Can DS Even Still Be Considered Meta?

That is absurd, if you are playing a game with no goal in mind, what's the point to play it? As well as no goal is objective, I don't think I have said they're is one? You have a subjective goal with objective bests to suit zed goal.

I reread what I have said and can not find me stating there is a objective goal? If I have it was a mistake and I retract that statement because it doesn't make sense but I could of accidently said that in thought, I do not think I have however.

Well subjective understanding aren't logical for comparison of what is and isn't. If I concede that is what "meta" means, then we are talking about subjectivity to a unusually high degree. In that case, I could say Meg is meta over Dwight because I feel like it. So I must reject this premise as it is too loose, I will however keep this in mind but your thermology is drastically different I reckon to most people using the word "meta". Its like if someone wanted to talk about "Oranges" but every time they brought it up they meant Chicken.

This is good actually, I agree with this sentimate. [Continued in next paragraph]

With that being said, why is this a focus however? I mean we can't really do anything to influence the devs to do anything, and we aren't devs ourself. Shouldn't we just stay in the Playerbase role, and just point how what is and isn't good as objectively AND fair as possible? This is still something I agree with, its just, I don't think I can do anything about it and therefore am not moralized to try to do my absolute hardest to come up with these drastic and time consuming ideas that might just be ignored by the devs.

Digression to the main topic would be most preferable. I still am not convinced they're is a "objective goal", I can't really even phantom that. They're must be a goal you agree on, and then objective actions for that goal to complete it.

For example, what is morality? We can't just say it is our subjective outlook because some people would have conflicting morals. A murder will not be to keen on a normal persons idea of normal. So we have to say that morality is "the wellness of life" as it is commonly described by those in the atheist circle, I mean some figures in it specifically who I agree this is a sound definition for. Then and only then objectively would murder be wrong. Unfortunately the goal is still subjective, however it is accepted by the majority and is deemed moral because it reduces general pain which is a subjective want but still, we subjectively can use the agreement of a goal to come to objective actions.

What I'm stating is that the "Meta" is a delusion, group think run amok. Certain Perks, play styles, tactics, strategies, builds, etc. become commonplace but it doesn't mean they are actually the strongest. It could simply be that people bought into what others where selling, and played specific things more. More play means more practice. More practice means better results. The feedback loop kicks in and more people say, "you need to take this!" I don't buy into all that; I never have. I was told that Myers isn't competitive in the Red Ranks, and yet I play him almost exclusively and I do just fine there. I was told Spooky Myers (also called Jump Scare) isn't functional outside of the indoor maps, particularly at the Red Ranks, but I find I can make him work. I've been told I have to pay Spirit or Nurse, yadda... yadda... yadda... and yet I have found that to not be the case. I don't believe I'm exceptional or have any more natural talent than anyone else. To the contrary, I'm just competitive and make my own way. Do you see my point?

Its only a delusion of the group IF it is not based on objectivity towards a goal. IF someone said X and it turns out wrong 99% of the time, the person was either objectively wrong, OR you were mistaken and they meant something else. In any case, doing X and it working would be by definition the objective outcome of whatever it was you wanted. Now if they said X and they mostly were correct, then they are still correct as just because something works rarely doesn't mean it is the best solution. You have a chance to survive a gunshot to the head, however that doesn't mean it is a good idea to get shot in the head.

I've played against SWF with the Meta Builds and all the supposed advantages and killed them to a man.

Then you either are using a superior strategy that no one but you knows, or they're was some other issue in the way be it mistakes or they were messing around, unless it is the first case then just because this happens time to time that doesn't make it normal nor would we consider this the "bully squad" most mean when they say "SWF".

I've played against Red Rank Solos with off the wall builds where every single one of them escaped. When that happens it is like getting kicked in the groin, hard. Pride is more tender than the family jewels in my case.

Lmao.

What I'm saying is the goal should be for individual Players to build for their individual strengths and personal style.

I agree with this, its a good goal to have.

No Perk should be so important that people feel it is an auto-include simply because they are playing Dead by Daylight. They should be choosing them because those Perks are auto-include based on their own ability.

I would agree with this as well, but unfortunately this is not where the game is at the moment. Currently survivors do not even need perks to help them if they are good at the game due to its unfairness, so killers will always feel that they need certain perks.

They're also is the major issue of a BP grind, so players think they need BBQ or We're Gunna Live Forever (Myself included) otherwise it takes too long to get stuff on a new account, ect.

I think biodiversity in nature is good, and I think diversity in builds is good for the game.

We'll I mean, these are two very different things lmao. For life, it is necessary for survival. I think I see what you mean however, but it is not always good for games.

Diversity is one tool companys use to funnel money out of people for example, IE Loot boxes.

Unlike a lot of people, I like maps that make people play against type, that "The Game" is crazy full of pallets but doesn't have many vaults. I like that Hawkins doesn't have many safe pallets but is chock full of vaults and non-standard options to gain and lose elevation. I love the new Corn Fields because the massive amount of terrain blocking LOS can't be fought the same way. These are good things because they are BAD for the very notion of Meta.

I agree completely that these are good things, as they reduce the imbalance in that game. With that being said, I don't really think they stop meta perks like Deadhard though as it can be used anywhere, and if perks like Lithe would of become more useless like Balanced Landing in modern time people will just use like perks. They would have to nerf every major issue perk in the game at once for they're to be any real change.

We aren't playing Chess. We shouldn't want to be playing Chess when we come here. I'm not looking for balance in so much as I'm looking for a challenge. The more structured the game, the more Meta it becomes. That is why Chess can be broken down into specific openings and gambits and at a certain point is just a ritual dance. It becomes too reliable, too predictable, and boring. So to me, the more Meta things appear to get, the sicker the game is becoming. The less predictable the builds and choices, the healthier the game.

I disagree with this actually, while I agree we should not come to dbd for chess as they are two different games. I am not to happy about the idea of losing balance for challenge. A game in which you die instantly off the bat is not fun just because it is more challenging to live.

If you mean structured by complicated, then yes that is how logic works.

Chess can not be easy to break down at all, not for a human at least. There are 1,327 openings alone, and with only five moves in each position there is about 4, 897,256 move per, with every move this number multiplies by quite the amount, and this is not talking about variation of moves either. I don't find it predictable nor boring either because if that were the case I would draw every game, and everyone would draw as well because you start out at near equal position.

I completely disagree with making things more complex, in fact the more simpler things at a games core the better the game typically is. Games with incredibly complex mechanics will only focus on that one mechanic or it becomes too overbearing. So you are objectively wrong here actually. Great example is CSGO, while it doesn't have anything but a few simple mechanics, they can be complicated but they're done so well that its not annoying to use them.

This is the main issue with Dead By Daylight, they have a game that they haven't ironed out, and they still add stuff to it. This is why issues like new killers such as the Trickster get fixed years down the road and remain bad in the mean time. I truthfully believe if we want what you proposed a few paragraphs ago, they would have to stop adding stuff and start ironing stuff. I highly doubt that is going to happen however, they have to make money some how and I don't think they market this game for old players, but new players, There is a reason why they always are asking about cosmetic items, and why they are focusing on overhauling visual graphics then focusing on the well known issues in the game like Nurse's Blinks sometime phantom blinking in place, or trapper's addons removing every game and having to readd them manually.

Clearly not, I was specifically talking about in the situation of Lucky Break/Iron Wlil. They're are alot of outcomes. Sarcasm is not obvious in text either, so I have no reason to assume that when you outright asked the questions.

In any case, I have listed ways you can react to this specific thing, the reasons its situational is because of you have to react to the what the survivor is doing. You clearly will hear them if they are near you, if they run then no you won't but if you payed attention you get a rough idea of they're location.

As said before, you don't even have to chase them because you already got a hit in. Assuming they are nerfing it, I don't care. My original stand point still remains, you are talking about devs who let issues persist for years, and some to this day. Them nerfing perks that don't affect me is just another pointless change.

Ok? I am sorry you have trouble understanding what we are talking about. In fact, what you said made no sense due to the fact that statement only applied to the first paragraph he and I wrote as it was dropped entirely. At this point I don't think you understand what that is.

I laughed when you tried to get a "GOTTEM" on this, because you look dense without realizing it. I specified objective wrong as you can be subjectively wrong.

As said before, we have to come to a agreement on a goal. If we can never do that then everyone is always going to be subjectively right or wrong. However, if we have goal then you can be objectively wrong or right. If someone thinks that X is true, for no reason, we can look at the claim and see if they are objectively right or wrong by these means. However, something like opinions you can always be subjectively correct about, for the fact it is subjective and therefore not objective hence why someone could be subjectively wrong.

This is logic 101 man.

Not really, you are just dishonest it would seem. In any case, I don't mind. I like our conversation. At least you are trying, albeit not very hard.

I would not say so. I am a killer main (rank 1 & 2) and I rarley ever see DS anymore. There are always BT's though. IMO I didn't even mind the old DS as a killer.