BHVR listening mostly to survivors
Comments
-
I can show you the thread I opened in 2019, demanding that DS go back to 3 seconds at the same time as Enduring was nerfed, unless you think I opened the thread for just such an occasion and that everyone who replied in it, as well as everyone who's confirmed what I've said in this thread, are all in on a big conspiracy to trick you.
2 -
There was someone who updated a list of killer and survivor nerfs. Killer list was 4 times longer.
1 -
deal with it
BALANCE:
Changed the Decisive Strike stun time to 5 seconds, with the Survivor being free to move after 1 second.
The Enduring perk now affects Decisive Strike's stun.
With feedback from the PTB and Live, we have changed the Decisive Strike stun time to 5 seconds, with the Survivor being free to move after 1 second. This should allow for the survivor to have ~ 4 seconds at a base to try and escape the killer after the stun is successful. When Enduring is used, the stun will be reduced to ~2.8 seconds. Of those 2.8 seconds the survivor will get a head start of ~ 2.28 seconds which makes escaping possible but much harder.
4 -
Thank you. Seriously, why would multiple people confirm what I've said while zero denied it if I was lying? People on the Internet love to prove others wrong.
4 -
If you know which gens are being worked on, you can apply pressure and nullify all progress on them. The regression speed is huge, and you don't have to waste time to kick them. If you hook/down someone, a survivor doing gens has to make a difficult choice - keep working on the gen and possibly let their teammate down, or help them and leave the gen to regress. Old ruin just made the gens speeds inconsistently longer. People complained because new ruin actually needs some input from the killer side
Sorry to say this, but I think you are the one who thinks that there is a big "dev bias" conspiracy. If you said the devs said what you said, then I want to see the exact source. If you can't provide, too bad. I won't believe you...
0 -
I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just know that the devs have, in many instances, shown bias toward survivors.
3 -
Why start the timeline when DS was released? Did you even read the post you were quoting?
0 -
Why not start the timeline when DS was released if I'm pointing out how DS was buffed to account for Enduring, then Enduring was nerfed while DS remained the same?
1 -
Happy to help.
2 -
Yes but also no. They donβt necessarily say survivor is always right. In reality they are so scared to add more time on things for the loading screen simulator that is survivor. A more recent example is Thanataphobia. This perk change of 1% more to gens while removing healing is because swing chains exist on Freddy and stack. But they go the wrong way about stopping strong things from stacking by making them too weak to be used. Instead of removing the ability to stack them all together like how Monitor and Abuse and Shadowborn work.
0 -
Thank you for providing a source.
My guess is that they reverted the change, like I said for the milionth time, for balance reasons. Even the patch notes state that "Of those 2.8 seconds the survivor will get a head start of ~ 2.28 seconds which makes escaping possible but much harder.". Much harder, or in other words, nearly impossible. 5 seconds is ideal, and Enduring would just be a perk that enabled tunneling even more. Look at what happened during the recent DS bug.
I know he doesn't, and I'm not forcing anyone to find anything. I was just saying I don't need to believe him if he doesn't have a source.
Killers have been buffed tons of times in the previous years. Is that bias? No - it's balancing. Same goes for survivors.
0 -
My guess is that they reverted the change, like I said for the milionth time, for balance reasons.
No change was reverted, that's the problem. DS stayed at 5 seconds even though it was explicitly buffed because of how Enduring affected it. Why don't you take the devs at their word? Just admit you were wrong and move on, it's not a big deal.
Killers have been buffed tons of times in the previous years. Is that bias? No - it's balancing. Same goes for survivors.
I didn't bring up the number of nerfs, so I'm not sure why you are.
1 -
Haha, alright. I was talking about Enduring, not DS. And I am taking the devs by their word - can you point me out where in the patch notes does it exactly say that the DS "buff" was explicitly caused by Enduring? Because I can't see it :)
That's only your presumption, at most.
And alright, killers were nerfed too. Same as survivors. Again, because of balance. Not bias. Hard to understand?
0 -
Could you define "applying pressure", please?
The gen regression speed of Ruin is half of what a single survivor takes to repair. ThatΒ΄s not really much.
Oh and thank you for pointing out, that killers have to kick a gen (with a 2 second animation) while survivors can just tap it mid chase. Great example!
3 -
You can apply pressure properly by knowing that your priority is to protect gens, and not chasing survivors for 4 gens around good tiles and then complaining about gen rushing.
Compared to regular regression speed, it's much faster. It's the only perk that regresses gens quicker. Is there more to say?
And your last point just proves that ruin is good? Gen tapping mid chase will literally do nothing against ruin.
0 -
You do not find explanations in the patch notes. That is not where they are.
4 -
So you protect the gens by chasing survivors away from a gen (and not commiting to the down, yes?).
WhatΒ΄s stopping survivors from just going back to the gen, once you leave?
The kick animation point, was regarding the original statement, that the devs prefer survivors over killers.
1 -
Then we're back to the drawing board.
0 -
No we are not.
6 -
What should happen instead? A 5 second start up where no progress is seen? An entity blocker that makes them work on a different gen?
And there are perks that exploit that behavior. An Overcharged gen with Dragons Grip will get more regression, and a down. Oh but we don't use those because the meta don't call for it and that means they're garbage. Durrr.
1 -
A fixed animation like killers have. Why should a tap "stabilize" a gen?
And no, we donΒ΄t use those. Because Overcharge skill checks arenΒ΄t really hard to hit and because Dragons Grip is kinda meh. (both are meh)
2 -
I like how you exaggerate and completely dismiss the problem that the killer has to spend 6s in order to kick the gen and that can be completely negated by a quick tap of 0.x s while continue running. Also why not use those? Because why waste time kicking gens in the first place and even using perk slots to that idiotic thing when you play against swf where that works one ######### time. Just waste 2 perk slots for a one time gimmick trick that might work in a match once.
Yeah I don't see the issue at all why people do not use that.
How about an animation same as the killer has in order to kick the gen? Yeah that be weird.
3 -
Well, if you're chasing someone off of a gen, then you usually can get an injure on a survivor. And then you just make a simple choice - is it worth to commit to a down? If there are good tiles nearby and the survivor is good, then no, go patrol gens - if the survivor is injured they will either have to heal or they will be more vulnerable if you catch them off guard. Otherwise go for the down.
And I agree that gen tapping is bad, but if that bothers you, you can use Dragon's grip or Overcharge, for example. It's not like there is no counter.
Well, you just proved my point? The post you sent talks about the Enduring "nerf" - but like Peanits said, it was done for, what I said tons of times already, consistency AND balancing. If the balance team decided that a 5 seconds stun is appropriate, (because, like Peanits said, they considered changing it back), then it is.
I'm going to stop responding to this thread, because it's just like talking to a wall at this point.
Game balancing is not bias. Consistency is not bias. Have a nice day.
0 -
No I didn't, since you were the one who didn't know what was said and when showed, changed his mind about what he actually wanted to see in the first place. It was just a courtesy since you seem to have no clue about the subject, so i provided you some.
Next time you can actually use google yourself and while you cry about game balance and tell your assumptions, we know why it was done since we have been here and askes questions back then like @Orion did.
Good that you are finally out of the thread.
2 -
Survivors donΒ΄t heal if a gen reached a certain point of progress. They just push the gen out and worry about the heal afterwards (Adrenaline is a thing),
At least the survivors in red ranks behave like this. DonΒ΄t know about brown ranks.
0 -
A quick tap would make the gen explode. Staying to hit the skillcheck takes the same amount of time it would to kick the gen.
6 seconds? Who's exaggerating now? It's 2 seconds, 3 seconds tops. And they still need to stop a second to get the animation in. That can be a free hit if they're being cocky.
A gimmick that directly tackles your problem. Sorry you don't turn off the tap when the water in your bathroom is spilling everywhere and that stabby feeling you get when you poke your hand with a fork at dinner doesn't go away when you yell at it.
0 -
A quick tap would make the gen explode.
Overcharge skill checks can be hit while moving.
1 -
I've never seen that.
That's bullshit. Really? That goes against the whole purpose of the perk.
Nerf survivors.
0 -
Orion you make good points sometimes but it isnt favoritism. You should learn to quit with the constant no when someone tells you something and learn.
The animation cut alot of DS's time for the survivors to escape. This was obvious when it showed how long you had til DS was over in the bottom right.
It remained 5 seconds because it was enough time for survivors to escape. Not favoritism simple balance.
1 -
I mean, like I said, if the survivor decides to not heal, they will be vulnerable if they decide to work on a gen. If you catch them off guard, or the gen is in a dead zone, then it's an easy down for you. It's up to you as a killer to take advantage of it. Isn't it?
0 -
Indeed, it is bullshit, but that's how it works. There's no real reason for it to even work like that because it literally only comes into play if survivors gen tap.
You're literally telling me, the guy who was there, witnessed the changes, and heard the devs' justifications, to "learn" from someone who wasn't.
I think I'm going to stick with believing what actually happened, seeing as how I witnessed it.
3 -
Sucks that us vets have to bend over backwards to get these new bloods to believe us, eh?
2 -
Yep, I love tapping the gen and hitting the skill check while running, it's satisfying, would recommend.
0 -
How do you know he wasn't there for the changes?
0 -
Being a vet doesn't make your opinion any more valid, this game isn't very hard, and only takes a few hundred hours to understand, I've been here since 2018, which is around the time this game released on console, and it isn't hard at all.
2 -
Indeed.
Because we've had this conversation before.
1 -
I'm not saying learn from someone who wasnt what I am saying is that hes making a valid point. 5 seconds staying on the DS stun isnt favoritism its nust balance the duration cut the stun too short and the survivors had no way to get distance.
You dont have to bend over back for "new bloods." Your 2016 status means nothing atleast to me. All you vets did was play the video game a couple years earlier 1 year earlier than me. The most I can respect you for is keeping the game alive ling enough for me to pick it up on console.
3 -
I really dislike it when people pull the vet card and use that to back up their opinion, I think orion is alright, because he always remains constructive.
Dbd is not a very difficult game to understand, and being a vet doesn't ever make your opinion more valid than anyone else's.
0 -
It's not a matter of opinion, I was literally just stating DbD history (y'know, objective facts) and had one person constantly doubt me despite others saying I was right and even offer up evidence and another say I should "learn" DbD history from someone who wasn't even there to begin with.
1 -
I wasn't talking about you, what you stated is a fact, however I really dislike how some people act on these forums with their vet card, like that guy I replied to.
0 -
And you picking it up recently means you're ignorant to everything that preceded you. Veteran players are the ones who have the most experience with the game. As Orion said, we lived it. In a video game, that should mean more. Unfortunately, this thread has newbies who likely never watched the weekly streams throughout the years to see and hear what the devs chose to change and their reasons for doing it.
2 -
Sure it does. This thread is about the devs having a bias towards survivors and who better to ask than those who have been with the game since its release? π This isn't rocket science.
1 -
This thread is about the devs listening to mostly survivors, not listened, they are talking about the present, not the past, so you being a vet doesn't matter at all, nor does it give you the moral high ground.
1 -
I was stating facts about DbD's history, that's it. His point is irrelevant because it was never about that.
- The devs said a 3-second stun was OK without Enduring.
- The devs buffed DS to 5 seconds because of Enduring.
- The devs nerfed Enduring because it was too strong against stun perks.
- DS was never reverted to its 3-second stun even though the reason for the buff to 5 seconds no longer existed (i.e.: Enduring no longer affected it).
These are the indisputable facts that I've been stating. So what am I supposed to learn regarding these facts?
3 -
So how far back do you think we should go? The Enduring change was last year, just FYI.
1 -
Also, I'd like you to define what a noob is, since me and azame have been playing since the game released on console, which is over 2 years.
0 -
No, they're talking about, as you said "the devs listening to mostly survivors". The past matters in this discussion, because it brought the game to where it is today.
2 -
I don't know how far back we should go, but I know the plague chapter was over a year ago at this point, maybe we should go as far back as the silent Hill chapter, or the descend beyond chapter, since those were more recent and up to date.
0 -
Okay, so you've played it for 2 years, versus the 4 year lifespan of the game thus far. That's 2 years of development you've missed out on. And I didn't call you a 'noob'. That's an insult more than anything. I said "new bloods", meaning those who are newer to the game by comparison.
1
