Six perks system
Comments
-
@not_Queen @Patricia @Peanits @Suggestive Could not some experimentation be launched among volunteer players, with a special beta version? It should not be difficult, at the programming level, to swap the shape of the icon between perks and offerings and add two perk slots, after which the volunteers will be able to test the impact on the game and suggest collegially the appropriate balances. The investment of time and money to implement these two initial changes would be minimal, symbolic: the community could become the protagonist with numerous motivated feedback, according to which the developers can decide to make some balance or to set aside the project.
0 -
@Entità said:
@Crizpen I respectfully disagree. Humans are basically habitual creatures: they build their certainties on a reality consolidated over time and tend to be wary of any change in that reality, as if it were the only possible or reasonable, rather than simply being the one to which they are accustomed. If the game had started directly with six perks each, nobody would have been astonished, but indeed it was born with four and then this appears to be the only appropriate number. It is not necessarily so. Many new dynamics have been introduced, from the Obsession to the secondary objectives of the Pig's victims, through the excellent stealth of Myers at Evil Within 1, to the Spirit's phasing and so on: each addition involves new tactical challenges, a radical rethinking defensive strategies, an unthinkable variability at the time of Trapper, Wraith, Hillbilly. No less important are the new challenges imposed on the killers by the new survivor perks. The game has always earned it.Now, imagining that all the perks have been unlocked by developing all the characters or buying them from the Shrine of Secrets and making a quick calculation, having FOUR PERK SLOTS means, at present (ie without considering the upcoming two new chapters and related perks), and without considering perk tiers:
1) 56 * 55 * 54 * 53 = 8,814,960 perk combinations for survivors;
2) 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 = 5,997,600 perk combinations for killers (a drastically lower variability: I propose the introduction of another 5 killer perks, regardless of whether developers accept my system or not).Under the same conditions, having SIX PERK SLOTS means:
1) 56 * 55 * 54 * 53 * 52 * 51 = 23,377,273,920 perk combinations for survivors;
2) 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 * 47 * 46 = 12,966,811,200 perk combinations for killers;
ie:
1) a game variability 2,652 times greater than now for survivors;
2) a game variability 2,162 times greater than now for killers.Of course, it's a big news, and will require balancing. But the gain in terms of gameplay richness, tactical depth, longevity (the game itself is very repetitive: these are combinations that make it virtually inexhaustible), the novelty of the challenge, it will be immense.
Some possible balances:
1) to increase the number of totems or the cleansing time (since many of the most powerful killer perks are curses);
2) to add secondary objectives, which will drain the survivors' time (we talked about it in many threads, including: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/27565/secondary-objective-shrines-to-the -entity );
3) to review the effects of some perks (or add-ons of the killers), to the extent deemed appropriate during the tests;
4) to lengthen the repair time of the generators or introduce a sixth generator to fix;
5) to touch up the structure of some maps, to make the six perks system more enjoyable.In my opinion, the problem is not real, but mental, in the sense that some perceive this change as impossible, as an impracticable distortion, and look discouraged, resigned, to an incredible opportunity for both parties. I do not say it's easy, but it's definitely a great leap forward, a way to make this game even more immortal and palatable for new players (and for me, that I have a weakness for tactical challenges).
I pray @Malakir @se05239 @Acromio @TerminalEntropy @MhhBurgers @G4rr3tt @Whisky_Glass @Scourge @Master @Justicar @Peasant and all other users to read carefully this post, and to think about it.
Of course, @not_Queen and @Patricia are always welcome!
Pop quiz:
Are you suuuurrrrre that those are combinations you're calculating?0 -
@apropos As I wrote to @Crizpen, it was a quick calculation, which does not take into account the permutation of the same perks in slots nor the possibility, far from hypothetical, that a player will equip less than 4 or less than 6 perks, because they do not have still unlocked all the slots or have recently prestiged the character. It was not intended as an exact computation: it does not make sense to clog the forum with formulas of combinatorial calculation.Read my other replies to other players, please: the thread has an evolution during the exchange of arguments among users, new ideas have been added, new balance solutions have been written.
0 -
@Entità said:
@apropos As I wrote to @Crizpen, it was a quick calculation, which does not take into account the permutation of the same perks in slots nor the possibility, far from hypothetical, that a player will equip less than 4 or less than 6 perks, because they do not have still unlocked all the slots or have recently prestiged the character. It was not intended as an exact computation: it does not make sense to clog the forum with formulas of combinatorial calculation.Read my other replies to other players, please: the thread has an evolution during the exchange of arguments among users, new ideas have been added, new balance solutions have been written.
I'm not going to read your replies, because you can't bullshit a bullshitter. I was trying to point out your error in a nice way, and give you the benefit of the doubt. Because, I don't know, maybe you're starting to learn about probability in a discrete math course; it's about this far into the semester you begin learning about probability. Statistics courses teach you probability first, and they don't generally go too deep into combinatorics, except with the binomial distribution I remember talking about the binomial coefficient. Although, in a discrete class you would have gone through proofs first, which if understood and experienced, would explain the purpose of my convictions.
Either way, I can just reason through it with you; that's not a quick calculation, your calculation is completely wrong. You've calculated the number of ways four or six perks, out of 56, can be ordered without repetition. The formula for a combination isn't that long, either: n! / r! * (n - r)! or (56 choose 4) which results in something like 300k combinations. Granted, i get that your point is to express that there is greater variability with more slots, but don't borrow the credibility of mathematical reasoning to leverage your point, when you're not abiding by the rules to do so - there's a reason for math holding so much credence, don't abuse it. You can simply say, "this would increase the variety in play" and people will know what you mean.
Because I feel like I'm being mean spirited by pointing these things out, I want to explain myself. You seem like your smart, a lot of people that play this game seem to be. But, I think it's irresponsible to be so lazy with what you know or don't know, and to subtly imply that other people are being too anal when they call you out, or to simply disregard what people say, and suggest they read your old posts.
I also think that what you suggest in some of your posts is patronizing and offensive to the developers, considering that most of them have been required to learn about these concepts to get the jobs that they have. The same concepts you are struggling to use here, were used to make the game. All of which is likely more complex than we can fathom. But, I know where you're coming from... you get an idea that feels like it's a great one, and you want to share it with everyone. But, if it's flawed and people point it out, you gotta go back to the drawing board, rather than encouraging everyone to accept it as it is. Have some humility, and show other people some respect.
0 -
@apropos I asked you to read the other answers because you could find interesting developments about how to balance the effects of such a reform, while the mathematical aspect, which I see very dear to you, is no longer treated in my other posts: no lack of respect towards you, you are biased. It is a calculation that does not take into account some variables, it is only a gross simplification: in particular, the combinations of the same perks in different order are counted repeatedly, it is assumed that all the slots are used and that all perks are at tier 3. Obviously, the result is inaccurate, I said it to @Crizpen and I repeat it to you: it only serves to trivially make the idea. What is the usefulness, in front of the Community, of irony about semesters and probability courses, instead of spending your knowledge in depth to redo the calculation in the exact and most complex manner? No objection in this regard.
Secondly, the focal point of the discussion is not the calculation, which intervenes only later and that you are free to redo with the appropriate algorithm: what I fight for is that there is a strategic variability proportionate to the immense increase of characters and perks, and the main objection that has been raised is that the killer would be too disadvantaged with 6 perks against 24. So, the heart of the discussion, which you refuse to read, concerns just the possible balancing, and I have proposed some:
1) the totems can be increased or even doubled, if needed;
2) about secondary objectives, my ideas are specifically explained in https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/27565/secondary-objective-shrines-to-the-entity;
3) to strenghten killer perks and add-ons (which ones do you consider ineffective or too weak?);
4) to add 15 seconds per gen or a sixth gen;
5) to change some maps' design, so that there are less loops, more mind games, more hidden totems;
6) to eliminate one of the two gates, replacing it with the automatic opening of the hatch, or to lengthen the opening time of the gates;
7) to increase considerably the number of crows or their sensitivity;
8) two or more of the previous corrections.On these aspects, your contribution is welcome and solicited with sincerity. Instead, you are not entitled to judge the enthusiasm with which I support my ideas and stimulate the collective debate, from which I trust they can always be improved, enriched and modified, or to give me lessons on how I should react to the objections of others: respect for the person of others is sacrosanct, the abjuration of one's own ideas to favor those of others is not at all due.
Post edited by Entità on0 -
I would like to see the idea. We could atleast test it on the ptb. It could be really work for both sides. Thank you for thread.
0 -
@The_Daydreamer Oh, I'd be the happiest user in this forum if the Devs simply gave the six perks system a chance to be tried and tested properly, with fair balances.Thanks for your support!About balance, if that reform were implemented with the 5-level rarity system restored ( https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/28110/about-restoring-the-5-level-rarity-system-for-perks ), they could impose some restrictions about the maximum number of ultra rare and very rare perks that can be equipped by every single survivor (for example, 2 ultra rare, 2 very rare and 2 rare perks), while the killer should not suffer any limitation.
1 -
I added the main balance proposals written somewhere in the thread in the opening post, to help people who don't desire to read all the messages.
0 -
I have devised a simple solution to satisfy both the favorable and the opposing players, without even having to tire the developers with new delicate balancing works: I have consequently rewritten the opening post, which I invite you to read again.
0 -
So killers would have to deal with the possibility of 24 different perks? Are you serious??
Most survivors perks are OP as #########, while killers only have around 3 or 4 strong perks that arent HEX0 -
@bloxe None of the possible balances convinces you? And don't you even accept that the killer can freely choose between the old and the new system?
I see a lot of users who complain that the killer is not powerful enough, that their perks are weak or useless: what do you expect to open appropriate threads to suggest the changes you think are appropriate? Complaining is fine, but without concrete proposals you do not get anything: help developers with specific ideas!
0 -
A few are reasonable, but it would require either a massive buff for killers or a massive nerf for survivors.Entità said:@bloxe None of the possible balances convinces you? And don't you even accept that the killer can freely choose between the old and the new system?
I see a lot of users who complain that the killer is not powerful enough, that their perks are weak or useless: what do you expect to open appropriate threads to suggest the changes you think are appropriate? Complaining is fine, but without concrete proposals you do not get anything: help developers with specific ideas!
Maybe a 5th perk slot, with a 6th gen AND longer repair time.
But its nice to see suggestions, because the game simply cant remain in the current state. Its actual cancer.
And honestly, I highly doubt that the devs read this forum. Not even the topic titles.0 -
@bloxe I respect your point of view, but I think our Developers are working hard to make Dead by Daylight better! I have been seeing a lot of changes since I started playing it and I can guarantee you they read and appreciate our feedbacks and contributions. And I sincerely hope they will consider mine, too.
0 -
I rewrote the OP to add some good reasons and balances about the six perks system.
0 -
@Entità said:
I'm a perfectionist and suddenly had the mental view of the following ordinate progression of characters' development:
1) 5th level = 2nd perk slot;
2) 10th level = 3rd perk slot;
3) 15th level = 4th perk slot;
4) 20th level = 5th perk slot;
5) 25th level = 6th perk slot;
6) 30th level = 1st teachable perk;
7) 35th level = 2nd teachable perk;
8) 40th level = 3rd teachable perk.Consider this:
A) there are 59 survivor perks and 54 killer perks (Legion's and Jeff's included);
B.) at least another killer and another survivor will be released before Spring 2019, so 3 new survivor perks and 3 new killer perks are going to be introduced;
C) six slots mean more combinations of perks, richer gameplay and a better longevity.This game was born with three killers, four survivors and a restricted list of perks, but we are going to have about four times the original number of characters and much more perks, then I think it's better to give six perks each.
Regarding the icons' graphic appearance, with the six perks system
implemented, the perks will become hexagons and the offerings rotated
squares, of course.First solution: the six perks system is adopted for all players with appropriate balance changes.
About balance, if that reform were implemented with the 5-level rarity system restored ( https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/28110/about-restoring-the-5-level-rarity-system-for-perks ), the Devs could impose some restrictions about the maximum number of ultra rare and very rare perks that can be equipped by every single survivor (for example, 2 ultra rare, 2 very rare and 2 rare perks), while the killer should not suffer any limitation.
Other balance proposals:
1) the totems can be increased or even doubled, if needed;
2) about secondary objectives, my ideas are specifically explained in https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/27565/secondary-objective-shrines-to-the-entity ;
3) to strenghten killer perks and add-ons (which ones do you consider ineffective or too weak?);
4) to add 15 seconds per gen or a sixth gen;
5) to change some maps' design, so that there are less loops, more mind games, more hidden totems;
6) to eliminate one of the two gates, replacing it with the automatic opening of the hatch, or to lengthen the opening time of the gates;
7) to increase considerably the number of crows or their sensitivity;
8) two or more of the previous corrections.Second solution: the killer chooses how many perks can be equipped by each player in their trials.
Many users have replied that a killer with six perks would never be able to fight four survivors with six perks each. For some it may seem an insurmountable challenge, but others may wish to launch such a venture. There is a very simple way to satisfy everyone, without having to tire the developers with difficult balancing: the killer, in their game settings, decides whether to adopt the four perks system or the six perks system, and the survivors who are matched to that killer will be bound by their choice. The killer, in their role of power, will be able to choose the traditional rules or a unrelenting, thrilling, merciless fight: the survivors will have no reason to complain, and the other killers will be free to act differently in their games. Four or six perks each? Make your choice!
Do you agree?
Maybe as a secondary gameplay mode, but I don't think bringing this change to the standard mode would be a smart idea. It could be an unranked "for fun" mode where 6 perks can be used.
0 -
0
-
@Entità said:
@Luigifan64 What are you scared by? It's just a gameplay adjournment.I'm not scared by anything, the change is just too drastic to be implemented as a change to the standard gameplay, it would work much better as a secondary gameplay mode
0 -
No killer mains are going to want to play this except those who are actually Truly skilled at the game. aka the top 10%.(Not me at all. I suck a big one
) Just due to the fact that people still cry about DS and Selfcare despite nerfs and upcoming nerfs. As a solo player, i probably wouldn't want to play it. With the upcoming nerf to DS its going to be a slugfest. The community is too toxic to have that much power tbh lol.I'd be more down for a teachable only perk slot, or change perks and add 'categories' to them and have category only slots.. Or a huge overhaul to the actual game mechanics. Longer gens, more totems, maps like The Game being made bigger because you have some overly toxic combinations as killer you can use(ie: doc/distressing/unnerving), and the continued removal of a few jungle gyms. But on the other hand, i wouldn't mind testing it out.
0 -
I like the proposal of increasing the number of equippable perks, but it would "probably" require changes to a few of them. The hexes for example.
An idea i would support would be making one of the 5-6 perk slots ONLY for that character's OWN teachables. (This could also be compareable to giving survivors passives)
I know thos might create meta-characters but meg and claudette rule surpreme anyways.
For those who fear sirvivors becoming to strong, how about incorporating every killerperk that only boosts a stat flat into the basekit and remove/rework those perks (the remove option would also reduce the perkcount inflation.) Just a very biased proposal
0 -
@Luigifan64 Wouldn't you try this reform in a long PTB, just to get concrete feedback from direct experience?
@projecteulogy If you fear a slugfest, you can add Unbreakable and Tenacity in the fifth and sixth slots, can't you?
@Raptorrotas Are you suggesting to bind one extra slot to one of the survivor's unique perks? Very interesting... survivors won't be anymore just skins!
0 -
Yes, 4 perk slots for any perk and 1 perkslot for a characters own teachables perks. Survivors wouldnt be just skins anymore. Obviously no equipping the same perk twice. I'd like to see this idea applied to survivors AND killers though.
Although as said in my first post, this would create metas, probably.
0 -
I mean if this idea gets implemented then yes. I'm all for it. The problem with Unbreakable is that it's a one time use. Killers do not have One TIme Use perks. But they keep crying about survivors needing more nerfs.
I'm simply reflecting on how the player base acts as killer currently from what i keep experiencing personally. This will change drastically, especially if you SWF vs Solo. On the PTB i got slugged literally, every other game but rarely played against vomit lady. Mostly billies and nurses with Deerstalker abusing people who "may possibly have DS".
I'm rather bored with survivors being meaningless skins. There needs some depth. Just like how you worry about specific playstyles from specific killers.
My only problem with the PTB is the lack of seriousness in testing and the dev getting proper feedback. They need to have a Private Test Build to be tested by chosen people(fog whisperers etc) and then have a Public Test Build that everyone can mess with.
0 -
No.
0
