http://dbd.game/killswitch
Alien nerf is a message, play Nurse/Blight/Wesker instead
Comments
-
To be fair I really like playing against Pinhead and Pig, they're not strong in chase and give something else to do. Its only Devs dont give simple chat stamp to give solo better coordination (at who will get the box). Sadako is beyond that though, only true swf can have enough coordination against her.
0 -
Pig is the proper amount of slowdown, I feel. Not enough chase, but a good amount of slowdown.
Pinhead's slowdown is too team dependent. Some teams will micro-manage the Box and you don't get a power. Other teams will not.
2 -
We need killers that not oppressive in chase but with base slowdown. Longer chase is fun for survivors, and longer objective is better for killer
This is an incredibly fine line to walk. Getting it wrong is exactly what we have with chess merchant, even after regression nerfs.
Unfortunately you simply can't make the slowdown *too* strong, or it will be the only thing people do. Sadly, 'don't ever chase but kick gens for an hour' is a play style that a lot of killers seem to *want* and will take any opportunity to do it.
2 -
I don't understand why you would feel the need to test this. It is obvious it's a good thing and will lead to less lobby dodging since both high prestige and low prestige will make other players dodge. These obviously good changes should be a "just do it" moment for you guys.
0 -
You got dedicated. Gotta love dedicated servers...
0 -
As a new player you have a choice what killer you play as but you don't have a choice what perks someone else brings in. If you had a chance to randomly load in and be forced to play a game as Xeno, or if survivor players could vote-ban certain perks to control what they go against, you might have a point, but as it stands, you can't compare two things when one is entirely self-imposed and the other isn't
I don't even necessarily entirely agree with Pulsar here wrt Overcharge, I think there should be different things that are strong at different skill levels and Overcharge is one that shines at low skill levels, but you have to acknowledge the difference between a challenge you impose upon yourself and one that happens as a result from other people's choices
0 -
Yeah, we got used to a better Xeno than the PTB version, but only because BHVR released it like they did. I paid money for this, you know? And it is so frustrating to buy a killer, play it, have fun (no, by that i do not mean 4k all the time) and then it gets changed for the worse - aka nerfed.
All the while a survivor, who does not even cost real money, has a perk, that is not touched in the slightest. Although you have many complains about MFT. Something here is wrong. I will not put any more money in this game until BHVR fixes their preferences. You need more killer players in the end for this game to work. So it is not a good idea to alienate them.
And it is not only just Xeno. Look at the tome challenges for the singularity. They are ridiculous. Even more so if you think about the bots they introduced, that always know where he is looking and can always hide from his pods. That always know where every killer is and where every killer is going. Killers have been nerfed more than enough.
6 -
lol, the thread was created to talk about the killer nerf, when I saw an admin had responded I clicked so fast to see what he had said about it and... it had NOTHING to do with the main topic. I just can't.
3 -
To me the problem with the Alien nerf is that this killer already has a solid counterplay - Turrets.
Even when playing against it, i've felt pretty comfortable with his tail attack as i was always trying to looping it near a turret, forcing him to break it or become a m1 killer.
Now Alien has to play perfectly or is punished twice: by his cooldowns and by turrets.
5 -
Oh god do not use tome challenges to try to justify your weird theory of BHVR having it out for Killer players
4 -
You are right, the tome challenges suck for the survivors too.
0 -
Die, I guess.
2 -
I believe it is the opposite there chief. Killers wants survivors as playthings. You don't want balance, you want to 4K every match.
4 -
That argument does absolutely nothing. In fact I can say the same thing for survivors. All survivors want is a weak killer they can loop for 5 gens and then tea bag at the exit gate before saying "gg ez baby killer." Prove me wrong? I'll wait. If all you think killers want is to 4k every match guess what then ppl would just play nurse or blight. DBD would only be two killers and that is it.
10 -
Well, yeah, good. Imagine if that weren't the case, if killer could win despite the survivor team playing flawlessly; or imagine the other way, imagine not making a single mistake as killer and still losing. The game would be pretty poorly balanced if one of the two sides could play flawlessly and still lose
0 -
I learned that lesson with the Onryo rework PTB. We gave them a ton of feedback on the problems relating to the rework as well as how it would likely make gameplay less fun for both sides. All of it was pretty much ignored and we are stuck with Onryo that is either weaker than before when going against good survivors or destroys soloq and gets handed easy wins. Horribly balanced.
2 -
I assume they have a private invite only test set up. And these people decide what is really going to happen, and these players are NDA about it.
It feels like they balance like that intentionally, very harsh for uncoordinated survivors and very predictable for a practiced and coordinated group. Although, I guess its possible they really do feel this is all okay, because financially its been working.
1 -
One of the two sides CAN play flawlessly and still lose. That side is called Killer.
Sadly, that's just the reality of asym game balance. One side being guaranteed victory if they play flawlessly means that the other side can play equally flawlessly and still lose.
8 -
survivors can also play flawlessly and still lose. see blight, nurse, spirit, etc. with the right add-ons and map. the point is that 1) right now the game isn't fully balanced but devs should work towards that as a goal, and 2) that wanting to be able to win despite your opponent making no mistakes is incredibly selfish and shortsighted
that doesn't matter though because 99.99% of the games where either side thinks they "played flawlessly and still lost" they simply weren't good enough to recognize the mistakes they made.
Post edited by ratcoffee on4 -
There's years upon years of proof that top-tier SWFs with flawless play have a 100% winrate against top-tier Nurses also playing flawlessly. Why do you think items/perks are limited in the competitive scene?
9 -
except they don't have a 100% win rate? every SWF win streak based around getting 3+ escapes has ended far before the current win streak records for many of the top tier killers.
comp also bans certain perk combos and add-ons for killers and forces them to play on certain maps. why is it that certain things being limited for survivors proves that survivors are OP, but limiting killer perks and maps doesn't do the same for killer?
4 -
That isn’t true. If survivors play flawlessly, they outread nurse and win. This mindset that good Nurses never miss blinks is absurd and toxic.
8 -
When you say "the mindset that good nurses never miss blinks" it seems like you are saying in your hypothetical scenario that the killer is making mistakes. This sounds like a case of the killer making mistakes and losing because of it, which is what should happen. The killer makes mistakes, the survivor does not, the killer loses for their mistakes. Why you think it's a good argument to take it for granted that a killer player makes mistakes as you build a hypothetical around survivor players never doing the same is perplexing to say the least. If you want to assert that we must assume that the nurse player will make mistakes, I will similarly counter that it's "absurd and toxic" to assume that survivor players will never lose a 50:50.
In any case, I am asserting that in a theoretical world where a nurse player always manages to blink exactly where they want and always makes the optimal choices given the information she has, vs survivors who always make the optimal play given the information they have, that the nurse not only can win but has a greater than average chance of winning (given the variability in map RNG and information a player can process), and in the correct circumstances can even be guaranteed a win.
3 -
There is no point in mentioning that scenario since we don’t have AI playing Nurse. My point is that survivors have a fair chance of winning against Nurse since the mindgames can go either way.
1 -
The AI we have for survivors is also far from optimal and frequently (but admittedly not always) plays worse than humans.
A fair chance is not a guarantee; I'll take this as a concession from you that a survivor team that plays perfectly can still lose, which was the entire point
1 -
Do you not know how bots work? Obviously the bots could play perfectly if they were programmed to. The CPU in games is programmed to have weaknesses. And no, I think a survivor team that plays well will win most of the time. Even with optimal chases, the gens go too fast.
6 -
That's a very interesting word, "could". I wonder if it describes a hypothetical scenario, instead of the practical scenario of what currently is available in the actual game. Very weird to switch from what does or doesn't exist (nurse bots) a mere 1 post ago, to what theoretically could exist (survivor bots with perfect play) in this post.
I never thought I'd see the day where people would say that nurse is underpowered compared to survivors, even just a couple months ago her most fervent defenders would argue that it's OK that she's super powerful because she's hard (while admitting she's still extremely powerful). That people are so boldly saying she's weaker than a SWF now is something else
1 -
It really isn’t, SWF beats her regularly. Nurse is far and away the best in the game, mainly because she can force survivors to guess, unlike most of the cast. Most killers are predrop pallets into safe loops into GG. The problem is that the playerbase is so entitled that they expect weak killers to be the norm. I’ve had Nurse games in which all chases were 30 seconds or less and the gens still got done.
7 -
He wasn't op before the nerf lmao
4 -
He was certainly far too good.
Tail Attack was free.
I wish they didn't ######### up his hitbox post-nerf, it makes it difficult to get a read on him.
1 -
"I had one game where I lost therefore nurse isn't super strong and capable of winning by default" lol? even if you only took 30 seconds per chase that doesnt mean you played perfect, you could have taken 25 or 20 seconds per chase. you could have started the next chase more quickly. maybe it did happen to be one of those games where the map RNG was in survivors favor and gens were spread in a way to let them do that. The fact that you are only able to name one time it happened speaks volumes. One time in which you did very good in one element of your gameplay and still lost proves nothing about the vast majority of gameplay cases
2 -
why should people stop camping/tunneling when the devs are making it increasingly necessary and the other side just finds it "unfun"
2 -
When did I say it was one time? I have over over 4000 hours in dbd and that has happened numerous times. Like how ignorant can you be to assume that it only happened one time? Think about the absurdity of what you said about chases. Most of the cast can’t physically catch a survivor in that time, which is why they have no chance.
5 -
I was being intentionally dismissive of what you said because you have been saying random arbitrary stuff with little to no relationship to what I'm saying. I talk about how nurse with ideal play on a good map with unrestricted perks can destroy even a coordinated SWF with ideal play, and you dismiss the idea that a nurse could achieve ideal play while assuming survivors can do the same. I point out the double standard and you start waffling about how technically a perfect nurse bot doesn't exist. I point out that by the same standard a perfect survivor bot doesn't exist and you start talking about the theoretical possibility of a perfect survivor bot, once again ignoring that a perfect nurse bot is equally hypothetically possible, and also wandering further from the original point.
I cannot possibly hope to fathom why it is you keep going on these tangents that get wildly further and further from the original point. It certainly feels quite disrespectful to try to respond to the point that we should either compare theoretical flawless play on one side against flawless play on the other, or assume both sides are equally capable of making mistakes; by talking about the theoretical capabilities of creating AI players on only one side (???). I know if I, personally, chose to do that, it would be out of a desire to convey that level of disrespect.
3 -
You’re talking about matches as like they are a simulation or something. It is contradictory to compare “ideal” play because if one side wins, the other one didn’t play ideally. That’s the nature of pvp games. So yes, Nurse can win if she makes 100% correct reads, but the same can be said of survivors. My point is that survivors can outplay the Nurse, contrary to what most people say on this forum.
6 -
Did you play against a decent alien pre-nerf? It was awful. I played as them, and every match was almost a stomp with no regression perks. I'm not a good player either.
The devs listened to the overwhelming side of the community that complained about this. I suppose if you didn't want them doing this, maybe they should revert window vaults to what they were a month or two ago.
No? It's a good thing that devs listen to very loud feedback? Well then, you can play as much nurse or blight as you want, but don't pretend you're doing so because you have no other options.
And before someone says, "If the devs really listened to overwhelming feedback, why hasn't MFT been nerfed?" They've recently stated it will be nerfed in the near future. If you want to argue that it's taken them way too long to make that change, I'd fully agree with you.
1 -
imagine not making a single mistake as killer and still losing
so... exactly how the game currently is?
5 -
It's a hypothetical. Presuming perfect play by both sides, who wins?
In a symmetrical game if both sides played identically you get a draw. But this isn't a symmetrical game - thus if the two played perfectly, one would have to be favored.
I'd argue that it makes sense that the survivors win in this hypothetical scenario, as there are four of them the chance that none of them will make a mistake is a lot less likely.
The question though is whether the nurse reverses this trend. It's not about whether a perfect game is even possible, even with comp level breakdowns there's lots of tiny mistakes that are spotted.
1 -
I think against all but 2 killers, survivors who play perfectly will win 10/10 times. It simply isn’t possible to kill everyone with your basic killers because tiles and map design are unfair. I do think Nurse is at a slight disadvantage because of how fast gens can go, but she at least has a chance.
2 -
the devs are going away from fun and more to competitive.
0 -
lol
0 -
Why do survivors feel entitled to lead killers on an infinite loop for an hour without ever getting caught while the rest of their team gets to do all the gens for free?
2 -
Meanwhile I play Freddy and wonder why BHVR has forgotten me ...
"Being dead wasn't the problem , but being forgotten ?! Now that's a bi**h !" - Freddy
0 -
Not only that, but they've screwed up his tail hitboxes as well.
1
