http://dbd.game/killswitch
Would it not been better if they said nothing?
Like this test... I mean if you really want to test the actual effect of it....why announce it?
Why not just not have it on, have players notice (or not) then come out with some statement that its a bug that will be fixed asap, then "fix" it 2 - 3 days later and see what data is telling you.
From after it was implemented to when it was actually noticed and made public
And also from after it was made public till it was "fixed"
Seems like that would be way more valuable then this current method.
Heck look at all these threads about people trying to have a conversation already about something they have not even tried yet....its like the PTB and people shouting nerf and buff after 1 match....
Comments
-
Can you imagine the outrage if this wasn’t announced? People have a breakdown right now by of the announcement. If they thought it was a bug affecting a mechanic for killers this severe I wouldn’t wanna be near the forums.
17 -
Because of bug reports, accusations of "shadow nerfs", and making the devs look dishonest.
14 -
No, it's annoying af when they secretly change things.
5 -
"people shouting nerf and buff after 1 match...."
Yeah,that's the forum experience right there.
3 -
No, they should absolutely announce experiments like this and it was right of them to do so. Not quite sure why they're choosing this particular thing to experiment with out of all the issues in the game right now, but eh, gotta work on something.
4 -
why announce it?
Because they are trying to be transparent?
4 -
I think it's more of people would be confused and angry if they didn't sort of thing. I would like more transparency about things but this just seems like a "were doing some tests so don't get angry because we told you" thing.
0 -
They want feedbacks even for the reaction prior to the actual test to see what the community thinks before, during and after the test
2 -
Because, lets face it. There would be a massive poop-fit if they did this and didn't tell anybody.
People go off the rails for the smallest thing. Perks, killers, new mechanic changes all have about 8 different conspiracy theories and doom predictions attached to them before they even reach the PTB. If people weren't told about them beforehand, the community would just go mental!
Who on earth would want that kind of headache when history already tells us that the fall out would be monumental!
2 -
If we look at it from a "cold" pure data gathering perspective, probably. If they wanted to be really sneaky they could even just say bloodlust is bugged and will be fixed over the weekend if called out on it.
But if we actually take stuff like the dev-community relationship and their reputation into account (which obviously we should) it's an incredibly bad idea. Not that I believe bloodlust in general is something that will completely break the game if it's modified or temporarily removed, but because the idea of such temporary "field tests" is a good one in general and being deceptive about it would make it harder to test out other ideas the same way in the future without community backlash. Not to mention it's quite simply a bad look lol.
And I genuinely believe the weekend field test approach is a potentially valuable way to quickly test stuff.
1 -
sure but transparency can completely go against what you are a trying to test.
Imagine feeding someone a placebo and just telling them beforehand "oh this will do nothing for you, its a placebo" in the name of transparancy....that goes completely agains what you are trying to test.
Same here, people create massive horror scenarios in their heads or adjust their builds to deal with these new "made up" scenarios.
If you want to see how it more objectively affects gameplay, just...turn it off, dont say anything, mention it later, again, seems far more valuable.
0 -
If they didn't announce it than they'd be spammed with blood lust isn't working reports. It also wouldn't be an accurate representation of how players would adapt to it or play without it on.
0 -
They can do whatever they want.
Why anyone thinks devs have to consult their playerbase for approval is just silly.
It’s always thoughtful of them to notify us about anything.
People will think and feel whatever they want, wether for or against Behaviour, at any given time, while in any random mindset or emotional state they happen to be in, regardless of what the devs do or don’t do.
BE and their personnel are not the mindless inconsiderate imbeciles that far too many people are trying to make them out to be.
They are well aware of the tricks and tactics of human beings, especially those who aim to get what they want how they want it.
1 -
But that is exactly the point, how reliant are players upon bloodlust, how much do the expect it to proc etc.
I personally am completely unaware of bloodlust, I dont bank on it to do anything for me, it just sorta comes and goes so I would not notice it being gone personally.
But agian, that is exactly what the want to test soooo yeah....
0 -
Being upfront was the best way. Not sure what effect they're testing - maybe the impact of bloodlust on the mortality of low skill rank survivors?
I can tell you even starting in green, if you're spending enough time chasing 1 survivor to actually miss bloodlust, playing killer must not be an enjoyable experience... because you're probably only gonna have like 3 hooks by the time the gens are done.
0 -
But why would you try to test if something is balanced by saying that it's balanced as long as nobody adapts to the changes? It's like secretly adding a cheat code that instantly kills all survivors and saying it's balanced cuz the statistics haven't changed, since nobody discovered it yet.
0 -
Well...that would actually be balanced up to that point yes, its kinda the reason for example Hag has not been nerfed yet, the amount of people who truely know how to play her well are few and far between but when its finally discovered by the masses...something will have to be done.
Nurse had to be nerfed because "too" many players knew how to play her well and that made it a problem whenever survivors faced the nurse, thats how it goes for almost all things.
If no killer ever would use mori's anymore, then nobody would care about mori's being adressed or not as it would have no impact whatsoever on the game experience.
0 -
So you're agreeing with me that something that technically effects all killers and therefore all survivors should be tested in a way that is representative of how players might actually react with new strategies and ideas because it has such widespread effects.
0 -
"I've played a million billion games, I,have twenty seven trillion hours into this game, so I think I know what I'm talking about when I say thbpbpbpbpbp thbp thbp thbp fartsnacks."
-every armchair expert on the forums
0
