And until we fix this issue, we recommend that players with photosensitivity, or who have an epileptic condition or have had seizures of any kind consult their physician before playing.
Follow up to changes: Your thoughts?
There's been a lot of changes this last year to the game, and I was curious, now that time has allowed us to feel the effects, what a lot of you think regarding the fix for 3-gens and the Anti-face camp mechanic.
Are they working for you? Are they failing? How would you change them, if you feel they should be?
Thanks as always! This is for everyone, yes, even you, reader :P
Comments
-
The 3-gen thing has definitely had an impact. In the sense that I found it a bit overzealous when Surge is in play. I also think it's been bugged for a good while now, with the 3rd or 4th hit having spikes that don't go away like they should.
As for the anti-facecamp thing… I've certainly seen less facecamping. But then, true facecamping was rare to begin with.
2 -
I don't think the anti face camp has had any real impact. At least not in any games I've been in or witnessed on people's streams.
The three gen fix has been good. I have seen killers try and hold a three gen and ultimately they cannot when they can no longer regress the gens repeatedly.
1 -
They feel half-baked.
It feels like they did just enough so that people can't complain that they're not doing anything, but not enough to where it has a significant impact that might require them to revisit and put more effort in later.
4 -
Face camp felt like a flat killer buff. All it did was legitimize proxy camping.
People who wanted to troll just camped with Bubba, but I'f they didn't have Deadlock you could teach them a lesson. But now they just play Skull Merchant or Wraith "normally" but now they immediately drop chase the second someone is unhooked.
I'd rather have a killer lose because they decided to camp me to death than be given false hope and just get proxyd out.
Just feels like a flat out buff for normal killer.
3 -
The Anti-3-Gen is somewhat okayish. They should have also changed the way maps are generated, because it does not do anything if 3 Gens are too close to each other. The Killer does not need to kick Gens which dont really have progress, so it will probably still not work against 3 Gens which are caused by three Gens just way too close to each other.
Anti-Facecamping is a big failure. It was introduced against something which happened very rarely and while it was frustrating, proxycamping was and is far more common and frustrating. And the only thing which happened is that the Survivor on the Hook now has a Bar which does not fill up while the Killer still camps very close to the Hook. Great.
Not sure who created and decided on the Anti-Facecamping, but this person did a whole lot of nothing for their money. So good for them I guess.
2 -
So was facecamping and now it's gone.
Things can change and get better.
2 -
Both work and do exactly what they are supposed to do. Although, I still can't shake that nagging feeling when I hook someone and then stay in the area to kick a pallet or gen. That's probably a me problem though. The anti 3gen mechanic is fine.
Overall, the devs did exactly what they promised. Add solutions to both of these issues, that don't come into play otherwise (for the most part).
2 -
And yet, they maintained for years that it was a legitimate strategy.
And now, it's not.
How curious. Things CAN change. Like you said, it's up to the Devs :)
2 -
https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/gk7pm6/dev_standpoint_on_facecamping_2020/
They didn't see it as an issue and refused to do anything about it for years.
That's saying it's a legitimate playstyle.
Devs never said flashlight macro's weren't legit. They still got removed.
Your argument is deeply flawed.
2 -
Guys, my thread lol. No, don't argue and get it closed… no please don't.
-snicker snicker-
1 -
currently there are ways to beat proxy camping but most survivors suck at chases or are uncoordinated because they're soloq. those 2 are far bigger problems.
0 -
I mean yeah, you're right but it's stillreduced killer inefficiency across the board.
On the flipside, the 6.1 update honeymoon came crashing down and ultimately nothing changed for killer because survivors realized they had no time to be inefficient anymore so gen rush became more popular. That was always the plan for good survivors, but now even average survivors started playing like that.
Changes in mindset and perception can influence metas even with no actual balance changes.
0 -
Facecamp - does what it was meant too, the timer could increase a little faster.
Anti 3-gen - gens need to spread out more, but this has helped. I've only had one game where this triggered on me as killer and it was a weird game and by the time it hit, it was irrelevant.
No gen tap - I've liked it more than I thought I would.
0 -
If having no progress on these close gens is such a big problem then maybe y'all could try to ... actually progress them. Mindblowing logic, I know.
0 -
There is a line though. There is only so far you can go tying a sides shoe laces before it starts to have a serious detriment to the game due to lack of player agency.
For example in FPS games, camping by holing up in a corner with claymore/proxy mines, or a single access room with a window is largely hated by everyone… and yet there there are not any mechanics to prevent it… why? Because games are a means of putting players into scenarios and worlds they never would have experienced in real life. The rules of the game may be arcadey in nature, but they are grounded in the logic of the games universe, and a players available actions in the game are something that is understandable and realistic in relation to those universal rules. In a combat zone, you could yolo it and run out in the open, ducking and diving while spraying bullets back at your enemies, people find that a lot of fun… but within the logic of the world, there is a strong chance you die in that scenario, whereas holing up and creating a kill box is realitically a valid (and arguably much smarter) means of achieving the same goal. You COULD try to build mechanisms that drastically reduce the effectiveness of camping in these games, but by doing so you are removing the free will of the player to decide how they want to achieve the goal of the game.
Similarly in DBD, the world we are creating is a world where you have a strong and powerful killer hunting and trying to kill as many survivors as possible. Keeping a survivor on the hook and preventing anyone from saving them is a realistic means of achieving that goal. The trade off opinion for the devs was likely "By camping for 2 minutes, you are giving 2 whole minutes for the other survivors to complete generators, therefore your chance of securing more kills drastically decreases". The thing was face-camping was a significaint blight on the game where there are little to no agency on the survivor side by virtue of the fact it was almost impossible to get a survivor off hook without going down yourself, and a lot of the time without even getting the survivor off hook either…. so the AFC was introduced. The AFC is already controversial, especially in the competative scene, because having it betrays the logic of the killers goal and actively hinders the killers agency of deciding if they want to hard commit to securing this hook, or try and get more by leaving the hook and chasing other survivors…
However the defence for the AFC is it only makes this strategy more difficult, not impossible, and the agency of the killer is still preserved via the means of proxy camping, while also creating windows to give the survivors agency on their decision to try and save as well. The loss of a small amount of player agency on one side, while opening up significantly more player agency on the other overall benefits the game for both parties, as in the previous iteration it was foolish for the survivors to even try. This makes to my mind, the AFC a strong addition to the health of the game. If you try to force all proxy camping out of the game however, you now have a world that is artificially imposing strong restrictions on the killers agency, that doesn't make sense in the context of the world. If you go too rampant with this, it starts to feel like you aren't a killer trying to kill as many survivors as possible, and instead you're in a video game impersonating an NPC by virture of the fact the game is imposing restrictions on your behaviour, to the point your own agency is being taken away.
This also skates over the fact nuking proxy camping is also reducing the survivors agency, because there is no decision to be made, you go for the unhook, regardless of whats going on because you know the killer isn't there, so your own decision making is being removed from you too.
I think both the AFC and A3G systems in there current form do a solid job of minimising obnoxious and problematic playstyles, giviing survivors opportunities to play around the killer, without significantly impacting the killers player agency to a deterimental degree, and I'd be very reluctant to push for more out of either system.
0 -
I don't think camping is exactly good for the game but some killers like hag, trapper plus the entire concept of putting someone on a hook where they can't move while other survivors have to get them were made with camping intended. Then there is the basement and all that comes with that.
It's never going away and if it ever did some killers would need reworking and the entire hook system may as well be replaced with something else then you have an almost entirely new gameplay loop to dbd "Macrogame" and I hate to "Macrogame" because half the time it just means making the obviously correct decision to end games early and be as ruthless as possible but in this case its just kinda how it is.
0 -
I am not arguing for it one way or another, just arguing that it's possible as the person I responded to doesn't believe things can be changed
0
