Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
It's a worrying sign when a developer avoids legitimate arguments made against their decisions.
I won't name any names, and this is valid criticism. This post will follow the rules and will have no reason why it should be moderated in anyway. But this really isn't a good thing to pull as a developer at all. A certain someone streams on twitch and he himself opens himself to the discussion by specifically asking for it in his title. So it's not like people are just unjustified in bothering him about this topic.
However when legitimate arguments or questions are asked that aren't just yes men comments he clearly avoids and ignores it.
We are sitting here with yet another game company that refuses to directly communicate with their community and even remotely try to defend clearly drastic and highly protested balance changes. This is NOT just the minority of the forums complaining, this is something that has some of your best players in the form of content creators and streams saying these changes shouldn't be happening. However BHVR continues to remain silent while they forcibly put changes into the game that no seems to want.
When you won't listen to forums, won't listen to high level players with the gameknowledge and experience to back their claims, and you won't listen to your content creators which are your only representation of your larger unvocal community, then what will you listen to? If every possible outlet for potentially gauging the community's opinion and receiving feedback from is ignored then there's nothing left.
When developers who open themselves to the public act the same way and ignores any opinions the community has, and ignore anything that doesn't suit them, what is that supposed to say about the company as a whole?
Again, you can't say he doesn't deserved to be bothered. The rest of the company is silent, ignoring anyone and everyone, or if there is some selective minority group that they DO actively communicate with and listen to then they aren't revealing them or making any claims to where their feedback is sourced from. Of course people are going to want to go to literally the only potential connection to the silent group so they can get the answers they want or a chance at making their opinions heard.
And again, he himself even asks for people to do this by opening his stream up to it by asking for it with his stream title.
So I ask you AGAIN, if this person completely avoids feedback that they don't like, and the rest of the company ignores every major outlet for community opinion, then where are players supposed to go and what are they supposed to do to actually be able to protest the changes don't like?
Comments
-
Did you really just write a wall of text that basically boils down to, "Senpai didn't notice me"?
25 -
I assume this is about the changes to Hillbilly. I'm most likely not the best person to criticize the changes because I only played a handful of games as Hillbilly, but I still think the changes are long overdue. With every new killer coming out having a cooldown on their power, it makes no sense that Hillbilly (and Leatherface) had instadown powers that had no cooldowns to them. Especially if you consider how Hillbilly's chainsaw allowed him to travel across the map within seconds.
And they probably checked data the same way they did when they changed Ruin.. too many games with ruin ended up with wins for killers.. Too many games with Hillbillies ended up with wins for killers.. Then they compared data if it was the perks that were at fault, or the add-ons, or simply the killer himself. And there you go, changes to how Billy works.. The same has been applied to Sally last summer, don't be surprised they went after Hillbilly next. It was long overdue.
5 -
Honestly I dont trust the data. It only works when the devs feel like using it.
X amount of matches had ruin, nerf ruin.
X amount of matches have DS, do nothing?
As for the hillbilly changes. I fear this is going to be like the nurse rework. It will weaken the killer, less people will play them and more will switch to spirit. If they even stick around. Hope to the Entity that there's no bugs in billys rework because if it's anything like nurses. Those bugs will not be fixed.
10 -
I honestly wouldn't mind if Billies became as scarce as Nurses.. I like playing against nurses way more than billies.. but that's an entirely different topic..
And yeah, you can make numbers say anything you want.. But there's a different when the way old ruin worked was only good against lower ranked survivors since higher ranked ones could just ignore it. But anyway, they changed it a year ago (or something? I honestly forgot when they changed that, and I can't be bothered to look it up)
And on the topic of Decisive Strike.. I had a few survivors try to bait me into Decisive Strike by either running straight at me or jumping in a locker in my face... and guess what? I didn't bite.. I went for someone else, slugged, or face camped the locker and shook my head at them until time ran out or they decided to jump out. Decisive Strike actually requires interaction from both parties.. Old ruin required no skill at all.. New ruin requires the killer to chase people off generators and keep them away from them.
But yeah.. as I said earlier, I'm not the best person to comment on the Hillbilly changes, but it makes sense to at least add a cooldown to his power, seeing how you could just have it on forever.. Same reason they added a cooldown to Sally's blink. She's still quite powerful in the right hands, and she's still my second favorite killer, behind Amanda, but you need to think a bit more before blinking after someone.. Blink right away, or wait for the second blink to charge up? It'll be the same with the changes to Hillbilly.. no more mindless revving the chainsaw with no consequences.
1 -
Unfortunately, many people on this forum are killers, most are killers. They are in an echo chamber when it comes to opinions and ideas. Just because this forum thinks something is good or bad does not mean they are right. It likely means the opposite. Less than 30% of the player base uses the forums. Most of them are killers. How do you expect the developers to take the feedback of that type of sample? That would be horrible for the game.
5 -
Chances are, contrary to OP's point, the Hillbilly nerf was more likely because they listened to the community.
Wrap your brain around that for fun.
10 -
The thing I never trusted about the "data" is variables were never mentioned and potentially never taken into consideration, that or they used selection bias to excuse their changes. When the ruin changes were made they basically told us Ruin was nerfed because it was used every game, it hurt new players who apparently couldn't learn to hit skill checks, and that it was fine because the perk was inconsistent so we wouldn't miss it anyway. Never once addressing why killers felt the need to run such a potentially inconsistent and risky perk so much.
They also quoted data from red ranks saying Ruin was used in 80% of games, then as if to preemptively strike they then told us this same logic wouldn't apply to things like DS, borrowed time, unbreakable, and adrenaline because they weren't used by the majority of survivors, self care being the most used perk but it's fine so no need to nerf. I'm pretty sure the problem here is clear from the get go that they never brought attention to the population difference, the rank difference, the platform meta difference, ect. They just pulled blanket stats and stated the ones that sounded convenient for their argument.
I'm sure if you took another data collection of DBD but this time focused mainly on purple and red ranks I'm willing to bet everything I own that you'd find that at bare minimum 2/4 survivors use some combination of these perks every match, and the closer you get to rank 1 the numbers will only go higher.
Hillbilly's limiting factor was his skill cap. If you wanted to punish bad players but not good ones you could've significantly nerfed his recovery time from misuse of the chainsaw. And yes, skill cap can and SHOULD be the most important factor when considering balance. Even a good billy who will consistently use his chainsaw optimally and will lose games in red ranks when the survivors are equally good. Even after nerfs a good nurse will still dominate games, but people are more aware of the skill ceiling involved with her so generally the community doesn't have much to complain about.
3 -
Hillbilly already has drawbacks to his power. This nerf is adding a fifth or sixth drawback to his power.
1 -
Senpai definitely noticed, but he didn't like what he heard so he ignored me. Big sad. But yes all jokes aside this is a serious topic and developers blocking out constructive feedback because they don't like it should be cause for concern, not jokes.
1 -
Which is exactly why I asked if not the forums then what else? If you took the combined fanbases of just people like Otzdarva, truetalent, and maybe 1 other popular killer based content creator of your choosing you'd have half the killers playerbase on PC without a doubt. While the majority won't participate in open discussion on forums they will still actively follow the people they like, and it's also extremely likely that they'll share similar opinions.
I'd say the content creators can be considered representatives of their respective communities. So the question is: If forums aren't good enough, and neither are the streamers and youtubers who represent the players, then what exactly IS good enough? that's my problem.
0 -
Ok then, what part of the community did they listen to? Surely it wasn't reddit or their official forums, cause the majority opinion in both cases are against it. If it was the survivor youtubers and streamers then what exactly is the criteria that gives them the right to decide balance but not the killer mains? Was it some weird hidden minority? In which case again, what allows THEM to be the one to have a vocal opinion that actually impacts the game over the others?
0 -
Keep in mind that this unnamed person streams when they aren’t “on the clock” or working so they really are under no obligation to consider your arguments. Besides from what I’ve read and listened to, they do take feedback and discuss what they can with players who visit their discord’s or streams but they always do say there is stuff they can’t discuss.
3 -
Hillbilly has some small drawbacks, so does every killer. I think the balance changes are necessary to make him more in line with killers they've released since having a cooldown on their abilities. Hillbilly and nurse were the powerhouse killers for a very long time, now it will just take more practice to master Billy (and nurse too since her changes happened)
0 -
Seriously dude? Its 2020... If your gonna be making statements like that you have to follow it up with uwu.
2 -
He presents himself as an active developer, actively makes it a point of trying to encourage people to initiate feedback and discussion with him in both his stream and his private discord. So where exactly is the cut off that allows him to act like a dev when he hears things he likes and then cut himself away and say he's not obligated to anything when it's things he doesn't like? That's called double standards.
0 -
Nobody said that the forums are not good enough. I said they are not what you want to use to base the best opinion off of. There's Reddit forums, Steam forums, DBD Forums, there's statistics, there are in-game feedback tools, such as reporting tools. There's lots of different forms of communication. They should never take from just one form of it.
As for player base fans of streaming killers, that is a whole other can of worms. I hate when people mention Tru3 and others like him because he is a huge whiner. When he loses it is because the game is so poorly balanced. When he wins its because the survivors were so bad. He never owns up to his own mistakes and weaknesses. Streamers like that are very poor examples to use.
0 -
They are not making him more skilled to play and that's where people are assuming the wrong things. They're limiting his power, period. He'll just be the same exact killer but with more limitations tacked so that it makes him more annoying and far less fun to play for both good billy mains who work for their power and bad billy players who are the ones who should've been the targets for the nerf.
Not everything has to have a cooldown, that's called lazy game design. His limiting factor was in his skill to play, and the only things needed were a mechanic punish failed chainsaws and removal of his broken addon combinations.
2 -
Dammit!
My meme game just not on point.
1 -
There's always stuff companies will not want being discussed before they are ready for public release. Clearly as an active developer he understands what he can and can't get into detail about. But as I've watched his stream he referred reasonable suggestions and criticism to the forums. Also I'm pretty sure they made changes based off the ptb feedback which completely contradicts your original post about them ignoring everyone.
Definitely seems like they ignored feedback and if you say a majority of people wanted the overheat mechanic removed, they made it clear in the original ptb notes that while they were satisfied with the way he performed, they felt there was more needed.
2 -
That still comes back to the question of what your criteria is. So if one person makes a post on reddit saying they like the changes and another person makes a post they don't like the changes on the steam forums then what are the reasons for taking one over the other? Majority vote? As I've said all of the forums seem to have the majority opinion of it being a bad change. Data collection? From who, what, and where are you taking the data from? Are you filtering the differences between ranks? Are you looking at both sides equally without bias? Are you taking into considering the meta differences between console and PC?
Also I don't disagree with you about true talent. I've stated before I think he's a good killer but I hate his personality. But that's also why I've tried to maje posts about people who are clearly unbiased and very damn well versed in the game, and even people like them are saying that the changes are definitely negative. So then what criteria does a person have to meet for them to be skilled and unbiased enough to add weight to their word? I think people like Otz, Zubat, and Scott are pretty good examples. They're good players, play both sides to a high level of play, not overly emotional or ego heavy, and they're also very understanding and sympathetic for the actual problems that both sides have to face. Even they say the changes are not good. What more could you ask for?
0 -
I expected so much more. I'm disappointed in you bud. You're losing your edge.
0 -
He'll openly talk about other things, or even openly talk about the parts of the discussion that he wants to. it's not because he can't discuss balance changes. If he and the other developers were truly sure of being right in their decision and they thought they were guilt free then they'd have no problem openly addressing the protest against the changes and could provide a sound argument as to why they were justified in their decisions.
Not everyone is ignorant and only knows how to scream at the devs. If they could provide an open discussion with convincing arguments for their case then I know that most people would accept it. The problem is that they know if they openly contest people in a debate about it they'll have their reasoning picked apart and destroyed. It's easy to ignore people and just force balance changes because then people aren't even given the chance to fight back.
0 -
That is a major leap in judgment there. I don't follow half the YouTubers/Streamers I follow because I agree with them, I follow them because they make funny or entertaining videos.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't follow people based on whether I agree with them or not, I tend to follow them based on my own interests. Sometimes it coincides, but most of the time, it doesn't.
0 -
I'm sorry, I'll do better next time. 😟
0 -
Not everyone for sure. But you gotta remember that a lot of people also look up to these people to learn the game from them, not just for laughs and entertainment value. It's safe to say if they weren't good and their opinions weren't valued as highly then a large chunk of their followers wouldn't be there.
0 -
That was my take away too
1 -
Killer main content creators make a living getting 4ks every match. Any changes that will impact their ability to do so are seen as an attack on their livelihood. Looking to them for objective opinions on this subject is ill advised.
3 -
Go into the boss fight with 99 potions
it wasn't a boss fight it was easy...
How do you solve it?
Limit potion cap from early game. That way you cant hoard them throughout till that boss fight problem solved.
But now released you find that your game never challenged players to use them untill the end so they became useless. And they lost there value because they passed up dozens on the way because they already hit the cap on lvl 3.
You end up with wasted mechanics
Bloated gameplay menus, empty economy and a overall unchallenged experience...
game design in method and practice is harder then anyone thinks.
Live service games that can patch and replace systems are the absolute worst at game design.
Not for lack of effort but for lack of vision for both the past and future of game health.
If they cut bait and made dbd 2 with a improved killer model like chainsaws with cooldowns they could Ballence the whole experience around it. But with over 20 characters on both sides and 200 perks with like 3million combinations of loadouts forget it.
There not doing a good job
But then again its not an easy job
1 -
1. Why would they listen to Streamers ? They are people that had nothing to do with the creation of the game. Some have put thousands of hours into the game. Here's their cookie ?
2. I'll say it again, devs don't have to do anything. They don't have to do events or change killers. They do this cause they actually listen to people. Many didn't like how Billy could curve corners and down people. I'm a Billy main and I hated this.
3. They are a lot better than many game companies. Microtransactions and forced dlc is at an all time high with many companies. Angry Joe lost his mind when Valorance added $100-$350 gun skins. Behavior gives maps away for free. You can experience every survivor and killer without paying a dime. You only have to pay to play as them. They charge money (at incredibly reasonable costs) cause they have to pay their team for overhead and for creating unique killers. They have to pay money from their pockets when it comes to licensed killers cause they don't own them. These are incredibly amazing traits when EA and Activision overcharges for $60 or more dlc.
1 -
If we're going to assume everyone is only out for their own gain then that also means every complaint thread made by survivors are also invalid because they just want to make the game easier for themselves. See? That is not good logic.
1 -
There's lots of potential reasons.
I know devs have expressed in the past that they will flat out ignore people who become angry, get rude, or express such bad behaviour in their titles. It's their job to make a good game, and addressing feedback is done on their own time, they don't owe it to people to take abuse and still do that person a courtesy.
There's also the fact that they may have been asked the same questions time and time again, and simply be done repeating the same answers. There's plenty of good reasons that plenty of people have talked about for nerfing Billy the way they did, none of those good reasons are going to satisfy or change the mind of a rabid Billy fanboy who just wants to argue.
Thirdly, humans have this thing called a sense of humour. The title in question can quite easily be taken as "I know I'm about to get an onslaught of BILLY MOST BALANCED, so how about be nice about it?" As with the forums, I'm sure all feedback was considered, but that doesn't automatically mean 'every comment means the game will be changed to suit it.'
Edit: And opening the vod, literally in the first minute of talking; "Why are you nerfing Hillbilly? I think that's addressed fairly clearly in the dev update." So clearly he's not there to debate the view one way or another, the devs have made their statement clear and available to you.
0 -
Top streamers are not only influencers that market their game and DLC for them but are also often some of the better players among the known community, which in DBD context is definitely true for the most part. It's bad business to start ignoring the people who literally grow your community for you, especially when they have far better qualifications for making sound opinions on balance changes than the developers who look at their game through a mostly statistical data and theoretical standpoint than actually have hands on experience at high level play.
Well, there's really nothing that actually stops them from doing nothing, but again that's actually horrendously bad management of your company as a business model if you make no effort at all, which is why their bottom line is largely based on appealing to the majority group of survivors on the lower end of the skill spectrum. Is it a smart business plan? Yes. Is it a ######### thing to do to your veterans and experienced skilled players? Yes.
You aren't a billy main and know nothing about the killer, or you're a very low tier killer in green ranks who still knows nothing about the role or how high ranked play works. I will make any bet you want in this world on that statement.
Just because there are worse does not make something good, especially just because said company uses a convenient game design model where they basically flash the shiny things in front of people of people to give an incentive to put money down while also avoiding having to design the game in some weird fashion that segregates people who own different DLC's. Which considering how many they are and the way everything is divided there would've been physically no way to really lock people out of maps and such without seriously scuffing the game and spending a whole lot of additional man hours in making that.
Using a free currency system to be able to buy non licensed killers is also a simple business tactic that you can find in any similar business model. They don't make their big money off the initial sale, the money is always in the after purchases of cosmetics. Though of course it's not entirely impossible to purchase certain things with blood shards, the problem is that like any other free 2 play model with free 2 play currency is that they've well adjusted the rate at which you earn it. Not even the most dedicated of DBD players will be able to grind out all the blood shards needed to buy the majority of 1 side of the character roster in a reasonable amount of time, much less the other sides character roster + all of the cosmetic items.
If it took you 10k hours (which I actually think it takes longer) to grind out every single character in the game, some dude working a basic minimum wage job could've just bought everything with just 1 week's paycheck and called it a day.
In other words what I'm saying is you're misunderstanding the standard efficient business F2P model for generosity.
0 -
it’s their game not yours best you can do is have large amounts of people quit playing for say 6 months and you might get your wish... gl getting that kind of walk out.
that said I’m glad they don’t listen to you all cause 99% of the time you can’t make everyone happy and what you want isn’t any more right or wrong then anyone else. Make your own game and you can do w/e you want with it.
0 -
The devs are known for making controversial changes to their game that no one asked for, getting a big backlash and yet they are sure it's the best thing to do.
Remember the huge backlash when they changed Exhaustion? How their game went from positive reviews on Steam to mixed? Ruin change also gave a backlash, the window vault changes nobody asked for was controversial as well. Nurse basekit changes was probably the newest besides Billy basekit.
All these have been controversial at the time it happened but then people calmed down about it once they got used to it and realised it really isn't that bad (except the few people still complaining about Nurse). I am sure Billy will still be strong, but just toned down and he will still be played frequently. I am glad the devs are bold enough to take controversial decisions at times, though gotta be honest.. less glad to see some of those addons they've made for him.. some of those are just.. yikes... Who would even come up with those? And why did anyone think they were good?
1 -
They've given no reason at all. Not even a vague one. They quite literally said "Yeah we're happy with him. So here's how the nerf will work."
And they refuse to comment further. Why are they nerfing him? If people are complaining then show us. Who are they? What are their credentials? Why are you listening to their opinion over everyone elses? Do you just not like the killer for some reason?
"Keeping with the theme of everything chainsaws, The Hillbilly is also receiving some changes in this update. For the most part, we are happy with the way The Hillbilly performs. His power is very versatile, allowing him to quickly traverse the map, zone out Survivors and instantly down them. From a Survivor’s perspective, there is also a reasonable amount of counterplay, leading to interesting chases where the best player often comes out on top."
"Given that we’re already pretty happy with the way The Hillbilly performs, the changes to his base kit are minimal. We are not removing any of the options you have with his chainsaw (traversal, feathering, curving, etc.). Instead, we want to focus on the skill-based gameplay and put an emphasis on using your chainsaw effectively, only adding a small drawback to misusing your chainsaw."
The way that second paragraph kicks in kinda made me chuckle when I first read it. I took it as like they had the intent on blindly nerfing him regardless so since billy was already balanced he'll just receive the "minimal" treatment.
By the way if you can find some sort of reasoning that's hidden within the text like some 500 IQ cryptic message I'll be glad to listen. If the devs want to chime in I'll definitely be glad to listen. I'm not picking fights, calling names, or throwing petty insults. This is legitimately valid criticism. But if they think giving criticism and calling them out on clearly bad decisions is rude to them then I honestly don't know what more that could possibly say about who they are.
0 -
People like streamers?
I thought they purposely went out of their way to make them miserable in game (which got its own term coined, stream sniping) because they're self entitled loudmouths with cult of personality sheeple backing them up.
Watch me be toxic montages on youtube.
I watched the 'just a little bit guy' and he was a #########. People look up to the guy.
0 -
I don't think it's people like the changes as much as coming to terms with the fact that these devs have a history of never moving an inch once they have their mind set in stone. They realize that they could complain for the next 5 years and it'll accomplish nothing, so they just give up and go quiet. The game continues to grow because their qualms with the devs have absolutely 0 influence on the increasing new player population.
What's gonna happen? Someone makes a negative post on reddit to vent their frustration, gets a few upvotes, 1-2 people comment saying "Yeah! screw these devs!", and that post will just fade away into the sauce never to be read by anyone of importance.
0 -
Yeah..... Some of them are definitely not good. On one hand you have people like Otzdarva a kind lovable guy that's nice to anyone and everyone he meets. On the end you can have people like Ochido who incite and breed toxicity of the highest level, and their only goal is to rile up that disgusting part of the community who only exist to ruin the game for the opposite side.
I'd say there's a lot more of the former than the latter though.
0 -
I find this hard to believe when, checking my front page for topics right now, there are 12 clearly survivor sided topics and 11 clearly killer sided topics posted (including this one). Even in the wake of the big billy changes, which to be fair has slowed down a bit. This may be circumstantial evidence, but I'd hardly call this place an echo chamber.
Hell, look at any topic posted by a killer or survivor, one of the most upvoted comments will ALWAYS be from the opposite side saying basically "nuh uh you're wrong."
You're showing quite the bias by saying this is a killer echo chamber
1 -
Might've just been because I've mainly been on the billy threads, but definitely for sure there were more anti nerf posts than pro nerf posts. But you're definitely correct that one of the top first comments will always be someone against whatever the thread is.
0 -
Oh there was a big influx of anti nerf pro billy posts but that's because the changes are ludicrous. Literally everyone that isn't a pure survivor main on a hate train doesn't want these changes. Even Otzdarva, the most lenient towards the devs guy I can think of, says they're bad changes and that man will give infinite benefits of the doubt.
If a new update came out and said "Survivors now have a point buy system for perks, each survivor has 20 points to work with. Btw DS, DH, BT, and Unbreakable are 10 points each" then almost every topic would be about that. And I'm sure that everyone would be against it, except the one of two extremely biased pure killer mains. The same way that Billy's changes are being treated.
But this forum is far from biased, people just see what they like to see to confirm their own bias.
0 -
I'm starting to get the feeling that DS hate is slowly building to an all time high. People are making more vocal and widespread opinions on nerfing it and reworking it to a proper anti tunnel only perk. Streamers are constantly mentioning it's problems, youtubers are making a video about it, community managers are discussing it to an extent, and people are in some form all coming up with the same idea for a nerf that disables it if survivors perform any actions. I believe It's not entirely impossible it could actually happen in the near future, and if it does I'm gonna be interested in seeing how hard survivors flood the forums with posts right after they told us we deserved this billy nerf.
Personally, if DS gets all of it's offensive capabilities gutted I'll settle with the billy gutting.
0 -
Well DS has earned its hate due to abuse of mechanics, but gutting it won't be a good tradeoff to making Billy suck to play and removing his fun. DS needs some changes, but I hope it stays useful because an anti-tunnel perk is needed in the game. I think deactivating it upon repairing a gen, fully healing, or another survivor being hooked are all reasonable as that shows you're not in danger of being tunneled. Keep locker DS, because that can be used against legit tunneling. Just make it so they can't use it after spending 30 seconds repairing a gen.
Anyway, the main reason people don't want Billy gutted is because he's fun, for both sides. Pure M2 Billy is high skill on either side with tons of mind games and potential for outplay. The Billy changes (even with these tweaks) are going to turn him into an M1 killer with an ability that can move across the map fast and that can back rev if a survivor goes to a dead zone. He becomes extremely 1 dimensional and removes the fun out of him. We have plenty of M1 killers, we don't need another one with basically a worse demo teleport. The survivors who don't have fun vs Billy or say he's no skill are the same ones who run to a dead zone and get back revved and say "wow what an op killer, he hit me once in this area with no windows or pallets."
0 -
They didn’t nerf ruin because it was overused. They nerfed it because of WHY it was overused.
0 -
Nah man, they nerfed it because newer players couldn't hit a great skill check so they literally couldn't play the game. IF they nerfed it for WHY it was overused, there would've been more large sweeping gen changes. It was to make sure new players would have a shot at playing.
0 -
That’s why it was overused. Because people can’t constantly hit greats and it overly effected new players. It single handily slowed down the whole game with no issue or work from the killer. It still does. Ruin is still a good perk and can be downright nasty in combination with some other perks. Surveillance specifically. It’s not like they gutted it. They just made it not skill check based which is fine.
1 -
Another person already said it but the dev blog back then was pretty much exactly what was said. Ruin negatively impacted newer players, and also that was when they started working towards removing gen slowdown all together. They want blindly fast matches and that's how we've ended up.
So that was all the reason they needed to basically take it out of the game, and the only remaining part of the post was them basically saying that it was horribly inconsistent because of the several layers of RNG attached to it so killers wouldn't miss it anyways. Then they yeeted it into the ol' scrapper.
0 -
Oh okay, I misunderstood what you were going for. Yeah Ruin is fine as is and it was a warranted change imo. I personally really hate hex perks cause it sure is fun having them spawn next to survivors sometimes, but if lucky in spawn location it does work. Would love to see a slight rework on hex perks so that can't happen, along with a totem counter for survivors so they have an idea of what's going on with them.
0 -
I already responded to the person that said it. I know why they nerfed it. I said it wasn’t because it was overused. It was because why it was overused. Which the Devs outlined as their reasoning for why they nerfed it. I personally think new ruin is more fun anyways.
0 -
X amount of matches had ruin was never the reason, it was only part of the reason. The other part only became important because of the high use.
Its just not the same case with ds.
I am not sure if you understand that, or if you are mispresenting it on purpose, to suit your "argument".
Thats also the reason why devs stop publishing statistics, because a lot of people dont know how to interpret them, and most not even realize which data they are missing for a valid interpretation.
0
