Pig Hotfix?
Comments
-
Do you collect data on when a kill happens during a match? I'd love to see additional data published on whether killers come during gens/post-gen/during EGC. And honestly, dang. That's a really good kill rate for a character I, personally, am awful at. Is there any way to see this information for other killers, or to request to have it shared? It seems like it would be really cool, and maybe good for the community, to see these things regularly.
0 -
Yeah, as I said I don't know the guy.
I follow a lot of Scott Jund and even Zubat even though he's more shitpost-y. They're both good at both killer and survivor, that's why I tend to value their opinions on balance a lot.
0 -
Well, don't tell people to watch good players to see how to play Pig right as though that shuts down Pig complaints when one of the more prominent Pig players disagrees with what you say. :P
0 -
One prominent player. There are more.
One.
Don't get all your information from one source.
Besides, I'll take a 75% kill rate at ######### rank 1 over anyone's opinion.
0 -
I won't. Not without getting more information to put it into better context.
1 -
People taking anecdotal evidence over statistics is always a good think. Keep it up.
0 -
I'm not taking anecdotal evidence over stats. I'm saying the stats given do not present a clear picture by any means.
0 -
Pig main here, the nerf to RBT at the end game isn’t so bad in my opinion. They really just nerfed her add-on to where you can have an extra trap. Maybe make it common but uncommon is still pretty cheap. I found I’m sliding to gen builds and end game with her now, but that’s not a bad thing. Perhaps give survivors some passive debuff while the trap isn’t triggered that doesn’t require add-ons? Love Love Love the new cosmetics coming for her as a side note 😊
1 -
The timer started when a gen was a completed or when the gates were powered, so it did not list that. You are objectively wrong on this.
If it starts when any gen is completed, it starts when any gen is completed. This doesn't change that. If it starts when the gates were powered, then sure, I'm wrong, but you didn't say that, you said that it starts "when all generators are completed". If it starts "when ALL GENERATORS ARE COMPLETED", then a GENERATOR WAS COMPLETED. That's why it started, because her power specifically states when a generator is completed, the timer starts.
My point is that arguing that they're doing it wrong because the devs couldn't fit that in the description makes no sense. The reasons for the different things that were left out of the description are irrelevent because the important thing is that all of those interactions were INTENDED by the devs, including having trap timers auto-start. You can't just say "Oh those things that were left off the description? Yeah, those don't count because XYZ. But this thing that was left out? PROOF THAT YOU GUYS WERE DOING IT WRONG." That is textbook double standard.
They DID fit that in the description. Her power SAYS THAT WHEN A GENERATOR IS COMPLETED, THE TRAP ACTIVATES. There's no double standard, the things you are saying WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE POWER because they were obviously not that important. The IMPORTANT information is included in her power, and in her power it says that her traps activate after a generator is completed. That tells you what they WANT you to do with the pig.
Doesn't that mean that they deemed it an acceptable way to play the Pig? Ergo not wrong? Assuming it wasn't intended to be a valid playstyle in the first place.
Definition of wrong - not correct or true; Incorrect.
The intended playstyle of the pig was obviously to put RBTs on people's heads before generators were powered(In other words, before the GAME HAD ENDED). This means that they were playing her incorrectly, in other words, WRONG. They likely only allowed it because it wasn't hurting her numbers terribly or making her overpowered AT THE TIME. With the EGC coming, they decided it would make her too powerful, and considering she's doing really well via their numbers, I'd say they made the right decision, but the people who were playing her that way before WERE PLAYING HER INCORRECTLY as they were not using her power the way it was intended. Just because they found it acceptable at the time, does not mean it was correct. It means "Oh, people are playing her wrong, it's not hurting her so that's fine". They're still playing her wrong. BHVR just didn't care. Now they do because it's messing with something else.
That is exactly what you are doing. You are splitting hairs here. You are judging how people were playing the Pig based on the literal wording of the description and nothing more (and then arbitrarily dismissing the issues with the literal wording of the description when it doesn't suit your case). You have to judge things by how the devs knowingly implemented the features, not by what they left out of the power description. Otherwise, by that logic, Pigs who weren't throwing their Survivors past the Exit Gates were playing her wrong because the ability says that traps trigger past the Exit Gate, which is PURPOSEFULLY what it says in the description, going by your logic.
No, I am saying that they are playing her wrong based on what WAS in the description, you are claiming that people AREN'T playing her wrong based on what WASN'T in the description, except here's the difference, if it was IN THE DESCRIPTION, then it was specifically intended. If it WASN'T in the description, then it's up in the air. There's no evidence yay or nay for whatever you try to establish based on a LACK of information, but there is based on what information IS there. I'm saying they were playing her wrong based on the information that WAS there, you're claiming I'm saying they were playing her wrong based on what WASN'T there. Imagine if there was a killer that could teleport to any generator that was completed, now imagine that there was a bug where the killer could teleport to exit gates if someone even touched one, and BHVR found it didn't make that killer oppressive, and suddenly people started playing the killer by letting people power the exit gates, teleporting behind them and grabbing them off it. BHVR didn't INTEND for that playstyle, but they allowed it for now, doesn't mean it was the right playstyle. Later they find that it becomes too oppressive and changes it and people complain, saying they ridded a killer of a playstyle they loved. Obviously that would be a little overboard for a killer, but it's just an example that is pretty similar to the situation now. The playstyle was not intended, because the power specifically talks about generators being completed to fulfill the killer's objective.
1 -
That number is highly skewed by multiple factors the stats don't take into account. Enough to make it almost meaningless to use as a standard for balance. This goes for the other killer stats as well.
2 -
Let me put it to you like this. Unless a dev comes out and flat-out says that they didn't originally intend for "Save the RBTs until late game" as a potential playstyle, you can't actually say with certainty that they didn't intend for that playstyle to be an option. And yet you are framing a considerable amount of your argument around this assumption, as well as around your arbitrary decision to decide what info being left out from the description is relevant or not.
Here's a simple question: What if you are wrong about the devs' intentions with how the Reverse Bear Traps originally functioned in the Endgame?
1 -
Let these whiney Killah Mainz know!!!
0 -
@TAG You're complaining about them removing that EXACT playstyle, so how can I be wrong about it? They didn't intend for it, it's pretty obvious by both the SPECIFIC CONDITION SPECIFIED IN HER POWER and the fact that they REMOVED IT. It wasn't an issue before, so they didn't care if it happened, it IS an issue now, so they removed it. It's pretty simple from a balance standpoint. Also, again, if this WAS allowed, it still wouldn't matter because people would kill themselves on the hook because it's a GUARANTEED kill, there's no way you're gonna have enough time to travel the map searching through 5 boxes(7 possibly) AND get through the gate after it opens in 2-3 minutes. People would kill themselves on the hook if they were smart so the pig wouldn't get more than the one kill they got. From a developer point of view, it's pretty obvious it wasn't intended, if they INTENTIONALLY put "When a generator is completed, the trap becomes active". But if you want to go through the idea that I cannot say they didn't intend for it as a potential playstyle simply because they didn't go out and say it, then you can't say that it WAS intended as a playstyle. Either way, the evidence sides with me. If the power states that it needs a generator for an RBT to become active, that means as the pig, the intended playstyle is that you're supposed to put RBTs on people's heads before generators are completed. If a dev tells me wrong then sure, but I'm 99.9999% sure that I'm right.
2 -
Explain how again. If pig has a bad game then she deranks and that data is pushed into the rank 2 category. Forget rank 1. What is pig's kill rate ranks 4 through 1?
1 -
1) You do understand that the Endgame Collapse was not a thing when they first designed the pig, so saying that them removing the playstyle due to the Endgame Collapse is not evidence towards the notion that the playstyle was not intended, correct?
2) Pause the EGC timer while a Trap is being worn. Problem solved.
3) "Either way, the evidence sides with me." It legitimately does not. You are drawing your own conclusion based solely on your assumptions and dismissing the holes in your logic because it doesn't suit your conclusion.
( 4) 4 boxes (6 possible). If you're going to be so adamant about your stance, make sure you understand your facts.)
1 -
Premium classes should never be pay 2 win but always fun to play. Like Freddy!
Where as non premium classes give new players an easy-ride (because they're new and need to get eased into the game) like Billy!
Until they've learned the game and want to challenge themselves with a harder, more rewarding premium class, like Freddy!
0 -
- If they removed it because of the EGC, that means it wasn't intended. If it WAS intended, they'd have kept it regardless of the EGC, because it was their intended playstyle for the Pig.
- If it's paused completely, yeah, it'd be balanced, maybe you should suggest that if you want to keep it that way.
- No, I'm not. If it was her intended playstyle, it wouldn't be something they'd take away. It was a side effect, nothing more. The fact that they DID take it away, means it was excess fat that needed to be trimmed, therefore the evidence DOES side with me. I am drawing my conclusions based on evidence in her power's description. Generators need to be powered for the Pig's trap to activate, that's how it was intended, or else they wouldn't have put it there and traps would have activated the moment they were placed. They set a condition, that condition was generators being completed.
0 -
No one is saying that EGC should activate the traps. Thats not even the issue people are complaining about. The issue is that survivors can escape with a trap on their heads. They couldnt do that before, intentionally, duh.
Egc doesnt activate traps because apparantly survivors are too stupid to deal with 2 timers.
4 -
1) Wasn't the Legion's intended playstyle of attacking recklessly in Feral Frenzy removed when they completely removed the considerably reduced cooldown on attack misses and instead chose to completely knock the Legion out of Feral Frenzy when they missed?
2) I've been suggesting that in many places on the forum. I'm pretty sure I've suggested it to YOU specifically in at least one other thread. https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/481207#Comment_481207
3) "If it was her intended playstyle, it wouldn't be something they'd take away. It was a side effect, nothing more. The fact that they DID take it away, means it was excess fat that needed to be trimmed, therefore the evidence DOES side with me."
^
This here is flat-out a logical fallacy: https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#DenyingtheAntecedent
If I ask you how the fact that they took it away in response to the Endgame Collapse proves that it wasn't intended, what is your response going to be?
1 -
They have already explained it on stream why the times doesn't change with RBTs being worn. If you didn't watch it it's your problem.
I'm actually happier each day with the changes. As I get better at the game, I despise more and more playstyles that reward unskilled players.
0 -
They only explained why they didn't slow down the EGC timer; their reasoning does not actually apply to the idea of the EGC timer being paused.
0 -
Trap timers should activate as soon as a survivor starts trying to remove the trap
There should be a special box behind the exit gates that always removes the trap
Leaving or attempting to leave with a trap should kill again
There, fixed
1 -
i'd like to put my 2 cents in if that's okay with everyone.
pig's playstyle has changed. - the intended playstyle from her perks and descriptions indicate that she's intended to be a single hook/single generator camper. She punishes altruistic survivors - the ones getting you off the hook.
hangman's trick - reactivates broken hooks after 30/20/10 seconds. - including ones that you've just used to sacrifice with.
make your choice - puts an exposed status effect on a rescuer. allows pig to get double downs if she is far enough away. that range is roughly the size of her terror radius. 32 meters.
surveillance - any regressing generator will be white until touched. at that point it turns yellow. this perk lets you know which generators are under assault. if you go stealth mode you can camp the generator until it's touched.
combining these 3 perks with her ability to remove her terror radius and crouch and her ability to put rbt's on survivors and you have a camper. simple as that.
you regress a generator, wait for it to turn yellow, hit the survivor, do it again, and again, until you get a knock down, put the trap on their head, hang them up, attack the person that saves them, put a trap on their head, rinse and repeat until all players have traps on their heads, down the players that are trying to remove the traps, once all players have traps on their heads place all of them on the same hook.
it's pretty simple. this is the intended playstyle.
the unintentional playstyle is holding onto your rbt's until the gates are powered and then hitting everyone with NOED as they try to open the gates and beartrapping them. this was removed. this entire playstyle of "well if i can't get them before they activate all the generators then i'll get them with the bear traps as they open the door" doesn't work in the new mode.
this can be seen by simply looking at her add-ons also. the game is meant to be played long before the gates ever get powered.
i'm okay with that because her kit is still effective without the cheese of NOED/gate watching. her add-ons do not aid her towards this gameplay style at all. in fact they discourage it.
0 -
Regardless of if people activated the RBTs or not, they still try to remove it and give it a inflated sense of urgency which just benefits the Killer by wasting their time on removing it instead of doing gens.
The RBTs do more than just kill Survivors you know...
1 -
Perks aren't really meant to be a good indication of a character's playstyle, given how all characters can use all perks from their side (once they are properly unlocked). Otherwise, you could say that Huntress's playstyle would revolve around chasing Survivors for long periods of time, hooking people in the basement, and screwing up Skill Checks.
Even with that aside, the playstyle you described is an EXTREMELY inefficient playstyle. If you're waiting for Surveillance to alert you to a Survivor, you're letting all the other gens to be done. If you're waiting for Make Your Choice to go off, you're still letting the other gens be finished while not even guaranteeing that you'll make use of Make Your Choice. You're also somehow assuming that you'll be able to get Traps on everyone's heads before anyone can even get them off. How exactly do you pull that off while the people who do have Traps on their heads can just get them off by searching boxes? Do you go after them to keep the Traps on? Then you're just not putting traps on the other people, thereby screwing up your stalling potential.
Also, how do her add-ons dissuade an end-game playstyle? She has add-ons that increase the number of boxes, add-ons that increase the amount of time it takes to search through a box, and add-ons that try to screw up a Survivor's skill checks so they have to also spend longer searching through the boxes (even though these are bad add-ons). All of those are intended to make it take longer to get the traps off and just walk through an Exit Gate (at least, they did before Patch 2.7.0). As far as I can tell, the only add-ons that could be considered arguably dissuading a late-endgame playstyle were Rules Set No. 2 (because it was worthless once RBT timers were able to automatically start) and Amanda's Letter (because it got rid of most of your Traps/Boxes).
1 -
@TAG
- I don't know much about Legion, aside from the fact that his intended playstyle is to hit one target, then follow the aura to other survivors, but I doubt their INTENT was for Legion to purposefully miss attacks. That's just silly. In addition, if this changed Legion's playstyle, this change was INTENDED, that's why it's called a REWORK. His kit isn't SUPPOSED to be the exact same.
- Suggesting it to me won't do anything, and if they don't change it, then again, it wasn't their intent.
- It is not a fallacy, it's pretty obvious in fact. They didn't REWORK the pig, so they didn't change the way her kit was intended to work. In addition, do you even understand what you're talking about? A LOGICAL FALLACY. That's an oxymoron. I can't be illogical and logical at the same time.
- If you asked me how them removing it due to the EGC proves it, I'd tell you what I've already told you. Her power explicitly states that generators need to be completed for a RBT to become activated. If I told you a microwave would only power up if I flipped a switch, and I didn't flip the switch, would the microwave power up? No. If the microwave powered up when I hit a different switch than the one I stated, and I didn't mind because that switch wasn't that important anyways, and then later changed something that would make that switch MORE important, I would fix the problem with the microwave powering up when I flipped the switch that wasn't intended. This is exactly what they did. It was excess fat getting in the way of their EGC.
Either way, let's just agree to disagree because you're just gonna keep attacking me until I agree with you, and I'm not going to agree with you that they INTENDED for the pig to place RBTs on people's heads after the gates were powered when they clearly didn't.
I didn't ever say that her RBTs were intended to kill. In fact I've been saying that her power has been intended to stall the game, not wait until the end of the game. TAG is the one saying that her power was intended to be used at the end of the game.
0 -
1) It absolutely was intended for Legion to be able to recover from repeatedly missing attacks because the reduced attack cooldown only applied to misses, and there's no other reason why it would have been like that. And your second point does not change the fact that the gameplay decision was originally intended but then purposefully changed. Same as the Pig.
2) Like I said before, you're just deliberately ignoring any holes in your logic.
3) The part I quoted from you is exactly that logical fallacy. I can use your logic to fill in the underlined parts in the same manner as the example given for that particular logical fallacy.
"If she were Brazilian, then she would know that Brazil's official language is Portuguese. She isn't Brazilian; she's from London. So, she surely doesn't know this about Brazil's language."
"If ___________, then ___________. ________________. So ______________."
"If it was her intended playstyle, then it wouldn't be something they'd take away. They DID take it away. So it wasn't intended."
Also, are you actually disputing the phrase "Logical Fallacy"? You know I didn't make up this phrase, right?
4) "This is exactly what they did."
You have not definitively proven this; you are making a guess based on faulty assumptions.
"It was excess fat getting in the way of their EGC."
You haven't proven that it was excess fat. Only that it needed to be changed. It needing to be changed is not proof that it wasn't originally intended. See: Legion.
1 -
Things get mixed up sometimes.
0 -
I'm not gonna argue about this with you anymore, I disagree with you, you disagree with me, there are people who agree or disagree with both of us, but I will say this per your argument that you can use that exact sentence to claim that I am "denying the antecedent".
"If she WERE Brazilian, then she would know that Brazil's official language is Portuguese. She ISN'T Brazilian; she's from London. So, she surely doesn't know this about Brazil's language."
"If it WAS her intended playstyle, then it wouldn't be something they would take away. They DID take it away, so it wasn't intended."
Notice the difference? If you don't, I capitalized it. There are two very different things in those sentences. In one, one thing is saying that if she WAS Brazilian, she'd know that Brazil's official language is Portugueuse. But she ISN'T, so she surely doesn't. But let's apply their sentence to a more parallel view of my sentence.
"If she WERE Brazilian, then she would know that Brazil's official language is Portuguese. She IS Brazilian. So, she surely does know this about Brazil's language."
0 -
I don't think you understand how logical fallacies work. Which does not surprise me, considering that you tried to dismiss the phrase "logical fallacy" because "I can't be logical and illogical at the same time."
0 -
@TAG Apparently you don't, because that's not how "denying the antecedent" works. If A then B. Not A, therefore not B. That is how it works. If I WERE DENYING the antecedent, I would be saying: If it wasn't her intended playstyle, then it would be something they would take away. They DIDN'T take it away, therefore it WAS intended.
"If it was a dog, it would bark, it didn't bark, so it's not a dog." That's denying the antecedent, but my sentence structure is more like:
"If it wasn't a dog, it wouldn't bark. It DID bark, so it's a dog."
To give an even better example, my sentence structure would be like:If A, then not B, A, so not B.
Post edited by Atrushan88 on0
