ZaKzan
ZaKzan
About
- Username
- ZaKzan
- Joined
- Visits
- 23
- Last Active
Comments
-
I see nothing wrong with jiggle physics
-
@Shirokinukatsukami said:
A perfect team has no chance against a perfect killer.
Perfect killer would be something like a nurse using a slug strategy and one blink downing every survivor. Or a Huntress with Iri hatchet throwing hatchets across the map to one shot a survivor.
Perfect teams can finish 3 gens in under 2 minutes.
Perfect killer can down 4 survivors in under 2 minutes.
You tell me who wins.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1980875#Comment_1980875
Don't people ever tire of repeating this hogwash? Is there some popular streamer or influencer who keeps repeating this that it's completely brainwashed the killer population of this game?
No.
A good team will just run to the edges of the map if the nurse is chasing them. This maximizes distance to hooks and maximizes the amount of distance to the other team mates. There is absolutely no way for the nurse to win in this scenario.
In fact, we have tournaments where this has already happened. The game is very heavily survivor sided, and there is absolutely no argument against that.
Your thinking is flawed in that you think that survivors have to actually loop to win the game. Against most killers this is the case, but against the killers that can circumvent looping, you force the killers to spend their time walking towards you. Using this strategy it is impossible to get more than 1k against even an iri huntress or nurse.
-
Because games like DBD are designed to be addictive.
The average person is now staring at their smartphone for at least 3 hours a day. -
@Mugombo said:
Lolol, imagine thinking talking to your teammates is ‘cheating’.
What year do you think this game was released, 1990?
The devs knew voice comms would be used and if you think otherwise then you’re just daft or lying to yourself.
Survivor gameplay completely revolves around information. A large portion of survivor perks revolve around gaining information. If you are working on a gen and a fellow survivor is downed, you have to make the choice to continue working on that gen or saving the downed survivor. If you and another survivor both decide to save that person, you just reduced your team's gen efficiency by 50%. If you were on voice comms, this wouldn't happen.
By design, voice chat was not intended for this game. That's why you need to use 3rd party software to voice chat. The issue is that the devs lack the ability to balance the game around it, and they know that it's such a large part of the game, if they did nerf it in any way, they would lose tens of thousands of players. I wouldn't call it cheating, but it's certainly a crutch and gives all survivors in voice chat about 8-9 perks instead of 4.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1975207#Comment_1975207
How is it a token? Is felix a token for straight people because he’s straight.
Felix wasn't added solely to appease straight white males. That's the difference between a token and a genuine character.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1975192#Comment_1975192
True maybe you don’t relate to the character in any way but there’s no reason to oppose it since again some other people might relate to them
The game has a diverse set of survivors with different stories and personalities so most people will find someone they relate to whether it be from physical appearance or the lives they’ve lived and if there still isn’t any they’re adding a new one every 3 months
Which is fine. What I'm saying is that there's no point to cater to a specific type of person. The fact that the game does have a diverse set of survivors means that they are quite inclusive already, so complaining that they aren't inclusive is just untrue. I don't see how making tokens is productive at all.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1975183#Comment_1975183
Obviously there are lgbt people who would be different than the lgbt character in question but that doesn’t mean they can’t still relate to them in other ways.
Obviously not every black women who plays Claudette is an introvert or a botanist but just having a black female character is nice to them you know?
Just having a character who shares some traits to you is very nice even if they aren’t the exact same
But that character doesn't represent them at all. This is what I've been saying. You are more than the color of your skin, or your sexuality. What is not nice is to be defined who you are by the color of your skin or sexuality. I find that quite offensive. Attempting to represent people in that way is also extremely offensive.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1975170#Comment_1975170
Well obviously you’re different but it is still a character you can relate to
Let’s say the character has been discriminated for their sexuality through their early years. A lot of people will relate to that and be happy that they have a character that has been through similar struggles.
Or even certain physical attributes such as Jane or Jeff being bigger than the other characters is something some people relate to.
So what about the LGBT people that weren't discriminated against or abused? Why can't you find room to represent those people? Do you see what a slippery slope this is, and it's rooted in just how unique every individual person is.
-
@bm33 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1975129#Comment_1975129
I'm not the person in the video.
You don't feel like you need representation, other people (like the woman in the video) do.
I personally don't need representation in a video game but I'm not going to complain or knock those that do. I'm not in a position to need representation in a game because I'm not BIPOC or LGBT that generally gets left out.
It's lore/skin. It's not game breaking. Let people have character that is really just a skin/lore that helps them feel included.
Your sexuality doesn't represent who you are as a unique individual. Even if they create an LGBT character, they won't represent individual LGBT people, because every human is extremely unique and that uniqueness goes far beyond their sexuality. It doesn't make sense at all.
I fail to see how this is inclusive. You are more than the color of your skin, you are more than what configuration your genitalia are, you are more than the type of person you like sexually. You fail to comprehend how utterly improbable it is that you even exist, you fail to understand how a nearly infinite number of factors go into shaping an individual human.
-
@bm33 said:
I just think of this video on why representation matters.
https://twitter.com/Friskkmkay/status/1326297399145476097?s=09
As a straight person, I don't look at any straight character and say 'hey that is me.' My sexuality is quite possibly one of the least defining features of me. In fact, I've been gaming for about 20 years now and I have yet to find a single character that's like me. I really don't understand where you're coming from. It's such a shallow way to look at someone by defining them solely by their sexuality. This is the crux of the argument, it adds nothing to the game and only seeks to virtue signal.
Each human is so unique that there is a statistical improbability that you will even meet someone like you, even in a world of over 7 billion. Generalizing someone and putting them in a category that's only based on sexuality disregarding the 70,000,000,000,000 possible combinations of alleles that uniquely make up an individual human, and spits in the face of the human condition.
-
The people that design this game have absolutely no idea how this game is played, even at a fundamental level.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1966701#Comment_1966701
I mean, either he did not know about it or he was not allowed to say something. NDAs are a tricky thing and can be quite uncomfortable, even tho I only know it from a personal point of view (e.g. if someone is talking to me about a topic where I have more knowledge than them, but cannot tell them because I am under NDA). I can imagine it is even more uncomfortable when you are livestreaming and everyone can see that afterwards.
And, to defend Almo here, there are some people in the community who think that he wants to ruin the game, so they wait for something to clip on his channel. Who knows how often he got asked about Colorblind-Mode in the past. It would have happened anyway at some point that he said something that people can use against him.
But yes, whether he was under NDA or did not know because nobody informed him, BHVR could have avoided it, this is correct.
When it comes to believing how long they have been working on it - there is no way to know. They could be lying or they could be telling the truth, I rather assume the latter, I like to think positive (even if I am too positive at some point).
If Almo was under NDA, then it would have been better for him to not even address the question altogether, or address it in another way. He could have even acknowledged the question and said that he cannot answer anything on that due to a NDA.
There's a bit of an issue when it comes to censoring, moderating, deplatforming people, it tends to create more pushback despite efforts to silence them. This is what has happened to DBD. There wouldn't be people that want to get back at BHVR if BHVR didn't help create and fuel an environment where such hatred and disrespect of the company would be fostered. This is regardless whether or not you agree with their decisions with the game, what comes into play is the fact that the community doesn't think their feedback is heard by BHVR.
They just dig themselves into deeper and deeper holes and every patch is 1 step forward 2 steps back.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1966674#Comment_1966674
The thing is, adding Colorblind Mode to an existing game which does not have Colorblind Mode does indeed take time. It is not as easy as some people might think it is. So it is entirely possible that they were working on it for a while, but then again, they could have shown it.
But the issue at hand is that one of the devs didn't seem to know that it was being worked on. I'm not saying it doesn't take time. I'm just saying that it's likely they weren't actually working on a colorblind mode and they just threw something together to appease the masses. The little evidence that we do have is one of the devs alluding to the fact that they weren't currently working on a colorblind mode and that they would be if BHVR wanted them to.
Since their updates are in 3 month intervals, they can very easily throw something together last minute and tell everyone they've been working months on it and that it's not ready just yet for the current patch, and that it will be out in a future patch 3-6 months down the road.
Just basing on the amount of bad information that comes out of BHVR, they are either an intentionally malicious company, or their work environment is incredibly unhealthy and compartmentalized and not conducive to a successful company.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1966641#Comment_1966641
I am not talking about gameplay. I am talking about communication. The Object-Rework was something which was happening at some point (I said it basically right after they said that it was fine that it will be changed in the future, because Devs change their opinion (which is a good thing overall)), but it is new that they give a proposal to get Feedback.
They did not do that before.
Like I said, people were asking for Colorblind Mode for years and then BHVR is releasing a new HUD which was even worse for colorblind people in the PTB and only after all this outcry happened with one Developer and they get called out by some big Twitteraccount, THEN they show the WIP. If they had something to show, they should have showed it before.
This way, they can also be defended by people who actually want to defend them. Like, I am quite positive with the Devs, but if someone complains about Colorblind Mode, all someone like myself can say is "Devs know about it". Thats it. But when they show WIPs on regular basis, you can actually show stuff.
Same with the HUD, they said they were working on it several months, but if they want to make such a big change, they should have shown WIPs - this would also result in more Feedback and those negative Reviews would not have happened to such an extend.
Also, regarding the HUD, they said that there were limitations which what they were able to implement with the old HUD. But they did not show anything - if you want people to think positive about new things you should show the cool stuff.
Like I said, lack of communication is a big problem. Even if WIPs get scrapped at some point, the more reasonable people will understand that.
When they presented the colorblind testing to that twitter account, it just looked like they spent 10 minutes in photoshop altering screenshots. Further evidence of this fact is shown by what Almo said about colorblind mode and saying along the lines that it wasn't a priority and if 'they' as in BHVR wanted the devs to do it, the devs would be working on it.
So they either threw Almo under the bus or they actually weren't working on a colorblind mode 'for months' and just lied about working on it. When you listen to his response, it definitely does not seem he knows whatsoever about any work being done on colorblind mode.
I'd say to just not trust BHVR when they give you a timeframe on how long they've been working on certain issues, because it seems they are more than willing to just lie about it, even at the expense of their own employees.
-
The average killer is a lot stronger than the average survivor. At high levels, survivors become nearly invulnerable, and even the strongest killers can only hope for a 2k.
You don't really need stats to understand this. You need to just make changes that will make it easier for average skill survivors to survive, and to make it harder for higher skill level survivors to survive. Ranks actually don't mean anything, if you understand the game and how it is played, after a few hundred matches of your own, you should be able to get a feel for what the changes have done. It's quite easy to tell a bad player from a good player on this game, from both killer and survivor perspective.
It's a nuanced approach that the devs just mostly ignore because they think they know what's best for the game and ignore anything said otherwise.
-
@Sluzzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1953919#Comment_1953919
In public matches, what are the chances of 4 tournament level survivors being in the same lobby? If a killer can beat that, which he still possibly can, then what does that say for everyone else that he versus? They lose.
Devs can say to ignore stats but they are still important.
That is an exaggeration you are making boldly about DS once again. "Killer can't do anything with DS". You are either tunneling or not keeping track of who you hooked. And if they used Unbreakable, then they the 1-time use perk is now gone. They are using two perks for that. Do you then think Devour Hope and Undying is fair? Survivors have to stop working on objectives to find another objective. Most killers that complain about this has actually won the match anyway.
Even at first glance I thought Ruin was nerfed but it seems to have been buffed because of how easy killers can apply pressure, you can get a lot of value from new Ruin. I can't count how many times I had a gen at 99% and a Freddy teleports to it with Tinkerer or any other killer for that matter and it totally reset. 1/5th of the survivor objective gone. And we are complaining about DS or Unbreakable giving a health state?
I'm not even for a huge nerf for killers, but there is a lot of little things that add up, particularly perks, perhaps relooking how maps are designed again to give survivors a little better chance. Killers don't necessarily have to 4K to have fun.
Survivors are given plenty of chances. The issue with DBD is that survivors are coddled. They aren't forced to try to win, they are very easily carried. You don't even need to interact with the killer to win more than half your games. Survivors are encouraged to be brain dead, so the vast majority of them are bad. When you get good survivors vs a good killer, the killer will lose most games.
The major balance feature of this game is that it's so broken at high levels that survivors end up getting bored and killers end up getting frustrated and quitting, so there's just a constant influx of newer players that don't know how to play the game. This is the effect that you're talking about killers being too strong, because yes killers are very strong vs bad survivors. It just elucidates how badly designed this game is, that in lower skill brackets one side is too strong, and then higher brackets the opposite is true.
You don't seem to know much about the perks and their effects on the game. The fact that you think freddy is a strong killer shows how little you know about the game, as Freddy is only a good killer against bad survivors.
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1951709#Comment_1951709
I have always found that a silly way of looking at the strengt of a killer. You can beat 95% of survivors but when you face one swf group with 10000 hours combined and get bodied the killer is obviously bad and should never be played.
The problem with looking at it like that is that the vast mayority of players aren't skilled and knowledgable. Judging killers strengt like that is only usefull for those who are skilled and knowledgable. It just gives the wrong idea to those who don't have 3k+ hours.
If you can reliably win against avarage survivors the killer isn't weak. And if you get dunked by the best of the best survivors for most people that's more that they aren't the best of the best of killers. They would have lost regardless of playing to some tierlist
Looking how viable killers are in tournament levels of play is only usefull for tournement level of play players.
For the rest we really need to rank them against what you actually go up against when you play the game at home. And concidering that. Neither Clown nor Legion is weak.
Not the best ofcourse. But certainly not a handicap like people want you to believe
Most people ofcourse don't want to admit when they get destroyed by the navy seals swf group that maybe they were just better then them and rather blame it on the killer they are playing
Determining strength off of higher skill levels creates a fair playing field in which the difference between two players isn't some stupid gimmick or mechanic, but skill, effort, and dedication.
As humans, we psychologically feel a loss much more acutely than a win. This is an issue with imbalanced games. You can win most of your games, and only lose a few, but the problem arises in how you lose those few games. This is what makes losing in DBD so horrible, because you tend to lose very badly. That loss leaves a much more potent impact on you psychologically.
It's actually not a silly way to look at a pvp game, it's actually the GOLD STANDARD for pvp game design. Generally speaking, pvp games that follow this formula are pvp games that last a long time as they have a healthy playerbase. When you lose in a balanced game, you go 'that person was so good.' When you lose in an unbalanced game, you go '(insert gimmick here) is so stupid, I would have won without that.'
You have to balance around things that break the game. Things that break the game are usually best exploited by the best players in the game. This also has the added benefit of giving the devs a logical reason for changing things, and there is pretty much no counter argument to it.
https://youtu.be/X1p42KtZOCw -
@Sonzaishinai said:
Inb4 "doesn't count, survivors were pota... ow too late already happened.
This is why people don't bother with video evidence of things being better then people think.
I once showed a 4 hour video of somebody winning 20 games in a row on rank 1 as Legion to show they aren't that bad and apperently all 80 of those survivors were potatoes
The vast majority of survivors are so bad that it's hard to get any data from games with them. If it was 1v1, it would be a lot better, but because there's 4 survivors the odds of having one or two bad survivors in a game to swing it in the killer's favor is higher than getting 4 decent survivors.
The issue is that the game coddles survivors and holds their hand all the way, so there's absolutely no incentive to get better as survivor, and you can easily get to high ranks without even interacting with the killer. You will escape at least half of your games if you do nothing but do gens and hide from the killer, you don't need to interact with the killer in any way. If the killer finds you, you can just sit there and let them hook you. You will still win about half your games if you do this method.
In determining the strength of a killer, you have to take a skilled and knowledged killer and put them up against a skilled and knowledged survivor. A skilled and knowledged survivor team will absolutely mop the floor with any killer player playing any killer at the highest possible skill level in the game. So using a metric like vs a whole team of skilled survivors is pointless in determining the strength of a particular killer as survivors are collectively many times stronger than any killer in the game.
What makes legion a bad killer is that they have to adhere to the rules of the game, and the rules of the game are severely survivor sided. This means having to actually chase survivors and catch up to them, allowing them to loop and get to pallets and windows. Legion's power isn't strong enough to interrupt survivor pathing. The strongest killers in the game have the ability to reach out and touch survivors to interrupt their pathing, to get them before they can make it to a pallet, or to circumvent the injured state entirely with a one hit down.
-
Killers are only strong if you're a bad survivor. This includes both mechanically bad and also a lack of understanding of how the survivors are a team. If you make decisions that are better for you over the team, you will lose more often than win. If you make decisions that are better for the team, you will win more than lose.
You will win at least half of your games if you just do gens and hide. You don't even need to be good at chases.
How I know that you're a bad survivor is because you complain about tunneling. Tunneling cannot be done without losing the game for it. If most of your games killers are tunneling, you are playing at a low level because the killers aren't playing to win the game. Most people also complain about tunneling when the reality is that they just have bad team mates that sandbag them.
-
Just because some russian dude made a 2v8 mode in his basement doesn't mean BHVR is capable of doing it with ~600 employees. They can barely get the 1v4 mode to work properly and break it every patch.
-
@jester20k said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1942886#Comment_1942886
Not true at all, you can get unhooked and jump on a gen right next to you with the unhooker, and within 2 seconds a stealth or m&a killer can return to the hook and tunnel you. Because you jumped on a gen for 0.5 seconds does not mean you are safe from tunneling at all. Hell the way its being considered, you can run half across the map with tier 3 madness, not aware that you're being distantly chased by the doctor, try and break out of madness, and he can come around a tree and whack you. Tunneled, no ds.
Why would you ever jump on a gen right next to the hook that you were just unhooked from?
Doctor spending all that time tunneling you means your team mates have had 180 seconds total to do gens, if the doctor waits out the 60 second DS timer. This is a losing play. Maybe you should actually try playing the game so you can get to a rank where killers are actually trying to win the game, that's probably your best option if this scenario is something you run into a lot.
-
you counter him by putting objects between you and him so that when he does hit you, you break the chain. This is how he is intended to be fought. You aren't supposed to dodge his shots, you are supposed to get hit by them, then stun him with the chain break, that's why his stun is so long and why he's a 110% killer.
-
There already is an anti tunnel perk in the game called decisive strike.
If killers tunnel you, get better at chases. There is almost no way to catch a survivor that knows how to loop without completely losing the game. You should learn that playing as a survivor, you are not a solo player and you are a team against one killer. What may be individually bad for you, may be amazing for the team. In fact, one of the easiest ways to win as a killer, especially against a better than average survivor team, is to have one or two survivors be very selfish and don't take hooks.
-
People have the right to call out morally reprehensible or unethical behavior, though. It's pretty sad when the people who hate the game play it anyway, showing more loyalty and care for the health of the game than the devs do.
-
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1937189#Comment_1937189
Tell me, which game UI have you designed? What games would we know your work from?
I didn't realize that DbD counted so many professional game designers among their fanbase.
It's not terribly hard to design a UI around a small amount of information like what is needed for a game like DBD. Now for games like Crusader Kings or Stellaris where you have economies, armies, intrigue, and politics, the difficulty in designing a crisp UI increases dramatically.
-
Gotta give respect to get respect. This stuff isn't new with this game. The devs have deliberately chosen to ignore the playerbase and push forward with bad design choices since this game was created. You can't fault players for telling the devs that they are making their 10,000th mistake and getting frustrated when the devs don't listen and still make the mistake.
-
you can avoid having to revert months of work if you're more transparent in your design choices and if you're planning on making significant changes to the game, you can also run it by your players before you spend months working on those changes.
It's just so amazing how much bad PR they get just because they are so poor at communicating with the community.
-
Old one.
Hook counter for both killer and survivors
Survivor icons showing who the survivor is but more readable status.
The 12 hook counter is also an ok idea.
No need to pay me $60,000 a year, and I don't need months to figure it out either. You're welcome BHVR.
-
It's the fact that so many people told them, through the feedback section of the forums, where people are told to go in order to report their feedback, that the new UI was trash, and they just ignored all that feedback and pushed it through anyway with no changes. They essentially just gave the community the middle finger and told them to deal with it. This is not how you treat a customer and this along with many months of bad decisions now are adding up.
-
most of the time, an issue with camping and tunneling can be traced back to your own fellow survivors, not the killer. Stop blaming the killer when your team mates don't know how to play the game and sandbag you.
-
They play the game, they're just not very good and they have no appetite for listening to the community or anything beyond what helps make the game more marketable.
It seems they're more interested in things that can easily be pointed out in a graph and be easily explained in a presentation to show their bosses, rather than nuanced topics that an executive will likely not be able to comprehend. One dimensional issues like X killer is killing too much, so we did Y and now kill rates are lower. Most of the budget also clearly goes to art and cosmetic design, rather than game design and balance.
They just really don't care much what the community thinks, which is why there is little communication from them and what little communication we do have isn't clear and concise, which points to them not caring enough to hire people who specialize in community relations or PR.
Fortunately, the game is losing thousands of players every month, so hopefully that will kick them into gear, but considering BHVR's past with other games, they probably will just fold because they don't have the right people in leadership positions.
-
@Rydog said:
SWF has been in the game for its entire existence, and it continues to do fine.
keep in mind, for the last two months, DBD numbers have been artificially inflated on steam because it counts users if they log on, not if they play for any amount of time. So the login rewards in december, plus the bloodpoint even in January.
The game got 2.8k more players when they spent millions of dollars getting ninja and one of the actors from stranger things to play the game and stream it. For this month, the number of average players was down a good 200-300 before the blood point event.
-
@Mandy said:
There are many teams working on DbD, and the Design team who work on new content, reworking current content, balance etc are not connected with those that work on cosmetics, so it's two completely different teams and the work of one has nothing to do with the work of the other.
As a company with a finite amount of resources, Behaviour has to chose where to put those resources. It is very obvious from what the OP is essentially saying is that more effort and resources need to be put into game design and balance, rather than cosmetics. Meaning either hire more people, or replace them with more competent people. It's obvious that more resources are put into the cosmetic team, and it's logical as the cosmetic team makes the company lots of money.
Talking to people like they do not have a modicum of cognizance is a good way to sow even more distrust and toxicity between Behaviour and the community. I say this because even the customer service does this, and this isn't the first time I've seen people responded to in this way.
-
@Terro said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1871952#Comment_1871952
The other 450 people: janitors, marketing, social media/community managers, forum dev team, mobile dev team, hr, company administrators, lawyers, accountants, etc.
From what has been said in the past, Almo and another dev are the only ones that work on balancing. They probably have another one or two devs doing bug fixes. The other 594 employees deal with all the other issues.
-
This game has so many glaring issues with bugs and balance, that lesser played killers aren't a top priority.
The devs do seem to spend exorbitant amounts of time changing absolutely useless and random things that we may see her changed in the future, though
-
@Bwsted said:
Your reasoning is solid, but you need to suggest an alternative to kill rate then. Otherwise, the whole conversation is moot.
DBD is a complicated game, which requires complicated data analysis to properly understand what's going on.
Chase duration, kill rates, gens completed at certain breakpoints (like how many gens done by 6/12 hooks, any survivor that has reached second stage on hook counts as 2 hooks), killer skill level vs individual survivor skill level, killer skill level vs survivor team skill level (combined), addons, map, map configuration.
Although I'll say that maps and map configuration doesn't strictly need to be in for balance purposes, as those can remain the RNG factor of the game if all the rest of these variables are accounted for.
-
remove perk tiers. This also has the added benefit of freeing up a lot more creativity, as with the current system, every perk has to be able to be separated into 3 perks, so the DBD team is mostly limited to percentages and incremental bonuses on perks when designing them.
-
if you want to play to win, and you're not playing nurse or spirit, you have to tunnel and camp. There is absolutely no way around that, especially when you go up against good survivors.
-
@ClarityOfWill said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1861867#Comment_1861867
Okay...and also irrelevant since a 60 second chase with or without DS will probably lose you the game.
If you are ending chases quickly enough to get hit by 4 DS's then you are winning the game. If you're against high level survivors there is not enough time to get hit by 4 DS's unless something has gone very wrong. In that mythical situation, you slug, simple as. Also, please don't twist my words, I've already stated locker DS is a problem which you ignored and that I'd like to see DS reworked to be better suited for anti tunnel.
The game doesn't hinge on it, it hinges on decision making, something which a lot of players (me included from time to time) get spectacularly wrong. Sure, there's some things which need reworking (effectiveness of SWF vs solo, how to make killer more engaging for players and improvements to weaker killers like wraith and trapper) of which you'll hear no argument from me. I'm simply of the hyperbole some people have around this games issues
You aren't getting hit with DS every 5 seconds. The 4 dses is the span of the entire game. If you are getting hit by 4 dses, even in short succession, you are not winning the game. Period. If it takes you 10-20 seconds to down the survivor, then it takes you another 20 seconds to down them after you get hit with DS, and if you do this even once or twice, you are severely handicapping yourself.
I'm clearly not talking about jumping in lockers. I am clearly talking about other ways to offensively use DS, where you can basically just bodyblock the killer or throw yourself into a hook or dive into a downed survivor to save them, take the hit, and either force a slug in which case theres a survivor in the vicinity to pick you up, or stun the killer if you are downed near a pallet or if they have a flashlight, or force a DS, which allows both you and the survivor you unhooked time to get away. It's a way to almost completely mitigate any risk with doing altruistic actions in the killer's face. This is what you're failing to understand. It's not just the people that jump into lockers. You combine DS with something like DH and survivors have enough of a grace period to do anything they want right in the killer's face and the killer can't do anything about it. You combine DS with unbreakable and you completely negate the only counter to DS, which is slugging.
Now if you're the only survivor running DS in a game, you have now given an extra perk to all the other survivors in the game and you have altered the killer's playstyle, which favors the survivors. On top of that you give your team an extra 20-60 seconds of gen time.
-
@The_Krapper said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1861828#Comment_1861828
I agree with some of what you said but if all of what you said was true then playing killer at high ranks would be a walk in the park which we both know it's not when you're facing a good team, I think it comes down to some killers being able to handle the meta survivors and the killers who really lack map pressure or a threatening power being the ones that suffer the most against the meta, I'm not the best nurse in the world or anything but I can't remember the last time I didn't at least kill 3 when I use her, I 3kd the depip squad with my nurse back when they were active
When you play killer at high ranks, you get a hodgepodge of very good and very bad survivors. This shouldn't be the case. The ranking system, especially on the survivor side, inflates their skill. As a survivor, you don't have to interact with the killer to get points and rank up. As a killer you HAVE to interact with ALL survivors to get points and rank up. The system is simply too lenient on survivors and allows them to be carried to ranks where they don't belong.
On the other hand, at high levels of play, this game is very painful to play, and it's primarily because the balance of the game is so focused on lower levels of play. Things like DS and DH are completely balanced at intermediate levels of play, but they become abusively broken when survivors are good enough to know how to use them.
-
@ClarityOfWill said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1861782#Comment_1861782
Pointing out how the perk can be used offensively while ignoring context is just an attempt to overstate the impact of the perk. My point is that a lot of the whining people do about DS is less to do with the perk losing them the game and more about bad decisions being made worse by it. Someone using DS offensively (not withstanding the locker issue) in a lot of cases does far more harm to the team than benefit, particularly if it ends up with 2 downs and a complete loss of gen pressure from the remaining survivors.
Throwing in the preceding chase is just nonsense, that will occur regardless of whether a survivor is running DS. If you really want to be pedantic then by the time you factor in going back to the unhook, chasing and downing DS will nearly be out anyway. If that's how your playing then you're tunnelling anyway so the perk does its job. Leave them slugged, pressure elsewhere and come back. What i've said about DS's actual time is correct and it's rather telling you don't seem to know this. You also deliberately ignore the killers power in this equation of which there are a number of them who have catchup mechanics and a number who can slow down the survivor or prevent them going to a safe tile beforehand. Pyramid head outright can ignore DS if the survivor is tormented.
Once again, this is what I like to call "perfect world scenario" vs "actual game scenario". If you're getting hit with 4 DS's, you're already putting out an incredible amount of pressure via hook states. Throwing out numbers like "56% gen efficiency" is meaningless when you're destroying a team that hard. By the same argument I can say that for each DS not used a survivor loses 25% build efficiency, it doesn't mean anything without context.
If you are taking 60 seconds to chase unhooked survivors down, you are losing the game.
If you are getting hit with 4 dses, you are not winning the game. If you are getting hit with 4 dses and still winning, you are not playing the game at a high level against even mildly decent survivors. The fact that you somehow can't understand how DS is used offensively also points this out.
When the balance of the game hinges upon the other player being bad, your game balance is horrible. Games should be balanced towards both sides playing competently. Even things like bloodlust should be out of the game, just because of the fact that it can be used as a crutch in lower levels of killer play.
-
@The_Krapper said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1861782#Comment_1861782
Lol and you expect randoms to do the gens? That's hilarious, if this game were SWF only I would say DS is unfair but with the way some of these people play it's no wonder they've left it alone, not every solo game is terrible and not every survivor is bad buts it racks my brain how some of these people can be that stupid, how do they get to red ranks and still not understand how the game works?
Which actually is a thing on DBD, since the player retention in this game is very poor. Scott actually made a video recently on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJ84LN4vz4But basing game balance on bad play is a poor way to balance any game. Counting on players to be bad is actually why it's so painful to play as a solo survivor on this game, and it's why it's so painful to play killer at high ranks.
-
@ClarityOfWill said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1861714#Comment_1861714
Sorry, but this video shows less about DS being a problem and more bad decision making on that killers part. Steve enters her vision almost 1 second after picking up, are you seriously telling me the spirit didn't hear or bother to check around for another survivor? In addition, she also missed a swing at the end which doesn't help and also has her power available meaning she could potentially have got one of them at the end. Why not also step back and lunge then follow up with another hit if the player was that concerned about DS being active?
I get it, we know DS is problematic in certain ways but this post blatantly misrepresents the perk and takes some serious liberty with maths. Its a 5 second stun, but one that only provides about 3-3.5 seconds of clearance once you take into account the drop animation. Unless the survivor has a pallet or window nearby chances are they're going down within a few seconds. If you aren't tunnelling the likelihood of being hit by 4 DS's is remote (unless you really are having the game of your life in which case you're probably already winning comfortably so slug and proceed to wait out the potential unbreakable).
Locker DS is a problem I agree, but I've seen more games lost due to aggressive plays by survivors trying to bait me with their DS instead of actually using the perk to get away, heal or focus on a generator.
The video elucidates DS' ability to be used offensively. You can pick apart every tiny millisecond of video and every minor mistake the killer made, but it doesn't change that fact.
You're right, my calculations don't tell the whole story, as I've left out the time it takes to down the survivor in the first place, which can take 20-30 seconds, providing an additional 40-60 seconds of gen time.
You also fail in your attempt to explain what a stun is. A survivor moves at 4 meters per second. A standard killer moves at 4.6 meters per second, 15% more. Lets just assume that what you said is right and DS gives 3 seconds of stun. A survivor has moved 12 meters in this time. The killer then gives chase. If the survivor is 12 meters away, while moving, it will take the killer about 20 seconds to catch up in a straight line. If there are obstacles in the way and the survivor successfully negotiates them, this time is increased.
This is basic math. If 4 DS's are used, and the survivors just run in straight lines after using them, DS has given them more than 50% of the time it takes to do all 5 gens, just on its own. Just by running DS, you increase your team gen efficiency by 56%.
-
@TheClownIsKing said:
I am a long time killer and I simply do not understand how so many killers can get upset about DS.
The devs won’t change it because the survivor can only use it ONCE. This means the absolute MAXIMUM amount of times a killer can be stunned by it is 4.
Just eat the stun. It’s really not that crippling. That survivor is now vulnerable for the remainder of the trial.
Except DS isn't just a 5 second stun. Even if the gamestate is favorable to eat the stun, if the survivor runs in a straight line, it takes the killer about 23 seconds to catch up to the survivor, so it's not a 5 second stun, it's more like a 28 second stun. If the current conditions are unfavorable to eat a stun, like the survivor is near a hooked survivor or a downed survivor, you have to waste even more time, and then if the hooked survivor is also carrying DS, there is even more time lost.
Assuming there's at least 2 survivors working on gens at any one time, each DS is worth about 56 seconds of gen time. If all 4 survivors have DS, this is a maximum of 2.8 gens done just for running a single perk, regardless of personal skill or effort. If all survivors are running this perk, they only have to put effort into doing 2.2 gens each map.
There's also situations where DS can be used offensively where the killer can't do anything against it like here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpc6dcrH1NE&feature=emb_title -
@SquirrelKnight said:
Jigsaw boxes need to be reworked and tuned up a bit (made stronger) and honestly? I dont see this being that good of a change for the trapper. Survivors can still get out on first try but now its a maximum of 6 times.
I will say, until we see percentages to get out i cant fully make a statement on how good or bad itll be, but I am not hopeful about the escape chance
for the first 3 tries, the chance to get out is lower than what it is now. So survivors are less likely to get out in the beginning, but more likely towards the end. Right now survivors have about a 25% chance per attempt to get out, with the change, for the first 3 tries, they will have about a 16% chance to get out. Before, by attempt 6, the chance of still being in a trap was insanely low, like 5-10%, now that chance has been increased. This is an all around buff to traps, and it increases their efficiency by a lot.
-
you dont need to use his other bottles, he's still getting a 2 second reduction in his reload, and his addons have been tuned.
He gains speed with his antidote, which means if you can't think of a way to utilize them against survivors, you can always just use them to traverse the map, and with his buffed reload, he is able to do that.
-
Yeah, I don't think I agree with the blinking light on injured survivors. Actually if it was just a solid red, and not blinking, it would probably be better for me. Although I do recognize that this change just screws over colorblind people more, so even though the change I suggested would be good for me, it wouldn't be good for them. Since there are going to be customizable options, it shouldn't be hard to implement some type of icon system so that players don't get distracted by the bright flashing light at the upper left of the screen, or they are colorblind and can't discern it as well. Having it also just be a solid color will improve it a lot.
-
DBD is an asymmetric game, which is, by definition, unfair and unbalanced as it is a team of four survivors versus one killer.
There are many unbalanced features to this game beyond that, you brought them up in your post. Just because you don't think it's unbalanced doesn't make it true.
Since all the map tiles are procedurally generated, there are permutations that are extremely unbalanced for either side. Some maps will spawn giant dead zones and some maps will spawn the strongest tiles in the game connected to one another.
There's a plethora of imbalance in every single one of the game's features, from addons to perks to killer powers to maps to offerings. On top of this the game suffers from buggyness, hit registration issues, and dedicated server issues.
-
@Shirokinukatsukami said:
So one bad game in 3000 hours and all of a sudden it's a problem?
Did not watch the stream by the way.
So you're saying having abusable exploits / bugs / unintended interactions are ok as long as they're relatively rare?
-
if you play survivor, you have to realize that you are a team. You ran a spirit for 4 gens and you made the killer lose the game by only getting 1 kill. If you want to escape more often as survivor, you need to be selfish and sacrifice your team and then take the hatch.