. There is a new level of gameplay complexity which could be too much.
It's almost a sort of minigame with items that often might not be found. You would almost need to have the totems in more obvious positions in many cases.
I think this is not a bad concept in theory but it's adding another element of gameplay placed over the top of a flawed premise and that is that perks should very likely not be attached to totems at all. Right solution for the wrong problem, maybe.
It also means you have to keep balance the perks AND how they interact with totems AND the totem system itself. It's too much and is not the best use of dev time.
Here is my concept for totems. Your ideas actually could work in ok.
@keepingitril said:
It is never going to be possible to reconcile the use of hexes, boons and the perks attached to them. Too this, too that, too situational, not situational enough.
A perk attached to a totem and a stand alone perk are related but not the same thing.
A perk should be a perk and a totem should be a totem. Different things. An entire category of issues can be resolved. They both have a place and both can achieve seperate things.
Here's the concept.
Current Totem Perks - Reconfigure them all as regular perks.
Totems - A new element. Something like... They are all from the Entity. Five on each map as ususal. Three are lit at the start of each game - one blue, one orange and one half of each.
The blue offers a random modest increase of an activity.
The orange offers a random modest decrease of an activity.
The dual offers both a small increase and a small decrease.
Examples are something like - faster gens, faster movement, slower gens, slower movement, faster healing, slower healing. Very broad game sort of things. Or completely random whatever.
Important to note, these should only be modest overall changes and not significantly change the game play. Lit totems may be for everyone (or just survivors or just killer?)
Here's the tricky thing though, it's not stated at the beginning what is active. You can cleanse the totem and you might take something from the other side, but are you also taking something from yourself?
Perks should be perks. Totems should be totems. Never the twain shall meet.
In fact, your descriptions could almost be the "new" perks in themselves.
-
@Warfaredragon7 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2960227#Comment_2960227
Or just have a mori button and a carry button. Problem solved
Yeah.
Whichever variant of kill or save you wish for.
I did think my Entity's Choice was a nice touch to add even another level of unknown. Obviously as a killer, usually I want to kill, but sometimes I might want to save and then sometimes, I can just throw caution to the wind and let the system decide.
-
If the game is going this way, I made this suggestion on another thread.
Killer downs last survivor and then has three menu options. Let's say for the sake of the argument, everything's ending in an animation.
- Survivor gets killed as proposed.
- Killer has the option to spare the life of the player and the survivor crawls out through the exit gate.
- Entity Decides. RNG of one of the above.
-
"In this game killers are designed to kill."
"If you want to let last survivor leave, don't down him. It's that simple."
Ok then.
*
"If it doesn't accommodate your specific personal wishes about nice merciful killers,"
I never said this, nor implied it. I suggested why "not downing the last survivor" isn't as simple as you make it out to be, given the clearly new direction the game is taking. If a system is designed to do a very specific thing and there is a "workaround" that circumvents said thing happening in that system, then it's a flaw. My wishes about being a nice killer or not are irrelevant.
If you have specific concerns with the new functions, you should take it up with the development team, of which I am not. I am an anonymous person on an internet forum sharing an idea that I thought through quite a lot. If you don't like it, that's fine.
-
@tester said:
What's the point of added complexity? If you want to let last survivor leave, don't down him. It's that simple.
Nothing complex about it.
If anything this complicates things.
Maybe I want to hit the survivor. Maybe I'll want to save them but hit them first. Maybe I won't realise they are the last survivor because I am distracted elsewhere. Maybe they were a bad sport and I might have wanted to save a survivor but not them. Maybe I chainsawed them "accidentally" with the second last survivor. Maybe they are hiding in a corner bleeding out. Maybe I am not wanting to spend 3 minutes roaming to map to find the hatch. Maybe I am not willing to wait 3 minutes for the survivor to roam the map to find the hatch. Etc etc etc.
Not downing someone intentionally to work around the game itself is poor design. There are too many niche possibilities that means the killer "just not downing them" (what the killer is actually designed to do) shouldn't get through QA.
It's quite obvious the devs are taking the game in a stated direction. I'm just trying to make an improvement on it.
If the game is now saying that I have to down the person to end it, let it not be dragged out. The above way gives me as the killer still a choice and though it's not as elegant as the hatch, the outcome is still the same.
-
If it's decided that the traps aren't getting buffed themselves, then give me more traps (8 - 10/12?) and make them WAY easier / faster to work with.
Traps everywhere and the ability to move them quickly. Stepping in a trap while injured should down you (should be already a thing) and maybe there could be some level of negative status, the more times you step in them and/or as gens are done (traps should be given consideration to be "powered", more than just a hit and a small random delay).
That would actually be workable.
-
@TeabaggingGhostface said:
I think traps starting set plus the ability to recall traps is enough for trapper, he doesn't need much more in terms of buffs, simply because he became thicc af in the dating sim
I'm playing against a Legion and there are 3 injured within the first minute sometimes. Nurse can hit me from far away through walls. Plague I am frequently ill. Myers can have me exposed for really long periods very early on. Bubba can instadown you easily. Trapper might be at one injury in the first few minutes - might but frequently not and still it's just a hit and then it's toss of coin with the late game.
As a power, a trap is simply a stationary hit, that maybe affects you. Placing a series of stationary hits, more quickly is not enough. Essential, but not enough.
As well as what you suggest, as a minimum, stepping in a trap needs to become far more of a consequential power than just a basic injury. This will make him a much better killer but still not super top tier as still, if you aren't getting stuck in a trap, then... not much.
-
Just to add.
I might be ok if the rework did not include effects when the number of gens got done but would need a massive buff to trap movement activities, injured survivors going down when trapped and multi-trapped being more serious. And a complete addon overhaul.
That might be ok. Not absolutely top tier but a very solid boost. Maybe that is the right balance.
Still doesn't solve that nothing happens if you never get trapped... need to play test; can't fully judge it. Making traps easier to interact with is better, but still doesn't actuallly add greater risk if you aren't actually stepping in them - that's where I was going with the gen influence. Or maybe it's ok that you might just never get trapped and that's the game.
-
Just returning to this briefly upon further reflection and playing and going against the killer.
You really should never be hitting 6 traps and even 5 is pushing it. Still have an increasing level of bad status effects from traps, but perhaps insta down after you step in your fourth trap and dead after you step in your fifth.
A new idea is if you are injured and get stuck in a trap, it should be far more serious than now. Either get insta downed (as in you are already hit and then hit again, logical) and/or you get a raft of bad status effects immediately. This would be suitable and not OP because generally most people will heal after getting trapped and it is generally less common to be trapped while injured. l was in a game recently where an injured David got caught in a trap that I couldn't reach immediately and he got out and nothing happened. Very irritating. The trap is Trapper killing when he is not there.
I recall another game recently where someone was running a couple of top tier perks but because the conditions weren't or were rarely met, they made little to no difference to the game. It was sort of silly. Once the character gets its overhaul, revisit all the addons again.
So, Trapper can have trap effects that change depending on:
- the number of gens done [Adds a level of risk for people not getting trapped - important.]
- the number of times you step in them [The more you are getting your legs hacked into, the gradually worse your injury should be.]
- whether or not you are injured when you step in them [If you are injured and get hit by a trap again, it should be conseqeuential.]
Put all these changes on and then balance them steadily down until you've got the right levels, put traps in lockers and a way of interacting with them better and we're good to go.
-
From a design perspective, it's really time for BP gains to be removed from all perks. Well overdue.
This is just going to be the most high profile casualty (out of the 7) but it's time.
-
@Killing_Time said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2957115#Comment_2957115
BBQ has like 7 counters already. Why does it need to get changed further? No disrespect intended to you or any devs.
I've written it up with more detail in another recent post but if there was just a single structural change coming from this overhaul, it would be to eliminate bloodpoints from perks. It's just not a great design principle. The perk is run mostly because of something external to the individual game round and that's a pretty weak reason for it existing and not what perks are meant to do.
Bloodpoints currently are part of 7 Perks (most of which see little use) and hopefully after the refresh they will be part of 0 perks.
-
@Peanits said:
We're not looking to make things boring. We're looking to shake things up and make the old meta not such an obvious choice. In its place, we'll be buffing a bunch of other perks to give you a heaps of new options to pick from.
Hi @Peanits,
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in but really hope you get to see this - I think it's pretty important.
Very pleased to hear about a large perks rework. A perk randomiser or part randomiser would be interesting but that's not what this post is about.
I wanted to make two suggestions that I believe are very timely.
Perks should not give Bloodpoints
From a design and consistency perspective, I think the bloodpoint mechanic in perks is not a good one and the entire thing should go.
A perk should be a game feature that alters play in a multiple small but interesting ways - not change the scoring of that play. It is on only 7 perks right now and only a few of those are used sometimes or less, one regularly, one semi regularly and mostly for this feature. Choosing perks because you can farm bloodpoints is not a good rationale for a thing to exist.
I would possibly like to see addons get the same treatment but don't feel this is as pressing a need and maybe could be convinced either way.
If you do or don't wish to give additional bloodpoints, there are numerous other game elements that this can be handled under.
Seperate Perks from Totems
@keepingitril said:
It is never going to be possible to reconcile the use of hexes, boons and the perks attached to them. Too this, too that, too situational, not situational enough.
A perk attached to a totem and a stand alone perk are related but not the same thing.
A perk should be a perk and a totem should be a totem. Different things. An entire category of issues can be resolved. They both have a place and both can achieve seperate things.
Here's the concept.
Current Totem Perks - Reconfigure them all as regular perks.
Totems - A new element. Something like... They are all from the Entity. Five on each map as ususal. Three are lit at the start of each game - one blue, one orange and one half of each.
The blue offers a random modest increase of an activity.
The orange offers a random modest decrease of an activity.
The dual offers both a small increase and a small decrease.
Examples are something like - faster gens, faster movement, slower gens, slower movement, faster healing, slower healing. Very broad game sort of things. Or completely random whatever.
Important to note, these should only be modest overall changes and not significantly change the game play. Lit totems may be for everyone (or just survivors or just killer?)
Here's the tricky thing though, it's not stated at the beginning what is active. You can cleanse the totem and you might take something from the other side, but are you also taking something from yourself?
Perks should be perks. Totems should be totems. Never the twain shall meet.
This is a little more complicated but I believe has some merit.
Change hex perks to regular perks and have a brand new Entity "Perk-esque" gameplay feature.
I understand this is a somewhat significant change but I genuinely believe you can get equivalent solid perks from all the current hex offerings and make them far more used.
It will also end conversation about the permanency of a totem perk. If I bring Hex: Ruin into a game and it gets taken out quickly, that's not such good game design - I shouldn't lose my ability because the other team can delete it. If I bring reformulated Ruin perk into the game and it does or doesn't have conditions that do or don't get activated, that's fine.
I like the concept of totems offering gameplay variables but believe there could be a better, more consistent, reliable way than by a perk. I've expanded this concept in my post above.
Maybe it requires two releases to execute - the first where you change the hex perks to regular ones and totems do "nothing". The following release, you get your new gameplay feature.
Thanks for your consideration.