Killer's Shouldn't Kill. Let's discuss the Dev Philosophy.
Comments
-
Mate, you seriously nailed it. The devs really don't have issues tweaking/destroying things for killer. When it comes to survivor, they are afraid of survivor outcries and criticism/threats. Sad tbh, imagine all the beautiful things we can have like a SWF indicator for killers to see. Then every survivor and their mother would explain why it would destroy the game and not pull through with it.
5 -
The problem here is that we've always been in a way where we need the survivors to make mistakes so we can kill them, no skill involved besides doing a great blink on nurse or a good snipe on billy for example. Most of the time when i down someone is because the guy did something really stupid like falling from a window in front of me in freddy's scenario. And if we make a little mistake, we get even more punished than them. And while they have a lot of perks to allow themselves to act stupidly because they get saved anyway, we just can look. We have almost no second chances, while they have many. They're supposed to be the number role, and we're the power role, but they have numbers and power and we have none of those.
4 -
Well, I love the game as a whole, and want it to prosper. So even if something doesn't effect a killer I play a lot, it will effect the game as a whole.
I also want to state something out loud and for the record.
There is nothing more in line to the Saw franchise then having a trap within a trap. Having to take off the rbt in time and escape a timer before a building explodes is Amanda's way of doing jigsaw's vision of just throwing a RBT on and making them rip there own eye out for it.
0 -
@Peanits I don't think it's wrong for the killer, through good gameplay, and planning, to take all options away from a survivor.
I do not think it should be easy. I think it should be planned out and the survivors will have had plenty of chances to prevent it. These things happen in the game as it is, and they honestly make the game better for it.
A great example is a game i just had on Live servers. I was playing survivor, my killer was a pig. We rushed the gens down fast on her because she wasn't running ruin. In the mid game she catches a person, Hat's them (rbt on) and hooks. we rescue, pop the last 2 gens and open the gates.
Piggy catches the trapped person, and leaves them slugged with a nearly done timer. Now, even if they are picked up, they have no time to search boxes. Nea is dead, but bait. I didn't notice her timer, go back, pick her up, and barely escape out as Nea's head pops.
This was well planned by the pig, she saw the situation, and took one survivors options away, so she could have options herself. if she had caught me, she could have repeated the process even.
However, according to how you describe the dev thought process. This situation should not exist. Nea was left with 0 options of escape,and could do nothing but sit at her keyboard and wait for one thing or the other to kill her.
Yet I think this shows a good example of a good time when a survivor should be left with 0 options. Nea made some mistakes and got caught twice. And this gave Pig the chance to take away all her options, and use that to her advantage.
7 -
What i say in my example is a killer can lose no matter the skills they have. You see the killers have higher skill caps from the survivors. The survivors only need to know the 3 common loops, the main building and what perks killer have, but killer needs more they need to know all the loops, how all the maps works and know what perks survivors have and keep them in mind with try to play the game with all the bug. In other words, the killer cap has no meaning when survivors know how to play ( even 2 survivors can create a lot of trouble to the killer). All that is only with the mechanic the game give you.
1 -
@Peanits so why is Pig getting a survivor to a game over scenario any different?
She still has to chase them.
She still has to down then.
Most of the time with an exit gate still open.
Why does a survivor get allowed a freebie on her specific win condition killing them while M1 and facecamp would be considered a-ok? Is it really that different?
3 -
It's because it'd be incredibly difficult for the survivors to win and frustrating if the Pig plays in a specific way. Of course it would only affect edge-cases but the EGC is meant to stop bad edge cases, not cause them.
Not saying I agree with the Pig changes, just that she needed some kind of change. Especially with the EGC only lasting 2 minutes now.
0 -
@Peanits so why is Pig getting a survivor to a game over scenario any different?
She still has to chase them.
She still has to down then.
Most of the time with an exit gate still open.
Why does a survivor get allowed a freebie on her specific win condition killing them while M1 and facecamp would be considered a-ok? Is it really that different?
1 -
I only say pause because it completely solves every issue they have with the Pig's RBT during the Endgame (I think).
0 -
It does. by taking away any advantage she might have in that situation. That's why I said to slow the timer if someone has a RBT on. Still applies that pressure, but they have so much more time to do things.
Also want to point out: Games last around 10ish mins. So having her have a 4 minute strong phase isn't bad. It would ad more of a thrill to it imho
0 -
Have you played any kind of competitive game before? I'm assuming not - otherwise you'd be used to things being nerfed accordingly. Btw, Steam has a policy against review bombing now. So that's irrelevant.
It's common for games to balance out things according to their playerbase feedback, and if literally an entire group/portion of the community is speaking out about the inbalance, of course it's going to be acted upon. Look at games like Smite and Overwatch, that are practically adjusted in balance changes every 2-4 weeks.
0 -
This i agree with, but still i feel if you just simply pause the EGC timer when a survivor gets an RBT on we would solve all of our problems and everyone will be happy, pig players get to extend the game and still play the fun endgame playstyle and survivors still has a much of a chance to escape that they currently have.
In the recent Q&A stream Horvath mentioned that they first considered pausing the EGC timer on bloodwarden, so why can't we just do this to the RBT's?
1 -
@Brady Overwatch is a bad example. I've been an Overwatch player since Beta. Blizzard doesn't not balance or change anything every 2-4 weeks, not even close. Their absolute snail's pace of doing anything is a major reason that game has declined enough to stop growing, and has remained flat per the last two financial reports.
Plus, like with Behavior, when Blizzard finally makes any change in Overwatch, it's typically done with a sledgehammer.
The only difference between how Blizzard handles Overwatch and how Behavior handles DbD is that Blizzard could lose more players for Overwatch than DbD has in its entirety, and still turn a profit for Activision-Blizzard.
1 -
Some of y’all have to realize not every single game you’re going to kill every survivor and not every single game every survivor is going to survive
1 -
We Are Entertainment.
We exist solely to entertain survivors; so they have someone to play with.
The are not our prey, we are their game.
It is as it always has been, and always will be.
Survivors are the focus of the game.
3 -
See there's a serious divide between what you're saying and the reality of the situation. The perk has been nerfed in case of ONE specific situation:
- The survivors have not completed all generators.
- 3 survivors have been killed.
- The killer has found, and closed, the hatch.
- The killer has done all of this using only 3 perks, because Remember Me has no function through the main game.
- The killer has already played in a way that is considered decent or nice as tunnelling off the hook: A. Results in less than maximum RM stacks, and B. Risks DS creating a new obsession who ignores the RM penalty anyway.
- The killer has killed the obsession, which has a decent chance of meaning fighting through perks like MoM that add extra hits to deal with.
Remember Me has been nerfed so that the last remaining survivor should not find it too hard to open an exit gate, when facing a perk which ONLY functions to make opening an exit gate take longer.
I understand that you want there to always be a chance at survival, but that chance doesn't need to be close to 50%. In that case it is entirely possible, granted difficult, to open an exit gate by playing tactically and not just sitting on an exit gate start-to-finish, hoping the killer doesn't check it.
Honestly, how much does a killer have to do, how well do they have to play, for the game AND THEIR OWN PERKS to feel like the odds are on their side?
And then on the other side we have killers playing decently 2 hooking 4 survivors through a whole match, and then BANG! A gen goes off, 4 health states are recovered instantly by a team that all double-sprint-burst to the gate which can be opened in 20 seconds, before a killer can physically reach it (let alone catch and smack a survivor twice without them getting to the gate.) What part of that situation feels like the killer "always has a chance to kill someone!" to the same degree a survivor facing Remember Me has a chance to survive? Are we expected to ALWAYS bring a filthy perk like NOED to stand a chance? It's not like in the other scenario the response is "well you should have brought Wake Up!"
7 -
There are somethings I agree with you on the one thing I wanted to touch on was you saying the chance for a solo survivor surviving shouldn’t be 50 while I agree with that I also think it shouldn’t be so high for a killer to be able to also get 4 kills I looked at it like this I think it should be for killers. 1 kill = great chance. 2 kills = good chance. 3 kills = medium chance and 4. = difficult chance. I feel like this keeps the game fun and not stale having to grind and figure out playstyles to get better at the game and becoming a great killer that always can get to 4 kills rather than just handing everyone it if there at 20 rank or 1 rank
0 -
Absolutely, I agree with you AND the devs that a 4k should be difficult. The issue is that that scenario IS DIFFICULT, it take a LOT of work, timing and skill, as well of forethought in perk builds. All of those dot points are different tasks the killer has to do to get to this scenario and a lot of them aren't entirely in the killer player's hands. None of those are like "right well, I'll just kill 3 players then!" You still have to be better than those 3 other players AND play in a way that stacks up Remember Me without leaving the obsession alive, nor creating a new one.
To say in that scenario that Remember Me needs to be nerfed because it doesn't feel easy for a survivor to open the gate through it and escape anyway isn't about making a 4k hard, it's about weighting the game in favour of surviving over killing.
Again, this is only one, RARE scenario, built around one, RARE perk, that is now going to be even more rare because it's been nerfed for the other 90% of matches IN CASE this once case doesn't feel like "a really good shot to survive."
At some point, you've been outplayed so hard that, yeah, it probably won't feel like you have a great chance to open the gate solo against a perk that ONLY slows the gate opening, and you know what? That's ok, because there are a LOT more common situations that feel much more oppressive as the killer player that we're just expected to sit back and deal with.
1 -
I understand what you’re saying I just believe that no one should feel “guaranteed” being able to survive and also no one should feel that way about getting 4K. I agree that remember me shouldn’t be nerfed but certain perks need to be changed due to now the ending of the game is now different I mean I’m just thinking about remember me with noed
0 -
The entire point of the egc is that killers can give up the game without DC because the survivors, mostly in voice using SWFs, are bullying the killer to the point he gives up or taking the game hostage.
There is and was never a ingame mechanic that would have or is helping the killer win the game. Everything the killers are doing towards achieving their win is based on decisions the player had made so far. There is no, if x survivors are alive when the gens are popping or all are done the survivors get the exposed status, the similar in game effect of the hatch for survivors. No you have to equip a perk, play the game with 3 perks and hope they neither cleanse all totems or don't immediately find the lit NOED.
By your own logic and argumentation there should be some ingame mechanic, not specific perks, that would enable the killers to win the game or autowin in the hatch's chase. But there is non.
Only survivors get freebies and and since SWFs are interduced to the game no balance measure has been taken to counter voice.
In League of Legends as example, if you play with a friend you get slightly tougher opponents to compensate your advantage of voice and coordination. In DBD, the veteran survivor gets to bully a low to mid rank killer, in the worst chase a new player facing now an experienced survivor way out of their league and there enjoyment gets ruined.
These are the chases that's get remembered and these experiences are leading to the periodical outcry against SWFs. Because to them it feels like cheating (and technically we can argue if it is or not ad nauseum) and then they feel hopeless because there is no ingame counter to voice.
From that point on they either start to hate SWFs or assume that every game are against SWFs and this alone forces you to play certain killers, with certain perks, because some playstyles and perks is getting nullified by voice.
What are the devs doing there to even the playing field?
Even for solo survivors vs trolling SWFs?
In the end, when a killer manages to outplay the survivors with skill and smart plays, why do you devs think it is justified to punish their effort and work by simply alter the game in the favor of the survivor so they get a chance of escape, even if that survivor was a potato the entire game and did nothing to support the team?
5 -
Ok, so the change concerns me a lot, it has been changed to balance it around a VERY RARE situation, which has nerfed it significantly for EVERY OTHER match. A rare, pretty balanced perk, has had its effect halved in case of one specific outcome.
How about instead of leaving it as is, CHANGE it rather than NERF it:
Remember Me:
You become obsessed with one Survivor.
Each time you hit your Obsession, you gain a token, up to a maximum of 3/4/5 tokens.
For each survivor remaining in the trial when the exit gates are powered each token increases the opening time of the exit gates by 2 seconds, up to a maximum of 24/32/40 seconds.
The killer can only be obsessed with one Survivor at a time.
This would mean: If 4 survivors are alive when the gates are powered, and you have maximum Remember Me stacks, it takes 40 extra seconds to open the gate.
5 stacks x 4 survivors x 2 seconds.
5x4x2=40 seconds.
This is compared to the 30 seconds the perk is currently, but requiring one less stack, and not requiring tunnelling the obsession to death which is already a negative behaviour caused by the perk.
The value is a bit higher, and requires less hits, but with the previous iteration you don't leave 4 survivors alive if you want RM to work, you HAVE to kill the obsession.
If 1 survivor remains when the exit gates are powered, with maximum stacks of Remember Me it takes 10 extra seconds to open the gate.
5 stacks x 1 survivor x 2 seconds.
5x1x2=10 seconds.
Note: The obsession is affected by Remember Me's time penalty. The perk already encourages going after the obsession, it doesn't also need to require tunnelling them to death to not risk it functioning at all.
In my eyes this would be VERY in line with the concept of "everyone deserves a chance." If 4 players are still alive when the gates are powered, it gives the killer a significant window to gain momentum in their favour. If one survivor is left stranded alone, and forced to open a gate by the hatch being shut, it will impact their ability to open the gate solo, not cripple their only chance of escape.
Notably, while it would be a buff in situations where 4 survivors are alive, the exact same scenario as it takes to get RM to be reliable (1 survivor dead) would have the same duration, 30 seconds.
You would almost NEVER need to open the gate with more than 10 seconds of penalty on the EGC timer as opening the gate is what triggers the collapse, not powering them. The ONE exception would be if survivors leave using a key and the killer is able to close it to start EGC, which I'm not even sure works. Even then, at least one survivor has left so you won't have the full penalty.
TLDR: Scale the penalty based on survivors remaining, maxed out RM would increase gate opening time by 10/20/30/40 seconds if 1/2/3/4 survivors are alive when they are powered.
1 -
A lot of killers aren't have fun in the current game. The stress levels are higher than ever with the exception of maybe back in the Dark Times when games were actually unwinnable by killers. Killers aren't asking for easy 4ks every game, but the people playing that role are largely feeling less and less powerful. Killers have the more dynamic part of the game and get the sense, whether imagined or real, that they are steadily losing more control of situations at all levels of play.
Killers express their frustration with the speed of the game everyday and they get back radio silence. They express their frustration with infinite loops still being in the game. Again, silence. Personally I've expressed an issue with the Lampkin Lane map and Balanced landing making for loops where killers can not gain ground no matter how long the chase lasts. I wasn't anywhere near the first one say anything about it and after all this time silence. It's frustrating as hell and it gets compounded by the fact that the survivor side gets more things that work in their favor than against or at the very least neutral.
It has just started to FEEL as if there is a lot of neglect towards the killer side of the game. We have to have time and chances just as much as survivors do, but we don't get to play from position of strength. We HAVE to have Hex Ruin in our loadout if we don't play one of two killers. If you don't the game can end in less time than it took to get into the game. That isn't fun and it has never been fun. We do more work in the game for less benefit of enjoyment. Survivors have very diverse and well stocked set of tools that provide them with not on multiple chances, but in some cases outright dominance. I have no idea how much louder anyone can say it: Killers want to be able to have the same attention put into making the game fun to actually play again.
4 -
What you said is true but if survivor wasnt able to juke that pig in a one min chase then thats survivor should take a loss. Pig is the weakest killer out there and what you did is bad change. You did fix legion issue i hope but what about Doctor. If doctor decides to kill me he will do that. Juking possibility is gone when you play against him and it would be better if you d address that issue instead of turning pig into even more joke.
0 -
Thats like saying: if i already have zero chances of escapin theres no fun for me to play further. Well if you had a bad start then its your fault so you got to continue play with cards you have
0 -
Ds is perk for baby survivors. " Killer you cant touch me im inSAFE ZONE"
1 -
I had 4 kills games when survivors fixed all gens with me having zero hooks yet and you know why? Because i downed one and gave survivors a real chance to escape alltogether(4 escapes). So yes killers also always have a chance for great win . No survivor leaves if they know they have a chance to get 4 escapes. Get good.
0 -
So play those killers for ######### sake some killers wont be able to reach those two killers level due to obvious reasons. Nobody does what you people do here. Nobody does buy a game and says i want this killer to be strong not this nobody does that. Accept the game how it is its decently balanced.
1 -
One thing that I’ve noticed is that everyone is referring to all employees at BHVR as devs. That obviously is not the case. For the most part, the people that we see, fall into the following 4 categories:
- Developers
- Game Designers
- UI Designers (i.e. graphics and assets)
- Community Support
While watching game play from people in each of the above groups, it is rather apparent that only the Community Support team has members who are in any way good at playing the game. not_QUEEN is probably the best overall, with those in the Developer group being the worst. The Game Designers have the most influence in direction, out of all 4 groups, and the developers would be second. Community Support has virtually no influence at all, and can only bring up issues presented by us, the players.
This is ass-backwards when compared to other game development companies. Typically it is the development team that has the best players, as this team also includes the QA Testers, who would normally compete against the developers. Since the development team is so bad at playing the game, they can only make decisions based on calculations and empirical fact. Actual game play is rarely considered, as they don’t have any idea of how their own game can be played.
As long as people who have no idea of how to play the game are making the decisions, nothing is going to change. Their bean counters will crunch the numbers, and they will milk every last penny out of the game, until it runs dry. They won’t fix anything that doesn’t cut into the bottom line. If you pay money for any DLC or cosmetics, you are telling BHVR that you agree with every decision that they make.
Something to ponder....
1 -
It's actually incredibly common to buy a game with many characters and like the theme or concept of one who is weaker and not want them to stay weak.
In any game there's going to be a divide between players like that and meta slaves who will only play Nurse or Billy.
The difference for the most part is that in Dead by Daylight all killers have the same goal, there's no "support" killer that by definition should be weaker at killing for example. The big divide for us usually comes down to "does a power aid in a chase" and for the most part, people would like the gap to be closed between those that do and those that do not. How that happens is not certain though.
I personally will never feel satisfied in a game by just abusing the blatantly most strong stuff, and would prefer to play characters I actually enjoy.
2 -
That's ok devs, keep nerfing weak killers. I'll just keep playing Nurse, until you get around to obliterating her as well, then I'll just move on to another game.
3 -
What you mean by power? You want game to turn into mess where survivors dont stand a chance if killer wants it? Because it does make sense for killer to be OP? I would not play a game where no matter what i do i d lose just because it makes sense for some. Why not have a game where both sides are equal in power instead
2 -
BTW when the devs are concerned about Remember Me become too powerful why don't they just buff Wake Up for survivors?
So if you are concerned to be the last survivor facing a killer with Remember Me then just use Wake Up and you be fine.
But No. They prefer to nerf killers over buffing survivors. But then the survivor has to sacrifice a perkslot to counter something another perk could potentially do...
1 -
Exactly. Killers constantly have to sacrifise perkslots, if they concerned about a certain perks or situations. Genrush? Bring Ruin. DS? Bring Enduring.
But once survivors are concerned about a perk, it gets nerfed to the ground. Which is ironic, considering survivors have 16 perks (which they can coordinate, thanks to SWF), while killers only have 4 perks.
3 -
@Caretaker i HATE when that happens. Ive walked straight to the generator without delay at the beginning of the match and it literally pops right in front of me. Kind of sets the whole pace for the remainder of that match.
1 -
It would put her in the same situation that she is currently in in the live game (which, tbh, isn't exactly a bad thing when the Pig is deliberately trying to prevent the game from ending with those traps) if she chooses to use traps during the Endgame, which is better IMO than the situation she is currently in in the PTB. I mean, I'm okay with slowing down the EGC timer for when there are multiple Survivors still around and the Exit Gates are powered, but I don't think that by itself is enough when there's only one Survivor left and the Exit Gates are closed. Just pausing the timer allows people who never save their traps for the Endgame to still have their Endgame Collapse proper while those who prefer to hold on to a few traps or even have a dedicated Endgame Build can still have that with the devs knowing that the balance won't be upset.
0 -
You know that's what they're aiming towards. I'm willing to bet money they kill Freddy
1 -
this is actually a valid point i didn't even think about.
They have perks that counter these situations they are nerfing killers for. Just because they don't get used, doesn't mean they don't exist.
2
