orange7
orange7
About
- Username
- orange7
- Joined
- Visits
- 34
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Shroompy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4034191#Comment_4034191
so that i can get my additional 300 bloodpoints
So if pain res had no gen slowdown effect but still gave you 300 additional bp perk hook would you still run it
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4033485#Comment_4033485
Because these ideas are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The killer's role is to kill survivors. Making it so that the killer gets punished by losing access to perks by doing their job is a poor way to balance the game.
The opposite would be disabling sprint burst after the survivor team gets a gen done. It would make the perk less annoying to deal with as killer, but it would be a terrible solution to it.
There's a big problem with the DBD community wanting to micro manage how killers play the game. Adding all these barriers to try to force killers to play 1 specfic way will only hurt the game in the long term, because people will not stay to play as a bot.
Claiming the problem doesn't exist does not just suddenly validate your claim. I can claim that gen rushing does not exist, but that does not take into account everyone's individual experience.
Do not mistake sprint burst for having the same impact on the match as pain res or any other gen slowdown. Those two things are not nearly equivalent. Secondly, there is already a host of anti-exhaustion perks and addons that can counter sprint burst and similar perks. Also, one gen being completed is not the same as if a player is dead with lots of gens remaining. The idea of this change is not to punish a killer for playing well, but to instead make a match more fair for everyone. Something can be unfair and in your favor, so in the name of fairness, I think this is a very reasonable change. Your success in killing the remaining three survivors at 5 gens should not be dependent on pain res, and if it is, you're likely a part of the issue. -
@Shroompy said:
ngl dawg, if you got someone dead at 4/5 gens you got bigger fish to fry
Exactly! You agree that in that situation, the game is essentially over, so why then have pain res still apply?
-
@Reinami said:
At the end of the day, your suggestions are bandaid fixes. As long as it is POSSIBLE for someone to be removed from the game early, then it will always be a problem. Punishing the killer is not the solution because then it can be weaponized by good players who know how to do so, and for bad players, they will just keep getting tunneled anyway.
The proper solution is much simpler. Make it impossible to actually remove a survivor from the match early and balance the game around that.
The better solution is a total rework of the game.
Imagine something that was more lore based than what we have now. A system where, instead of killing survivors, the killer has to fill up a bar, that represents the survivor's "hope" that the entity feeds off of. The killer's goal is to fill up this bar by doing actions. Downing survivors, hooking them, kicking gens, etc. The survivor's goal is to escape before the killer can do this. If the killer fills up the hope bar, then the survivors lose, and the entity kills 3 of the survivors, and leaves 1 of them alive as a "reward" for the killer. This puts the killer and that survivor in a little 1v1 zone, where the killer has to kill them before a hatch opens up that the survivor can escape from and get away. (think like, the haloween event, and have a hatch that starts closed and after say, 60 seconds, the hatch opens and the survivor can escape, probably in this zone you'd disable killer powers and all perks and such to just make it a pure 1v1)
Truthfully, I don't understand how you can say "punishing the killer player is not the solution…" and "[The solution is to] make it impossible to actually remove a survivor from the match early and balance the game around that." You call the proposed suggestion a band-aid fix, but it is realistic.
Let's be clear: The idea is not to punish killer players for tunneling or remove their agency in any way. The developers would rather try implementing basekit invincibility for recently unhooked survivors, which is, I'm sure you would agree, a completely incorrect approach. From my perspective, any proposed changes should still allow killer players to play with full freedom rather than micromanaging their gameplay with debuffs. That is why this change could be important. A blight on live right now would have the same possibility to tunnel a player out as a future patch with this change included. All this change does is make it less viable to utilize strong perks in an already stacked scenario.
I like your mindset regarding a complete rework of the game to fix some of these issues. I think your hope suggestion is very creative. However, the developers just had months to work on important base game adjustments with the "operation health" update(s), and the best they could come up with was missing the point and ended up with reverted features anyway. As much as anyone, myself included, would love a full rework of the game, this is just impossible to be done correctly by the dev team.
Lastly, the "weaponization" argument is just false. The activation condition of this change is a player death with [X] amount of gens remaining. There is no situation in which survivors have multiple gens at 99% waiting for you to tunnel one person out, and then complete them immediately. If multiple survivors already have multiple gens at 99% completion, you have likely lost that match regardless. It is more efficient to just complete the gens rather than wait for a teammate to die in order to, presumably, continue doing however many gens are left. -
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4033382#Comment_4033382
Perks are part of the game, its not an "advantage" that is giving to you by the kind developers. Its your build. Same as items and perks for survivor, or addons for killer, or even the killer you pick.
Advantages are not things that are randomly bestowed upon you by the developers. They are conscious choices made by the players more often before the match even starts in the form of builds, addons, items, and perks. A team running 4 BNPs and commodious toolboxes inherently has an advantage over gen progression at the beginning of a match. Yes, there are base game advantages too, such as map RNG, pallet density, and window spawn locations; however, they are more often than not less impactful than the choices made by players deciding which perks, items, and addons to bring.
Please explain to me how a perkless killer player has the same advantage in a match as a stacked survivor team.
If perks, addons, and any customization to you are not advantages, what is an advantage in DBD to you? Is it the map generation? -
As you mentioned, it's the entire power. It's definitely not as bad as before; it used to be much, much worse.
Skull Merchant's design will always be poor, no matter how many tweaks they make. It's unfun for the same reason that a killer with a power that just by playing them randomly downs a survivor on the map every 5 minutes. Would this be strong? Not really. Would it be annoying as there's nothing you can do? Yes.
She needs a full power rework. -
@SoGo said:
I would do this if in the future the devs would want to nerf Pain Res.
It's much better to make it so tunneling is off the table than just lowering the percentage.
Otherwise, this is not that pressing of a problem.
Totally agree! There should be changes for tunneling base game that supersede perk changes. I only bring this up since this has not been working with the approach the developers have taken as of late.
-
@CompetitifDBD said:
This is just like old ruin. At least until this new update dropped, I'm not trying to lose a perk slot because survivors are misplaying. That's their owm fault for dying that early. If you're not doing gens, don't expect the killer to get punished, you're getting punished for not doing the objective.
Looking at things by assigning "fault" isn't the intention here.
Someone is always going to have their agency removed in a tunneling situation, the killer if anti-tunneling is too aggressive, the tunneled survivor who can't play out the match, or the remaining survivors who don't get to interact with the killer nearly at all until the game is a guaranteed loss. It is not a "misplay" for four solo survivors to be matched against a multi-slowdown nurse who is determined to get a kill as early as possible in the match. The expectation that four solo players (the most common matchup of most survivor lobbies) should be able to coordinate on the same level as SWFs against strong killers is false. This change limits the overkill aspect and would make the match worth attempting to play out if perks that are inherently designed to be used in a 4v1, not a 3v1, are disabled.
Let's be clear about this: these perks are designed for the 4v1 specifically; that is the reason their numbers are what they are, and they work the way they do. When you enter a situation at 5 gens of someone dying, for whatever reason, it makes a difficult comeback an impossible feat.Would you agree then that by your logic, DS, OTR, should remain active during endgame, as it's the killer's fault for not doing their objective effectively? If you're not getting kills, don't expect the survivors to get punished; you're getting punished for not doing the objective.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4033133#Comment_4033133
No, a perk isn't an "advantage" it is a core mechanic of the game. You don't get to rebrand it just to fit your narrative.
Perks are advantages— here's why. While the game is asymmetrical, imagine for a moment that you have two completely equal-skilled teams competing in a tournament. They take turns and alternate on the same map with no spawn variation whatsoever (every loop is the same every time). The same killer is chosen each time as well. Now, also imagine that one of these teams is allowed to bring perks and items with no restrictions, while the 2nd team is not allowed to. The match will be decided by perks alone; their existence inherently is an advantage.
The same applies outside of a strict tournament setting, too; it's universal in 1v4 dbd. A player on Killer running strong perks with add-ons will likely beat a team running nothing, or vice versa. While we have all seen competitive teams run no perks and absolutely crush casual killer players, these are rare outliers and do not reflect the broad overall casual experience. -
@Leon_van_Straken said:
Just let DS activate on both hook states. It will only hurt someone the second time if they really try to tunnel you.
Like a hot oven. Touch it once you burn yourself and you will think twice before touching it again.
And to be fair… just disable the Skillcheck of DS.
It always felt strange that you bring a perk to protect yourself from tunneling. Then you get tunneld and the game ask you "Do you really deserve this?" It mostly hurts the newer Survivors, which needs the perk the most.
I do agree that DS's skill check disproportionately affects weaker or newer survivor players, which is not good game design. I would support removing the skillcheck. DS working twice, I have no problem with. If a killer player is that determined to tunnel someone to target them again after enduring DS once, a second stun may buy more time for the strategy to be weaker, and ultimately, pushing that killer player to possibly consider other non-tunneling playstyles.
-
@terumisan said:
ds is already meta and strong why buff it
Great question! Really, this idea came to me after watching the developers backtrack multiple times on the base game changes surrounding anti-tunnel measures. They seem to struggle with making broad changes, so starting smaller with anti-tunnel perks seems more effective to me in the short term regarding the issue of tunneling, even if the perk is currently meta. Looking for healthier alternatives or changes in the game is important, and that is the main goal. I also believe there are more options to evaluate for tunneling, but for this discussion, just keeping the focus on DS for now.
Thanks for responding!